ML20238F547
| ML20238F547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ASB-300-413, NUDOCS 9809040014 | |
| Download: ML20238F547 (161) | |
Text
.-
y_a' _ .
y ggyy _ _ - -
+y e% 4 h.$[ :
A,[. th fLA m,.
wa s av 3fdid ,
f r:: m .y : ;
) i ' ,
(
9764 t in.
$fE5 l l ,
i j
3[ ,
c f [
! i l
Adi pl i
{g[A=~
$m%n MM A 4 .
u "M"!
%ll p~
6.$gg$l%u l
V' 4l '
l I Otty '
h
. Q" ps , E o; 1 5.%..e g y ! !
~
i
~
,gm: ni5ii5g 1 j bh g, (neey s
,, __. ,y, . . _ .
RQ, yy%g -
y wa[
bkk Viggigy y -
r II s$$e c.9:q sf c p' t a q 9
i 3
,' g; p: g;g p.4 , 1 ,
-=
- . .m ., w - n j
y .
igaupgg p
m[g il de i + lN_ h f a m 1 fg y +g gl! _
ten .,
f .
[,' ,
EEf$EN ,
wra .
y ,
?
N i
Q g)l( l l
, u F" !: lhO LW w :b"v x$;3 .
- b ye4
~i 1 g
- y -
,[ 1< i3 1
,. g **
y w a $n y ;
]
~ , ; ;
F3 g
+
, '; ;g c y J g ;l y p f
%g . ,
,- h tf Jg w+ p:4,4a.gj~% g% g%f/a h gg =k[ b; &a m%g h y ,t%g hy jjf8 goo,osom< 9ecem qv, ags E .h k $ -
5 #(
{#' ,
i Y' ,,g. 2 Y h
y,g n 9E < g 4
" 7; j
., , 4 ; l' 3 , i llj, r +
.,,a
^
L '& ._ l ,
j s
,M Je ,
i
(,,
e v >5 . .y , , ,,y l
ss ..
MffSw . ' .. . . , w LOFFICIALIRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS s a
.?.. ,/T 4 ' .
O~"' .
- UNITED;; STATES OF AMERICA 5 ,u r v y, ,-
t
,,. rf - < -
(
pf y "'[ '
m .s 4
?NUCLEARLREGULATDRieCOMMISSION' # ,
s.:' /, _
p-^ ., , . y s
g :) -. .e I f,".
..?, , [,(V > *: (,f N l l, ?w
,f fi. , . ,0 ,
,s s 'i f q 7 *,
.g. Qfl,'t 4 .
3:, .; r '
> Q :, ' '
,..<., , a
',.lR,P c4 ' s !, p Ifi ,f "y i$$'i[U,%, #:.ffitle:) -j *, + , ,
f, r.,^: FN 4
5 rg,1 m t ;i 4 .a..i * .c>
?441 l
g PUBLIC NIEETING ONinDV. A'NCEi i, ;
N d.,. j, s
n-p#. . .F #. '-
,1
,. . 4. i , ' j
' ,3
-/V P! 76 y J.m
/
m
.i
, UNO.TICE;OF!PROPOSEDL,. ?' .22 m.-. ,
g.
h ,59-.[
<@i:ea? s%
o.:q ;n.tr- c,-
~
r
( . -3..- ,
" _ lRULEMAKINb O.M'ODIhy" 4,
L
'e
%M i...
7%
, < 3 y .
l REACTOR REPORTING?- ' J -
- .' U w#;g m , <'
m, .
y r-^,s ... , ,
4
- q. ;
f; N k '
U N,. '
g % e[, mk .SR'EQUIIE.Eh1ENTS1 s -
, , , m d 1.
+ + ,
.m ,
- t. }I 'I
) { f
.4 7 i j
k p g
')' ;
..J3 *' 1 g
:lid r' '.F '*
_. .[-P c
- ; y;( - . y.i i #
t ()L * '
,, .g, g.m
'y,,- ! 4 7-i ,. , .. ]
. i- ' c ,
s
- gr'- . , < ; b 4.- e ...w,.
i- -
- +-
4
- , j 4
4 .,. #. p ;y ,a x, q
% p[ b> %
- f. [ f. ~
bc .ys ' r gw '.,% /jo a r a. ,
, , v..
2:1
%. . f, , y" 7 pa h
I;% s -- 0 o ,
'4t '
.?
' ?g w )
[V;h '[ ' )'M k 1
I.,.' 9 ' '" + t
' ' i
'l 3
! CSSe' No.:5 ' ,- *
%m' [ha" Y
f %
m ,
, .y. t 7
s
.e w'e '(
s 2_
.n.. ,e r
, , . , e
-P.' r ip 3. i - g r
. g: (;
, , , , i (
' ! / 3' 1
> _; . , J , :) D *
\ ' A No '
~ r w' ,
~ ' *
^'jQ q [y . ) q ':.^' ,.(_
f_-' ,
, q[
y V t g < gs ' 2 TdnM - A'SB-30 l-4131 ' ' 7 '
; .. m 4 s 1
1 s_, ; 1
' ,q.- . ,
. c 4 <
i f ,i r i 1
- 1. T
.s*
/ 1
- .g m g, ,
.j -l
.; W; .e 4 ,
I(dC Jw " q g ? LOCATION: Rockville,MD # Q l c > \ <y ,u tp:j.,- , s.
, 1- ' hN ?
Y L lf
,' g;4 ?, . ~^i ' , ?; = DATE: Friday, August 21,1998 PAGE 1 -94 e .
( , x. . f..
'*h .l r.
j. hl,~. # y.*
a
..\ k'Q h l
- f h y ., ,
1 4 m .& a ANN RlLEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. D* @S: ; - 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 300 l' ^
') Washington,D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
,gg 7' 9g0904o014 980821 PDR MISC l ,', r 9809040014 P M, m
. g i',' . s r I Y. . . .
L:?
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L' 3 *** 4-PUBLIC MEETING ON 5 ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 6 TO MODIFY REACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 7 *** 8 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'10 Two White Flint North, Auditorium 11 11545 Rockville Pike 12 Rockville, MD 13 14 Friday, August 21, 1998 15
( 16 The above-entitled meeting commenced, pursuant to 17 notice, at 9:00 a.m. 18 19 PARTICIPANTS: 20 C. E. ROSSI, Chair 21 D. ALLISON, NRC 22 G. MIZUNO, NRC 23 F. COSTANZI, NRC 24 JIM DAVIS, NEI j 25 LONNIE DAUGHTERY, NEI l 1 r- . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l I
\- Court Reporters !
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 u-___--------__---__--- - - . - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - _ - l
2
- 1. PARTICIPANTS: [ Continued]
f- 2. WALTER PIKE, NEI 3 CLAY WILLIAMS, NEI 4 VICKI BACKMAN, NEI 5 DAVID LOCHBAUM,-Union of Concerned 6' ' Scientists 7 B. POOL, NRC 8 CLEVE GOODMAN, NRC,-NRR' 9 BARRY C. BRYANT, Virginia Power 10 RICHARD ECKENRODE, NRR/DRCH
' 11 TIM HOPE, TU Electric, CPSES
-12 JIM FREELS, First Energy Corp.
13 BENNETT BRADY, NRC, AEOD 14 RICH JANATE, PA DEP/BRP 15' MARI JAWORSKY, Northeast Utilities 16 N. AJOY MATHEW, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 17 ' ROGER POST, NEI j i 1 18 DENNIS PORR, Westinghouse l 19; ROBERT VINCENT, Consumers Energy 20 STEVE FRANZ, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 21 BILL HORIN, Winston & Strawn 22 FRED MASHBURN, TVA 23 JOHN W. KARRICK, Alliant - IES Utilities, Inc. 24 JENNIFER YORK, WCNDC 25 IRA LUKER, SNC ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 L' (202) 842-0034 1 J
3 1 PARTICIPANTS: (Continued]'
;2' JOHN TAPPORT, NRC
~
3' BOB' DENNING, NRC
'4 GEORGE MADDEN, FPL, St. Lucie Plant 5 MIKE SATWELL, MNPC
~
6 L. JEFF. THOMAS,-Duke Energy 7 MATT STOOKEY, Illinois Power 8' JAMES PESCHEZ, North-Atlantic Energy 9' THERESA-SUITER, Bechtel 10 DON PALMROSE, NWIS 11- CHUCK KRAUSE, Wisconsin Electric Power' 12 RON W. GATSON, Detroit' Edison 13 JOHN SCHORK, GPU Nuclear 14 KATHY WORK, South Texas Project ( ) ' 15 DENISE.WOLNICK, Niagra Mohawk 16
.17 18 19 20 21 22 23.
24 25~ i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034 I 1
4 1 PROCEEDINGS j 2 [9:00.a.m.) 3 MR. ROSSI: Okay. I think we can get started. 4 Good morning. I would like to welcome you all to
.5 our meeting this morning. You may want to consider where 6 you want to sit, and move down closer to the front. So 7- please feel free to do that now if you would like to. It 8 might just be a little better to have everybody closer 9 together, it may improve interactions, et cetera.
10' The purpose of the meeting this morning and today 11 is to discuss our Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or 12 ANPR'to modify power reactor event reporting requirements 13 and make them more risk informed. 14 I'm Ernie Rossi, director of the safety programs () 15 division in AEOD, the Office for Analy' sis and Evaluation of 16 -Operational Data. 17 With me here is Denny Allison who is also from 18 .AEOD and he is the author of tne Advance Notice of Proposed 19 Rulemaking and he will also be the principal NRC staff ; i 20 member who will be working on this rulemaking effort until ! 21 it's completed. ! 22 We have Gary Mizuno here from the Office of the l 23 General Counsel and we have Nick Costanzi here on my left 24 who is the chairman of the rulemaking steering committee in 25- the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. ! i
.[}
(,,/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - Washington, D.C. 20036 ' (202) 842-0034 i i
l L L 5 1 I want to thank you for attending this meeting. 2 As I'm sure you must know we consider public participation 3 in these kind of efforts-to be very important. Many of you 4- here undoubtedly come here with a lot of experience with the 5 existing 50.72 and 50.73 rules'and we're interested in 6 hearing of your experience and having you share it with us 7 because we feel that that will help us to improve the 8 quality of our effort to modify the rules. 9 The agenda calls for introductory comments by me 10 followed by a summary presentation of the ANPR by Dennis 11 Allison, and we anticipate that this will take no more than 12 one hour. This then will be followed by opening up the 13 meeting to get input, comments, et cetera, from the 14 audience, and there are a. number of-people in the audience () 15 16 who have come'with requests to speak and so we will also do that. 17 We're going to take a lunch break at about 12 18 o' clock of one hour, and then after lunch assuming that 19 we're not done at that time, we'll continue the meeting with 20 further audience participation. 21 The people that want to present comments after 22 Dennis Allison's summary presentation are Jim Davis. He's
'23 going to talk about the rulemaking process, he's from NEI.
24 I guess these people are all -- the first ones that I'm 25 giving here are all from an industry task force and I think ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,1D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
L. 6 1 that's all basically sponsored by NEI; is that correct? , 2 Okay. So it's Jim Davis, Lonnie Daughtery, Walter 3 Pike, Clay Williams, and Vickie Backman. 4 We also have a request from the Union of Concerned 5 Scientists, Mr. David Lochbaum, and he's also going to give 6 a presentation. 7 We are keeping a transcript of this meeting All 8 the comments and interchanges that occur will be in the 9 transcript, and that will allow us to go back later and make L l 10 sure that we have considered everything that we have heard 11 and we have heard it as accurately as it can be recorded by 12 the person taking the transcript. 13 We would, however, encourage you to consider 14 submitting comments in writing as part of the public review 15 process,.public comment process and those comments should be
}
16 submitted prior to September 21st to address the items f 17 specified in the ANPR. 18 Written comments, you ought to consider those 19 because you may have additional ideas you want to write down 20 and send in after this meeting. And, also, if you supply 21 written comments it allows you to think them through, and
. :22 talk to other people, and so forth. However, I assure you 23 that everything that we get in the transcript will be 24 considered in the rulemaking process. I 25 I want to mention a couple of administrative items l
l I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i i Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l l
7 1 before we go on. There are restrooms outside of the 2 auditorium across the hall out there and there are J 3 cafeterias on the main floors of this building and White 4 Flint One which is the adjacent building next door. 5 Now,'before I go on are there any questions at-6 this time? 7 (No? response.] 8 MR. ROSSI: Okay. I have a couple of viewgraphs 9- that give a very high-level overview of the ANPR and I'll go
-10 -through those and then I'm going to turn the meeting over to 11 ' Dennis Allison who will go through what's in the advance 12 notice of proposed rulemaking in more detail.
13 [ Slide shown.] 14 MR.'ROSSI: The Advance Notice of Proposed I'\ 15 Rulemaking, as.you know, requests comments on changing 10 b 16 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 to make these rules more risk informed. 17 These rules have basically been in effect in their current. 18 form with some minor changes along the way since about 1983. 19 So since 1983 we've obtained a lot of experience and we feel 20 that now is the time to use that experience to modify these 21 rules and also to make them more risk informed. The 22 specific objectives are to better align the reporting 23 . requirements with the NRC's current needs. We want to 24 reduce the reporting burden consistent with the NRC's needs 25 and consistent with the rules being more risk-informed, and { I' r- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i ( }j t Court Reporters l j 1025 Connecticut Avenue., NW, Suite 1014 , l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202). 842-0034 i
8 1 we want to take into account on the reporting requirements
)
2 the risk of-the things that we're asking people to report.
~
3 We want to also clarify the reporting requirements 4 in a number of areas. The contemplated amendments include: 5 _ reducing and clarifying the reporting of design issues; 6 extending the required initial reporting times; eliminating 7 unneeded reporting of late surveillance t'ests; and 8 eliminating the unneeded criterion of reporting conditions 9 that are outside the coverage of procedures. 10 The contemplated amendments provide clarification 11 of the requirement for reporting an event or condition that 12 could prevent fulfillment of a safety function. And the 13 amendments specify specific systems for which actuation is 1 i 14 reportable rather than using the general terms " engineered-() 15 safety features". That's being done because different 16 plants identify different systems as engineered safety 17 features. So what we're trying to do is to give -- or plan 18 to do is to give specific systems. 19 The contemplated amendments specify information ! 20 that should be included in event reports on how human l 21- performance factors affected the event, and the amendments 22- clarify the information required for shutdown events. 1 23 In conjunction with the contemplated amendments to 24 modify the rules we also plan to modify the licensee event 25 report form to the extent that we can do it to try to also i i
/~% ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
Court Reporters ' 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ( t
9 1 reduce the reporting effort in submitting that form. () 2. 23, [ Slide' shown.] MR. ROSSI: The ANPR also requests comments on the 4 schedule for the rulemaking effort which is shown here. i 5 This is page 3 of-the handout and it's shown here. And so 6 we're interssted in any comments that people have on the 7 schedule. 8 The ANPR was published on July 23rd of this year 9 and as I have indicated a couple'of times, the public 10 comments are due on September 21st. We plan to publish a 11 proposed rule on April 2nd of 1999, and obtain comments on 12 the proposed rule which would be due by June 15th, of 1999. j
'13 And then our schedule calls for completing the whole l l
14 rulemaking effort and issuing and publishing a final rule in l () ' 15- early January of.the year 2000. 16 Now, this schedule does allow for considerable 17 interaction with the public throughout the process. And, of 18 course, what.we do when we interact with the public is we l 19 get the comments and then we have to resolve them all and 20 decide how to handle them. And the schedule, of course, l 21- also needless to say allows for a moderate amount of review 22 within the NRC. We are interested in comments on burden of 1 1 23 the rules and the way we're proposing to modify the rules. 24' I don't know whether there's anybody here from any l 25 of the' individual states, but some states do have agreements j i ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034
l'
.)
10 I i 1 and"so forth to obhain reports that may be tied-to the NRC ! , 2 ' reporting. requirements, so we're also particularly
'3 interested in any state input that anybody may have.
4.
.The advanced notice of proposed rulemaking also i
5 requests comments on other reactor reporting rules beyond l 6 50.72 and 50.73 that could be made more risk-informed, 7 simplified, and where we may be able to reduce the burden. 8 So we're interected again in public and industry input on 9 this. I 1 10 When we get -- if we get and when we get 11 sugges'tions on other rules that ought to be modified, we'll 12- then develop a plan and schedule for doing those in 13 accordance with the priorities of other things within the 14 Agency. 15 Now, let me turn the meeting over to Dennis 16- Allison who will give a more detailed summary of the 17- advanced notice of proposed rulemaking before we have the
-18 industry speakers and the Union of Concerned Scientists 19 speak and then you'll have the benefit of this more detailed 20- summary.
21 MR. ALLISON: Thank you, Ernie. 22 [ Slide shown.] i 23 MR. ALLISON: Is this microphone on? 24 Okay. I'm going to make a summary of what the 25' ANPR said and I'll try to be brief because probably most of i ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD. l( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 + Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034
11 1 ~ you have read it already. 2- This first slide, number 4, simply shows what the 1
)
3- .ANPR asks for. It asks for comments on changing 50.72 and 4 .73 and it particularly asks for comments on the objectives 5 and the schedule, the contemplated amendments, the change in 6 resource burdens, and we'didn't say anything in the ANPR 7 about estimated changes, but we are seeking comments on 8 those and state inputs. It also requests comments on other
- 9. -reactor reporting rules that could be made more risk 10 informed or simplified.
11 On the next slide, number 5, these are the 12 objectives that we've stated in the ANPR. And these, of 13 course are open for comment. I should mention these 14 objectives aren't necessarily -- they're not mutually - () 15 16
' exclusive.
align the reporting requirements to our. current needs and One change could, for instance, both better
- 17 reduce the reporting burden, or clarify. So they're not 18 exclusive, but those are our' objectives.
19 .The first one is to better align it to what the 20 NRC needs today in view of what's going on and other sources 21 of information we have today. And the best example of that 22 is to extend the reporting times for non-emergency events 23 consistent with any need for timely NRC action. ! 24 l The second objective is to reduce the reporting ! 25 burden, again consistent with what the NRC needs to know.
< ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. . (- Court Reporters !
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 u---__--- - - - - - _ - - - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - o
12 1 Juni the best example of that is to try to reduce the burden
' ('sg 2' associated with events of little or not significance.
~ 'V 3
And the third objective is to clarify the. 4
. reporting requirements and, of course, the principal example
'5 where people have had trouble deciding whether things are 6 reportable are on the outside design basis.
- 7. Okay. On the next slide, number 6, is just a
- 8. summary of the contemplated amendments. And I'm going to 9 ' talk about each of these in turn, so this is just an index..
10 I will mention at this point that there are actually ten
,11 things listed in the ANPR, I left out number ten which is
.12 " electronic-submittals". I left it out, I guess, for 13 logical reasons. It's a contemplated non-amendment. We're 14- not suggesting any amendments along that-line because a I~ l 15- different project is going to handle that.
V 16 .The next slide, number 7 -- before I get into 17 this, are there any questions so far? 18 [No response.]
' 19' ' MR. ALLISON: If you have questions about why and 20 how we arrived at some of these suggestions, this would be a 21 good time to ask them as I go through.
22' Okay. Significance levels for design issues. 23 What we see here is simply four levels of significance that 24 have been used in various places by the NRC most recently in 25 .the Millstone project group to sort design problems ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. p/ (, Court Reporters j l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 l l w_-________-________ _
- l. 13 1 according to their importance. The first level is a problem 2- that renders both trains of a dual train system unable to 3- meet the -- or I'm sorry, let me start again.
4- The first one is a, case where'the system does not 5 meet its design and licensing basis and it cannot perform 6 its intended function. The second level is where just one 7 train of a redundant system does not meet its design and 8 licensing basis and it cannot perform its intended function. 9 The third level of importance is where the system 10 does not meet its design and licensing basis in some way, 11 but it's still capable of performing its function. 12 And the fourth level is less than that. Of 13 course, they're really editorial problems. 14 Now, .okay, on the next slide, number 8, is how
/-
( 15 we've proposed to adopt those significance levels to the 16 reporting criteria. .And so the first level on the previous ! 17- slide corresponds to basically an inability to perform a 18- safety function, and that would include design and analysis 19 defects and deviations that render a structure or a system 20- incapable of performing its specified safety function. To 21 capture those, we're proposing to employ the current 22 reporting requirement which is the event or condition that 23 alone could prevent fulfillment of the safety function of 24: the structure or system. 25 The second level, the single train, pretty much i l. L 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. x Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
l l 14 1 corresponds to a design or analysis problem that renders one () 2 train of a system incapable of performing a safety function. 3 And we're proposing to employ the current reporting 4- requirement to report an operation or condition prohibited 5 by the client's tech specs to capture those. 6' The third level is where -- pardon me -- the 7 system can still perform its specified safety function. And 8 for that we're proposing that that's not significant enough 1 9 to warrant an LER. But other requirements, 50.59, 50.71, l 10 and Appendix B may apply. 11 On the next slide, number 9, is an explanation of 12 some other things. The first point is that the Nine Mile 13 Point example which is discussed in the ANPR would not be l 14 reportable as we're proposing it because the building in () 15 that case remained within its design capabilities and so, of 16 course, the systems that it houses and protects were still l 1 17 capable of performing their safety functions. l 18 Now, note that we issued.and have upheld an l 19 enforcement action in the Nine Mile example for not i i 20 reporting that case. And a significant issue and really 21 what you get to arguing about under the current rule is, is 22 that characterized as a design basie or not in the FSAR. I 23 And that illustrates the problem with the current criteria. 24 Another plant might have said the very same thing in their 25 FSAR, but not called it a design basis and it would not -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. L\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l i: i
- l. - '- --
l - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - . - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -
15 1 would not have been cited in this case or at least the 2 action would'have been upheld. So we're not -- as we view 3 'the change, we don't want to be arguing about the 4 philosophical thing of whether something is a design basis 5 or not. We want to be looking at the significance of the 6 problem and reporting it that way. 7 Okay. The next item, errors and corrections in 8_ ECCS analyses. We're not proposing any changes to that 9 reporting requirement. And then finally in the 50.9(b) 10 which is a general requirement to report things that have a 11 high' level of significance that the licensee finds, we're ' 12 not proposing to change that either. 13 On the next slide, number 10, we have basically 14- the philosophy behind the reporting time for proposals. One () 15 hour reports would continue to be made for things that 16 involve emergency classes. And the guidance and the classes 17 on declaring emergency classes is well developed and it 18 seems to capture all of those events where meeting NRC
.19 action would really be needed. And the examples of that 20 action are either a full incident response or perhaps 21 partially manning the operation center and monitoring in 22 advance which we do several times a year a you know.
23 Then the second one, we've proposed taking some 24 -one-hour and four-hour reports and making them eight hours. 25 And that capture of events where the seems like the NRC ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
16 1 -might need to act within about a day, and the typical 2 example of this is complicated trips, a lot of things go 3 wrong, and people wonder why and so in those cases those are ! the kinds of things for which we typically call the plant to 4-i 5 try to get a better understanding or initiate a special i 6 inspection of some kind. 7 And then the last class is 30-day reports. The 8 first report would be an LER, it wouldn't be reported by 9 telephone. And this would -- is intended to capture events 10 where NRC review is warranted. And that's basically to 11 identify safety issues like equipment degradation, { 12 performance problems, and so that's the philosophy behind 13- our. proposed reporting times. l The next slide is number 11 and this goes to a
'\
[d 15 16 different criterion. We have been getting reports under the criterion, condition, or operation prohibited by tech specs 17 that whenever a surveillance test is late, the system is 18 technically inoperable and.so -- or the train is, and so 19 we've been getting reports of that by LER in 30 days. l 20 And we're proposing ~to drop those reports if both I 21 of these two conditions apply. Number one is if the
- 22. licensee corrects the oversight and performance of the test 23 although it's late, and the equipment is still functional or L 24 .if it's not, the action statement-is met after the test.
25 Now, that interacts with number two below. The l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l L-____----_-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---- ---- - ---- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I 17 1 other condition'is no systematic non-compliance. That's I 2 something that'we admittedly haven't been able to define
)
-3 .yet. -We're going to have to define that in the proposed l
4; crule. And we'd be happy to hear any suggestions. But two I 5 conditions that are not in the ANPR that would seem to me to 6 be necessary to define what systematic non-compliance means 7 is no more than a certain number of cases or no more than a 8 certain amount of time so that, you know, it would be 9 prohibited or you have to report it if, say, one diesel 10 generator has been inoperable'for a long, long time 11 undetected. 12 So those are the things that I have in mind for 13 the proposed rule, but we're interested to see what comments 14- people might have. () 15 16 procedures. The next slide is number 12, outside coverage of This really.seems, at the current time to be an a 17 unnecessary reporting requirement because the other 18 requirements seem to capture -- on a-theoretical basis they 19 seem to capture events that have safety significance. And 20 then when you look at'the reporting experience as to what's 21 really reported under this criterion, it's very few events 22 that are reported under this that wouldn't be reported under ;
- 23. something else. And it's about four a year and it's errors l 24 and' procedures. And if those errors are significant, then 25 they would be captured by another criterion.
I i
^ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
18 1 The next slide, number 13, loss of safety j } 2 (function. This is a very simple clarification of that 3 ' criterion . . I. guess.it's possible to read the rule.and think
- 4. thatian event-or condition alone, if you have the A pump 5 ' failand the B pump is torn apart for maintenance, that
- 6. would not be reportable. .I don't know that anybody has 7 really tried to interpret it that way, but we'll clarify the 8 words to make sure -- the words in the rule.
9 The next slide is number 14, ESF actuation and the 10- proposed change to the rule here is to name the systems for 11- which actuation would.be reported rather than using the term 12 "ESF". And the intent is to get a consistent set of systems 13 and only systems with higher risk significance. And it's 14 similar to, but the list is a little different than what's-
.( A) 15 in'the current guidance in NUREG 1022.
16 :The next slide, number 15, human performance, the 17 current rule talks about operator actions affecting the 18 course of the event, and for each personnel error whether a
- 19. cognitive error or procedural error was involved, whether it 20 was contrary to procedure, whether it's the result of an 21 . error in the procedure or whether it's not covered by the 22 procedure. And factors like heat and noise that 23 contributed, and the type of personnel who made the error.
24' This is more or less along the lines of what we R25 need.to know, but it's not quite what we need as we see it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O_ . Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l l .(202) 842-0034 ; l 1
19 1~ now. So we need something a little different and we're l 2 proposing.to change the rule and if we do it the way we 3 . proposed in the ANPR, that would simply make it exactly like 4 .the guidance and it's currently in NUREG 1022.
'S Okay. Skipping to slide 17, shutdown events.
6 Essentially here all we want to do is to try to make a 7 clarification of the rule. And we didn't say exactly how in 8 the ANPR, but for shutdown events what we think we need to 9 .know to do risk analysis is, if systems that you use recover 10 from the event have not worked, what else was available. so 11 that's what you need to know in doing a PRA estimate of the
~
12 risks. And so we're proposing to draft the rule to make 13 that clarification. 14 The next slide, number 18, right now in the LER ( l i[) 15 form, in the guidance there's a good bit of information v j 16 that's called for in LERs that'seems to be amenable to a 17 check-the-box approach that would reduce the reporting i ! 18 effort. And equipment that was inoperable, the time.it 19 .became inoperable, when'it was last known to be operable, 20 whether redundant trains were operable, things like that. 21 We thought that adopting a check-the-box approach 22 would just improve the efficiency rather than writing that ! 23 stuff.into the narrative somehow. i 24 Perhaps you have better suggestions or ideas. l 25 Maybe just submitting a chronology with every LER would be t /'Ng ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_je Court Reporters ! 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 , Washington, D.C. 20036 1 l (202) 842-0034
20 1 another way to do it.
'2 Okay. The next slide, number 19, is principal 3 effects on the' burden. I think the rule changes we've 1
4 proposed in the ANPR would be in general a reduction and not 5 insubstantial. The late surveillance tests would be a 6 significant reduction in the number of LERs, maybe something 7 like 160 a year in that neighborhood provided -- provided
)
8 that we exclude procedural errors. There are a lot of I 9 reports that say, I reviewed the procedure, we're doing ! 10 these tests, I didn't have the right amount of overlap. .And 11 therefore, for the last 20 years it's been inoperable or 12 technically speaking. Provided we don't consider that kind 13 of' thing to be systematic non-compliance, just procedural i 14 problems. That would be'a good number of LERs. () 1 15 The second thing that's also significant, I think, 16 the design issues, somewhere more than 100 LERs would be 17 gotten -- would be eliminated. We would still get a lot of l 18 design issues reported, but we would get rid of maybe a 19 third of them that are being reported now. 20- Number three, extending the reporting times. Now, 21 that's not really going to translate into fewer reports and 22 I'm not sure that the hours of reporting burden would'go 23 down any, but I think it would make life much better for 24 -people who have to make reporting decisions and particularly 25 for the operators. As long as it's not an emergency, they ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. k Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
21
.1 don't have to make a report in one hour or even four hours.
2 'That would improve things there. 3 The eliminating the outside coverage of procedures 4' is a very minor reduction. And a check-the-box approach 4 5 might help to reduce the burden a little bit of writing an 6 -LER. 7 The increases,_ human performance information is a 8 little bit of an. increase in'the request for information 9 once you have to write and submit an LER. The same with the 10 shutdown event information, but those are pretty minor since 11 they don't affect the number of reports.
'12 Okay. On the next slide, number 20, is the i
j 13 schedule. And you've had a chance to look at that. I guess
- 14. my main comment about the schedule is it's a pretty
, ( ) ' '15 ' aggressive schedulerfor rulemaking, at least for one where 16 _there might be a little-bit of controversy involved. It's 17~ really_only 15 months after receiving' comments on the ANPR 11 8 to publish a proposed rule and then publish a final rule. 19 The schedule, by the way, is one of the things 20 we're specifically asking for you to comment on. i 21 Finally, . slide 21, the other reporting 22 requirements. In the ANPR we are requesting public comments 23 to identify and propose changes to other reporting
'24- Requirements and we're interested in things that can be 25 simplified and made less burdensome, made more risk l
p \_C) i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
22 1 informed. And I' just threw up a final bullet on this slide [
) 2 that here is a NUREG that lists -- it's all the reporting 3 and recordkeeping requirements at least as of December '93 4 when it was published. And the people that wrote that saved 5 us a lot of trouble because they simply read through the 6 rules looking for.a requirement to report, and those are 7 listed there.
8 Now, that's all -- that's the end of my i 9 presentation. I would ask if you have any queations about 10 this before we go on'to other people's presentations. ( 11- (No response.] 12' MR. ALLISON: Okay. Very good. 13' I think the next step then is Jim Davis from NEI. l 14 MR. ROSSI: Yeah. Let me just say one thing. I I( ) 15 guess these next few presentations are all coordinated by 16 the industry. So if you want to break somewhere during i 17 these, I'll leave it up to you as to where that might be 18 appropriate. It might be appropriate to break in another 1 1 19- hour for ten minutes or so, but I'll leave that up to the ' l 20 people that are making these coordinated presentations. So 21 just let me know if you want to take a break.
. i 22 So with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Davis.
1 L 23 MR. DAVIS: Good morning. I'm Jim Davis from the j 24 Nuclear Energy Institute. t L. 25 The bad news is there have been 20 of us sitting l-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O* Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
L. 23 1 'around forLtwo days reviewing this advanced notice for
'"'% 2 proposed rulemaking and.we are not totally in consensus on I
- 3. every' aspect.of it.
4 The good' news is, we've tried to take the
'5 questions and issues that we wanted.to raise, put them in
-6 some sort of coordinated form.
'7 Next' slide, please?
8 We've got a series of five presentations we would
.9 'like to make to you today. I think it will take us less 10 than an hour.and it actually.will probably take 11: .significantly less than the two days we spent preparing the 1
12 presentation'.
- 13. Since we are going from a broad perspective 14 towards a narrow perspective, and in the end we will step
() f 15 16 through'some items in each of the two rules, I suggest if you have any questions for us, if you let us make our 17 ' presentations, then at the end the panelists will be more 18- than happy to discuss any issues that you have. 19- -Next slide.
' 20 I just want to reaffirm that'the industry has come 21 to the same conclusion that Denny Allison has come to, that 22 in.the' current situation there are some reports that are not i 23' required, and that they are providing a drain on both the 1 1
24 regulators' resources and on the resources of the industry. 25 In trying to figure out the impact of the l I l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Og Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ; Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034
- _ _-__=-_-____.____________-___-____-______-_-__-_____-___.-_____-____-__-___________-______________-___ . - - _ _ _ _
1 24 1 rulemaking, I think one of the problems is, you tend to 2
. focus on the financial cost of a particular LER or something 3 like that. .As you discuss that you get numbers all over the 4 place. I'll leave it to you to figure out if you eliminate 5 260 LERS -- I'll let you figure out how much one of those 6 costs.in staff and industry-time. But probably another 7 aspect of it is the distraction of the control room staff 8 and the distraction of the regulator from what's really 9 important. It's probably as important as the dollar side of 10 the unnecessary reports that we both acknowledge are 11 occurring now.
12 Another aspect of it is clearly there is some 13 confusion and we see inconsistency in the enforcement arena. 14 Although that's not directly addressed in the rulemaking
/~'\ 15 process and the comments, we need the clarity to that the O
16 enforcement follows logically from what's going on, on the 17 reporting side of it. One of the problems we have is the l 18 perception that in some cases enforcement is reflexive. The 19 fact that you made a report results in enforcement, not the ! 20 items that you reported and what was going on in that area. 21 And clearly the inconsequential one-hour report 22 that both the staff and the industry recognized as not being l 23 significant can lead to confusion in the public arena. If 24 it's not important why are you making a report in one hour? 25 Next slide, please? l l l l rN ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( ,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 , l (202) 842-0034 I l L l t
l 25
- 1. Sort of repeating what Denny said, do we need 1 .
/"T -
2 rulemaking? And I think the answer is, yes, we do need O 3 clarity, we do need the reports that are required to meet 4 NRC objectives to report issues that have some safety 5 consequence. i 6 And since we will spend a lot of time talking 7 about issues involved in the rulemaking package and problems 8 that we see, let me up front say that we overall, our over l 9 arching position is that we agree in general with the 10' rulemaking package, the approach that you're taking of where 11 you're going with the rulemaking. As you can imagine, we
- 12. have several areas where we think that we can contribute and 13 help improve the product as we go forward. But as we make 14 our remarks, please remember that the industry is in general
() 15 agreement with what you've proposed in the ANPR and we 16 support moving forward with that process. 17 We've been collectively working on this since the 18 1990s. I guess my position is, we need to make the 19 rulemaking work properly and get it done this time, not get 20 ourselves into a "do loop". And as we discuss it we think 21 what needs to be done is as you go through the rulemaking 22 you need to involve the users of the product. And that is i 23 the industry personnel that are making the reports as well 24 as your residents and your regional staff who are reviewing, 25 enforcing, and involved in it. l O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
26 1 So, in addition to the headquarters effort we l (~)'\ 2 would like to see some additional participation from the 3 industry and the regional staff and I have several proposals 4 in that area. I
)
5 Reviewing the timeline that you've provided, this
'6 is the only comment you'll get on the timeline. We have no 7 objection to the timeline. We agree it's aggressive, we do 8 have several things we would like to add in there that will 9 make it even more challenging. But the industry believes 10 that it can support the timeline that you have laid out.
11 As I probably indicated already, we have formed an 12 industry task force. The task force intends to be in place 13 for the duration of the rulemaking so that we can provide a 14 focused perspective on the thing. Hopefully we won't change O. ( ,) 15 our positions too much over the next year and a half. Some 16 of the people in the task force have been involved in the 17 process since the early '90s, so I think we also on our side 18 have a pretty good history of the process and the things 19 that we've gone through as we went through Revision 1 and 20 the various other things. 21 And I'd like for those members of the task force j 22 and those involved in the discussion over the last two days 23 to please stand up just so you see that we are here. 24 [ Participants stand.) ! l 25 MR. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. The task force (O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. () Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 I l
27 1 would like to stay involved. I started to put on my slide, 2 "we're only here to help", but I thought maybe you probably ([ 3 wouldn't accept that. 4 [ Laughter.) 5 MR. DAVIS: But we would.like to see the process 6 as being as open as it can be'within the process and I think 7 'that will help you meet your schedule. 8 [ Slide shown.] 9; MR. DAVIS: As we look back at some of the past 10 history we think implementation is going to be a key-issue 11- in getting an effective. rule in place that we can all live 12 with and understand. So our suggestions, we would like to j 13 make sure that the guidance needed for the implementation is l 14 processed in parallel, specifically NUREG 1022 we think
.(O s ,) - 15 should be addressed at the same time we're going through the 16 rulemaking and we recommend that vnu look internally at l
17 enforcement guidance and what you have in that area to make 18 sure it will fit with what the ultimate product is. 19 Again, we think it requires involvement of all the 20 interested parties, the NRC headquarters staff, the regional 21 staffs, including the residents, the licensees that are 22 involved in the process, and, of course, other stakeholder 23 since we fully advocate that this be a public and open 24 process that we go through. 25 To reemphasize that last point, I think the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s Court Reporters L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
28 1 problem is that when you make the rule and you issue the l (- 2 3 guidance you have every day of every shift a control room operator at 100 and some plants trying to figure out whether L ! 4 he does or doesn't have to report'an event. You've got 1
- 5. licensing managers working on LERs day in and day out. You 6 have residents running'around at the same number of plants.
l 7 So the involvement in the field is very, very heavy in this 8 particular area. That's where the interpretations are made, 9 -and we think their involvement in the process will help us 10 say, okay, the words seem clear to us here at headquarters, 11 we can find out whether they're clear to the people in the 12 field at the same time, and we recommend that involvement in 13 the process. 14 I have three specific recommendations. ! f"') ( ,f 15 [ Slide shown.] i 16 MR. DAVIS: We would like to see NUREC 1022 l 17 reviewed at the same time you're going through the
]
18 rulemaking. When we look at the various. pieces of the rule, i 19 we need to fully understand the impact, not just of the rule 20 and what the rules say, but what the implementing guidance 21 should look like. 22 We propose that NUREG 1022 be issued for review -- 23 for public review at the same time the rule is issued for ; 24 the public review so the two stay in sync. If we review the l i' 25 rule and then some later time period get 1022 for review, it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
29 1- 'will sort of break the loop and make it very difficult to L/"T 2- see what the final product looks like in that arena. I O 3 think it's achievable.
-4 In many cases we would propose just deleting 5 sections from NUREG 1022 since the reporting is no longer 6 required. So maybe it will be an easy job. Actually, our 7 experience over the last eight years says getting NUREG 1022
~
8 squared away is not going to be an easy job, so that's a 9 'significant challenge to add into'your schedule and we 10 recognize that. 11 [ Slide shown.] 12 MR. DAVIS: I said we needed involvement of the 13 users. We recommend a series of table top exercises as part 14 of your decisionmaking process on-how the rules should be ( ) 15- worded and how the guidance should be put together. 16 The task force members are ready to support that 17 on any schedule that you could put together, but we envision 18 taking. pieces of the draft rule that's still under 19 consideration and being formed with proposed guidance that 20 .goes along.with that and having either residents, regional 21 inspectors and a few people from selected plants sit down 22 and table top that. We've got lots of scenarios, you've got 23 whole banks of scenarios that we can pump through there and 24' 'see if th'e staff and the licensee can come to the same 25 logical conclusion as they pump through that guidance and we I
/~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' ( Court Reporters = 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 > l I o -_ - - - - a
30 1 get clarity in the process. We think those could start as
/'~'i 2 early as October of this year.
O 3 To do that after the rule is formed and sort of 4 set in concrete probably doesn't help you as much as if you 5 use this as part of the formative and review process that 6 you're using internally. We would propose that the table 7 -top exercises would feed back directly to you to be used in 8 your evaluation and development of the rule. 9 [ Slide shown.] 10 MR. DAVIS: The third proposal is we would like to 11 see added as an objective a workshop, a two-day workshop 12 very early in the public comment period so that we can draw 13 the entire industry into the process as well as all the 14 other stakeholder, sit down and review the draft rule, (d i 15 implementation guidance in great detail, including breakout 16 sessions to focus on key issues. I think very early in the 17 process that would give you an indication whether there will i 18 or will not be inconsistencies in the interpretation of the 19 product that we've collectively developed. 20 And, as I said, members of the task force would be 21 willing to help in any way they can and are willing to take 22 a leadership role in workshop preparation of material and so i 23 forth. 24 [ Slide shown.] 25 MR. DAVIS: In summary, we would like to break the
/T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_)- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1 31 1 loop that we've.seen over the last few years, long review l
'2 times, lack of involvement. We need to keep the process ll 3 open. .We'd like to see the implementation guidance updated E 4 .in parallel:with. development of the rule. We would like to ;
5 involve the users of the ultimate _ product, the regions, and 6 the licensees, include. table top exercises and a workshop in ) 7 the process. 8 Those'are our comments on the process part of the 1 9 rulemaking. The rest of our comments will deal with the two 10 rules themselves, and Ionnie will start with a broad 11 overview. We get more' focused as we go downstream.
'12 Thank you.
13 MR. ROSSI: Thank you. 14 [ Slide shown.] () 15 16 MR. DAUGHTERY: Good morning. Daughtery from Entergy Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. I'm Lonnie I'm a 17 licensing coordinator there and I'll be talking about over i 1 18 nrching issues. ! 19 Next slide.
.20 As a part of the task force we tried to quantify !
21 what these were.and we came up with four that reached the 22 pinnacle of our concerns; bounding the term "significant"; 23 avoid codifying NUREG 1022; reducing non-risk significant ~
;24 reports; and in better understanding the purpose of what 25- we're reporting to the NRC.
.("N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( ,)- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
32 1 (Slide shown.)
~
'2 MR. DAUGHTERY: That for bounding the term 3' "significant" we agreed you've got to have a clear 4
definition.of significant, it's got to be in the rule,-and 5 without it, "significant" ends up being interpreted as 6 "any". I mean, that's kind of an enforcement ratchet kind 7 of'-- every time you get the bar lowered, you end up 8 reporting'something else the next time, just more 9 significant. 'So we've got to define the term and come to 10 grips with that. 11 Providing the definition is' consistent with your 12 -own objectives in this area. You want to have significant
-13 Levents reported. We want to know in our minds what those 14 ,are so we can better understand it. And we think 15 "significant" is probably linked with " functionality".
{]
\_- --
16 'That's a key linkage. ~Instead of talking about systems, 17 structures, .and components, talk about safety and safety 1EL functions. That's where we would like to lead to. 19 Next slide. 20 Avoid codifying NUREG 1022 in the ANPR you do 21 references. You might be thinking of doing that, or you l
-22 .might include it as a reference. The task force recommends-23' that be avoided. We don't see the need for that and would prefer thatfall the extra requirements and examples stay out
'24:
^ 2 5_ - of-the rule process.
l l
. (~ . .
5 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
'- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
I -. l
l 33 L 1 (Slide shown.] y,) 2 MR. DAUGHTERY: Thirdly, reducing non-risk l 3 significant reports. We totally agree with that concept. 4 And, again, I would point out that without a good clear 5 definition what is risk-significant, we end up back into the 6 old "significant" equals "any" which is not'the NRC's 7 intent. If we can't define it.and come to grips with it,. 8 we'll end up being ratcheted again time after time based on 9 decisions either through enforcement processes or whatever, 10 continually lowering the bar. We prefer not to do that. 11 (Slide shown.) 12 MR. DAUGHTERY: And last, purpose of the reporting 13 process altogether. I think we are lacking a real good 14 clear understanding of the NRC needs as far as the 15 short-term reporting requirements of 50.72 as a response j i 16 only for an event oriented driven conditions at the sites, ! 17 or is it, you know, broader than that. The clearer we , 1 18- understand it, the better we can support it. 19 And then what are the NRC needs for the 20 longer-reporting requirements? Is that data gathering? We 21 hope not. I know you're after a lot of risk information, 22 and risk foundation information, we're willing to give that, 23 we're willing to support that if we understand the 24 importance to you and'to us ad work together on it. 25 And that's the over arching issues we had. l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I'
34 1 Walt is going to talk about the LER process itself 2 c)
' (~3 3-now. 'He will be our next speaker,
[ Slide shown.] 4 MR. PIKE: Good morning. I'm Walter Pike, task
'5 force member from Florida Power Corporation. My 6 presentation will actually. focus on general items l
7 section-by-section matching the ANPR And indeed I'll be
-8 followed by Clay Williams from Southern California Edison 9- who.will be talking about the 50.72 area, and then Vickie 10 Backman from Pacific Gas and Electric who will be talking
-11 about the 50.73' area.
12 Next. slide. 13 The overall. focus of the rule to going to safety ( 14 functional capability is very appropriate. And like the () 15 16 other speakers were talking about', that focus is what needs i to be maintained throughout all the little sections within 17 the rule, that consistent capability to perform the safety 18 function. l 19' Next slide. ( 20 Again, my comments are by the ANPR and the -- next I [ 21 slide, please - . parenthesis are this section in the ANPR. 22 The ANPR has proposed one-hour, and eight-hour
-23 reporting requirements. These are appropriate for 50.72 I i
24 type reports and the shift from four hours to eight hours l 25' will make better reports, more accurate reports, and ; ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (( )g :
~' ~ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - '
r-l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l'
35 l; 1: additionally we would expect less retractions.which is a
~ 'se" 2 reduction.in burden also for both of us.
l :i l 3 Now,'in the'30-day written' report area, we propose L4 going to 60 days instead. And this:is'because today we do 5 very detailed root'causes that are driven by corrective 6 action' programs. These corrective actions programs i L 7i typically-ha'vei30-day timeframes for working on root causes. 8.- So if.we move to a 60-day-requirement, that will better ~ L
~9 match the completion of root'causes.
10 The LERs then will have better detail, more l 11 { accurate detail, and the.need for supplemental LERs would go 12 Ldown, and, again, thatlwould be another reduction. ! 13 'Next slide. 14 Section.(le), commenting on the loss of capability il) V
'15 . to perform a safety function, that's exactly what we need to 16'. do. The nonreportability of items that do not impact the 17 ability to perform a safety function is exactly the focus,
~
f. 11 8 .and that is appropriate. And because safety requirements 19 'are still met, the other non-emergency event areas, Clay and p J20 Vickie will be talking about these areas in detail in their 21 presentations. Next slide. 23 In Section (2) that change where indeed it's alone i l-24 or in combination with other existing conditions within the
~251 task force in looking at this change there was significant
). ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 , (202) 842-0034 l L o L . . .
36 l 1 discussion. And this area would still need clarification. l 2 [~'} v For example, are we talking about current conditions or I 3 historic conditions, some work needs to go on to make sure ! 4 that we nail this exactly. I 5 The Section (3) reporting of design issues, in the 6 change to focus on just safety functional capability is very j 7 appropriate. We agree with the thrust there. 8 Next slide. 9 In Section (4) the reporting of errors and 10 corrections to ECCS analysis. There was a sentence in the 11 ANPR talking about the reporting of lesser significant items 12 and lesser significant errors. That should move to really 13 not reporting and indeed 50.46 is a rule that needs to be 14 worked on with regard to reporting, because right now we rN { () 15 report changes to 50.46 that are really not significant 16 changes. And so in terms of the list of other rules, that's 17 a good candidate. 18 Okay. Let's go to the next slide. ; 19 In Section (6) reporting of misced tech spec 20 surveillance the removal of that reporting is appropriate 21 and the focus on impact to the safety function again is the 22 way to go. And this would be a significant reduction in 23 burden. 24 In Section (7) the reporting of conditions outside 25 the coverage or procedures, again, that's an important ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (~'}
\_, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
37 l l' reduction that's appropriate. And, indeed, the areas'where e-- - 2 a loss of safety functional capability is present, there's i k 3- the.other requirements cover the reporting. So this is I 4 appropriate. 5 Next slide. 6 The reporting of events that result in actuation 7 of an ESF. Reporting only valid ESF signals provides a 8 ' benefit to the industry-and indeed not reporting invalid ESF ' 9 signals would cut down on some of the confusion there in I 10 terms of material so we could just see significance again.
'11 In area of shutdown events, the assessment of 12 systems that fail to perform their safety functions during 13 the shutdown events and the reporting of those is very 14 appropriate and we agree with the rule there, the proposed 15 rule.
} I 16 Here, however, in looking at reporting burden, 17 again, we'll,have to make sure that the language does focus 18 on the functional safety capability.
19 [ Slide shown.] 20 MR. PIKE: This section on human performance as 21 Denny was pointing out does have a significant change of l 22 information in terms of additional information. And we do 23 want to have some more dialogue in this area because the l 24 layout and the box approach, the narrative approach, and
'25 just what is meant by checking boxes and how things are gg ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( ,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
38 1 interpreted has to be clear. And right now we use a
)
2 narrative approach which is supported by the root cause 3 analyses that are done and that allows a breadth of 4 flexibility-in terms of an accurate depiction of what we're
'5, reporting ~. And a piece of the concern here, if we get to a 6 box; approach and it's things that don't quite fall ~into the 7 boxes.could be misinterpreted from both sides in terms of 8 potentially looking at enforcement actions.
9 At the end of Section (10) there was a. sentence 10 'about codifying the guidelines and what we feel is the rule i 11 needs to stand as the rule without bringing guideline-level 12 material into the rule or within the rule pointing-13 officially'to the guidelines like 1022. So.what our 14 dialogue was about is the rule should stand.with the level l () 15 16 of detail that's appropriate for rules and then the l-guidelines themselves should give the additional detail. 17 Next slide, please? 18 The LER-form we do agree with some merit in using ; 19 boxes. And the comment within the section is narrative 20 where necessary should be used to describe where the boxes ! 21 don't exactly fit generally. .And that's, again, we feel the l 22 narrative within the LER is still important even'if we go to. j 23 more of a boxed approach. 24- We also agree with looking at EPIX for the I 25 equipment'LERs as being a potential replacement for l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
'39 l' equipment LERs. And that's an area that would warrant 2'
( )- additional exploration. 3 The electronic reporting area, we do agree with 4 electronic. reporting moving;into the computer age. We do-
'5 note that for^ electronic reporting we would have to change 6 50.'4 -- Section'50.4 to allow that to. happen'.
7 Next slide.
- 8. There was a section in the ANPR on'" enforcement".
9 And what'we' recommend is that enforcement not be included as 10 part of these rules, that enforcement is elsewhere in the
, 11 regulations as well as the Agency has enforcement policy and
- 12 procedures that the Agency follows and that enforcement in 13 and by itself really doesn't blend well within this rule.
14 Another comment within that enforcement paragraph ( )' 15. was the cut of enforcement-level decisionmaking linking up. 16 to the reporting criteria within the rules. And we see that 17 kind of difficult to figure our because the -- well, it 18 depends, is, I guess, a good way to put it on, you know, 19 'what the situation is, what the issue is, what the 20' importance, how the licensee responds so a lot of factors go 21 into enforcement that really go beyond just trying the 22- cookbook levels to criteria so we don't recommend doing 23 =that. There's plenty of areas where enforcement activity I 24 can.be applied and appropriately be i+,.. lied.
]
. 25 Next slide. 3 i
/}
' \_./
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ! Court Reporters ~
-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034 w_ _____2.-_-_________-__-_____ .____2_ - _.-_-_ ____ ___ _ . - - - _ ._ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _
40 l' What we want to suggest is especially in the area l 2 of~the design basis' deviation reporting.that we move to 3 relaxing that reporting requirement while the'rulemaking is
- 4. in progress using NRC guidance. The outside design basis is E 5 an area where.a number of reports.are being made, both 5G.72 6= and 50.73 that are not significant. There is no impact on
-7: the ability of safety systems'to function. That's something 8 that we would'like you to think about is earlier guidance 9 that would allow some-relaxation.
10 That's all the' comments I have. I would like to
- 11. turn it over to Clay Williams.
12 Thank you. 13 MR. . WILLIAMS: Thank you. My name is Clay 14 Williams. I-work for Southern California Edison. I'm a l
) ' 15 member of the NEI task force on event reporting. 'I've been 16 in compliance at San Onofre for a little over five years, 17 I've seen a lot of LERs, looked at a lot of issues, had some 18 pretty good experience here.
19 Since the previous speakers talked about-the 20 process, the over. arching teams, and the advance notice of 21- proposed rulemaking itself, my comments are focused on 10 22 CFR 50.72, prompt reporting itself directly as it currently 23 exists and how we think the concepts from the advanced 24 notice of proposed rulemaking could be applied to the 25 existing words. We don't have words for the new proposed O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( )' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
41 , I rules yet,-we took the words that we do have and tried to r] V
- 2. . work with those.
3 [ Slide shown.)
'4 MR. WILLIAMS: Dennis, as you mentioned earlier, 5 our understanding from the statements of consideration from 6 the initial LER~ rule that the essential purpose for prompt 7 reporting, the one-hour and the eight-hour phone calls, is 8 to provide immediate notification to the NRC when immediate j I
9 NRC action is required for the NRC to 60 something, they i 10 'have to mobilize,,get out there and do something. The 11 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking underscores this to 12 say that the goal is to better align the reports that we 13 make -- prompt reports'that we make with the NRC needs and 14 to reduce the reporting -- it says " order" here, it should () 15 say " burden" -- reduce the reporting burden on licensees. ' 16 We wholeheartedly support that, and to provide reporting 17 clarification where needed. 18- Now, an item for which I do not have a slide is 19 the previous reporting criteria -- previous paragraph, and, 20 again, I wasn't going to go through item-by-item. The 21 current 50.72 (b) (1) (ii) is the reporting of a substantial 22 reduction in the principal safety barriers of the plant or 23 an unanalyzed condition that significantly compromises plant 24 safety, conditions outside design basis, and events that are 25 not covered by plant procedures. I i
/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters ! 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
42 l 1 1 The advance notice of proposed rulemaking already ! ( 's 2 suggest eliminating the outside design basis issues where it ' &~ 3 doesn't affect plant safety. Likewise, it also talks about 4 getting rid of the environment for procedural basis concerns 5 that don't affect plant safety. ! 6 The other remaining item, unanalyzed condition 7 that significantly compromises plant safety. That one, if 8 you think about it, it's really addressing operability. If 9 you have some piece of equipment that you don't know if it's t 10 going to perform its function cn: not, you don't know'if the 11- equipment is operable- . So the important systems for 12 operability are already listed in the technical 13 specifications. All those items already have about outage 14 times. If you exceed that, you have to shut down the plant. ( ) 15 If you shut down the plant, you have to make a 16 phone call to the NRC. Prompt notification to tell the NRC 17 you're shutting down the plant because the tech specs 18 require you to shut it down. 19 So we believe that that one remaining item of I 20 50. 72 (b) (1) (ii) can be removed as redundant. 21 [ Slide shown.] 22 MR. WILLIAMS: The slide on the screen now, p 23' 50' 72 (b) (2) , the advance notice talked about changing the 24 requirement for four-hour reports to eight hours. We 25 believe that's a good idea. We underscore that. We like p ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (j Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
43 l- 1- that. 1 We believe that it's consistent with the NRC's desire 2 for timely information and for complete and accurate d 3 information allowing us a few more hours to' data gather is a 4 good thing, so that helps us out. We agree with that. 5 Next slide, please? 6 Currently.50.72 requires prompt reporting for 7 events found while shut down, that had the plant been at 8 power it could have significantly compromised plant safety. 9 Well, here again, if you go back'to the stated 10 purpose of prompt reporting and the focus of the advance 11- notice for proposed rulemaking you don't need prompt 12 ' reporting for an event where the plant is already in a safe 13 mode. The NRC'does not need to take action when the plant 14 is shut down, safe, and the system is not needed to perform 15 a function. So, again, the focus is back on functionality 16- So we recommend -- the task force recommends removing that i 17 reporting requirement. 18 [ Slide shown.] 19 MR. WILLIAMS: 50.72 also discusses reporting of 20 'ESF actuations. The advance notice had some changes to the 21 -- or proposed changes to existing wording. One of the 22 -changes was taking out the " existing exclusion or signals 23 that result from a preplanned sequence during testing or 24 plant operation." We recommend that those words be retained 25 in whatever comes out. t fs ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
.(202) 842-0034
44 1- Next slide, please. 2- The advance notice talked about providing a list (V} 3 of ESF systems that would require reporting. When we as 4 task force looked at this, we recognized that, well, the
- 5. systems that compromise ESF for each plant as was mentioned 6 earlier are-already listed in the FSAR at each facility.
7 There are differences between plant-to-plant, reactor type 8 so that you don't have one-to-one direct correlation between 9 ESF systems from one plant to another. They can have 10 differences in how they. impact plant safety, how they're 11 used functionally, and the risk significance of the varying 12 different systems vary greatly from one plant to another. 13 So.we recommend not using the list that's in the advance 14 notice, but instead using the ESF definitions that are in () 15 16 the FSAR at each one of the facilities directly. Next slide, please? 17 We did work on a thought for a way this reporting 18 requirement, as it currently exists, could be reworded, 19 reworked to be consistent with the stated purpose of the 20 review to 72 and 73. We came up with the words that are on 21 the screen now, "any event or condition that results in a 22 valid ESF signal except when the actuation results from and 23 is part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor 24 operation." We also feel it is very important to include 25 the next sentence that " valid signal" needs to be defined ! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters
'1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
45 1- here in the rule to say " Valid is defined as ESF/RPS signal I^} NJ 2 .in response to actual plant conditions that warrant ESF/RPS 3 actuation." 4 So some of this is from the advance notice is 5 married to a slight variation of.the existing wording, and 6_ Twe believe that these words would achieve the goal of the 7 advance notice proposed rulemaking. Focus on events that 8 are important, reduce burden on the licensees. 9 Next slide, please? 10 50.72 (b) (2) (iii) , that's the paragraph that 11 requires you to report any event or condition that alone 12 could have prevented the fulfillment of a safety function. 13 As it's currently written and as it's currently
- 14. applied in the industry this criterion applies to both
() 15f current conditions and' historical conditions. So the 16 current rule causes licensees to -- when we're looking back 17 in time, doing audits of our own programs and processes to 18 occasionally find an item where this would apply in the 19 past. And since it meets the 50.72 criteria for prompt 20 notification, licensees have to pick up the phone, call the 21 NRC for conditions that occurred or existed years ago, it's 22 no longer there, the causes for it are fixed, and it just 23 doesn't' apply. So it doesn't match the NRC's needs for 24 prompt notification. The NRC does not need to take action 25 in response to those types of events. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
46 1 So we propose' revising this requirement to apply
./~] 2 to any current event or presently existing condition that ' (_)
3 "alone" could prevent' fulfillment of a safety function. So 4 the idea is to focus on the present tense rather than 5 historical.
'6 'Next slide, please?
7 Continuing with this reporting criterion the 8- advance notice of proposed rulemaking discussed adding the 9 .words "in combination with other existing conditions". The 10 task force struggled with that for a large part of the two 11 days that we were together. We weren't quite certain what j 12 that meant, how you could combine "alone" in the same
.13 sentence with "or in combination". We weren't quite certain 14 what the desire was, what the intended fix was.
() 15, 16 We believe the way that licensees have currently been applying the criteria is the event or condition alone 17 already requires you to go back and look at what equipment-18
~
was actually operable and available. So we believe the 19 current words are all right and we would recommend that the 20 addition of "in combination with other existing conditions" 21 be deleted. 22 Next slide, please? 23 As. Jim Davis indicated in his remarks, NUREG 1022 24 needs to be revised at the same time as the reporting rule. 25 I wanted to underscore that also. I believe that some of ) l 1
% ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L _ _ _ __ _ .- _ ___ _ _--_--_ _ _ - - - . - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - _ - - - . _ _ - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ . - _ - - - _ _ - - _ - - _ - - - - - _ - - - _ -
L 47 1 the effort to' revise 1022 will be reduced because the focus
/N 2 has,been on safety. The desire is for notification of U 3 events'that are significant require the NRC to take action i 4' so many.of the changes to 1022 would simply be deletions.
l l 5 Thank you. . I 6 MR. ROSSI: Thank you. l 7 Why don't we take a -- 15 minutes is a reasonable 8 -break?- I'think it is. Fifteen minutes, then. 9 [ Recess.] , 10 MR. ROSSI: Okay. Why don't we reconvene after-11 .the break. .The next. person to speak is Vickie Backman from 12- Pacific Gas and Electric. So, go ahead. 13 [ Slide shown.] 14 MS. BACKMAN: Well, like he said,. I'm Vickie () 15 16 Backman'from Pacific Gas and Electric, we have Diablo
' Canyon. I'm a regulatory assessment supervisor out there.
17 My staff puts out all of our LERs and NOV responses. I've 18 certainly agonized for many, many-hours over interpretation 19 of this rule and trying to deliver quality products.
- 20. Next slide.
21- I ' ll lxt talking on matters that pertain to the LER 22 preparation itself and the rules for LERs which is 50.73. 23' 'In order to provide a little bit of a framework and 24 background for that, I took a look at the statements of
-25 consideration, the original rule, and as far as we could I
/"' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
48 1 tell,.the reason for being, the purpose of 50.73 says it's 2 for reporting operational data related to the events that 3 could affect the public health and safety. Also that the 4 NRC uses the reports to' identify and resolve threats to the 5 public health and safety. And then we notice that it does 6 say in some of the original rules that reporting events of 7 low safety significance isn't terribly useful. And so we 8 are very happy to see that the NRC is now moving in that 9 direction. It will be a significant reduction of burden for 10 us. 11 Next slide. 12 I have two slides here. The first on is just a 13 basic listing of criteria that had no changes proposed in
.14 the advance notice of proposed rulemaking or by the task
() 15 16 force. In other words, a significant amount of 50.73 is not being proposed to move at all. We expect that it and most ; 17 of its NUREG 1022 guidance wouldn't be affected. Most of 18 many of these items are fairly significant; the completion 19 of tech spec shutdown; any deviation of 50.54x; certain ! 20 natural phenomena, it could be tornados, earthquakes risks; 21 common mode failure wasn't proposed for change. I'm not 22 sure how much that's a used criteria, it's a difficult one 23 to read through, at least in the NUREG. The releases are 24 not being changed, and we're satisfied with that. And then 25 ~ there's also internal plant threats such as fires, toxic -- l i p ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( ,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
49 1 potential toxic gas releases, rad releases. None of these tg 2 areas will be changed. V- 3 And so we're going to be focusing on -- next slide 4 -- the areas that will change that the proposed rulemaking 5 brings up and a few other areas that we identified in the 6 industry task force that we would like you to consider to 7 change. In particular, of course, there will be a major 8 change in operation conditions prohibited by tech specs; the 9 serious degradation and outside design basis, kind of 10 " catch-all" reporting criteria that we use a lot now; 11 actuations; the increased importance of the event or 12 condition that could prevent fulfillment of safety function; 13- and then I'll speak just a little bit more to the reporting 14 interval and a few of the nuts and bolts requirements for
, ,\
LERs. l' I0 ~15 16 [ Slide shown.] 17 MS. BACKMAN: The first of those areas, and this 18- is more or less in the order that 50.73 is written right 19 now. The first area of real change is in operation 20 prohibited by tech specs. We're quite happy with the major 1 21 change being proposed of taking out the missed and late f 22 surveillance where no programmatic breakdown exists. We're i i 23 not sure you're going to be able to put an X and a Y in 24 there. We do have quality organizations at all of the L 25 plants.that are all over our backs constantly to make sure
'] ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
q,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
)
50 i. 1 that we are where we're supposed to be and the residents as 2' well. l 3 Most of.these arehs - well, they're all -- any 4 time we find a missed test, we always review all its 5 cousins, try to make sure that -- 6 So we're quite happy with this change. We do see 17 it as a significant reduction in burden. 8 The next slide ~. 9 The other part of this change was kind cf 10 difficult for us to understand in the way it was presented 11 in the ANPR. It first comes up where you begin to talk with 12 partial loss of capability to perform the safety function 13' and begins to bring in-this idea, and we weren't sure how l 14 far you need to go with it, but the idea that tech specs are () 15 not maybe always reportable when something doesn't meer the 16 tech specs. Maybe you're only looking to see the chings i 17 that'actually result in a train of the multi crain-systems
- 18. being incapable of performing and we would like to applaud l 19 that general thread and idea there. We're looking forward f 20 to seeing what the actual ru]e will say here. It does look 4 21 like it's an area where we can continue to focus on the i
22 safety-related impact of the regulation. i 23 We also expect that this might help us proving a ! 24 reduction in reporting burden for some of the administrative L 25 non-compliance issues. As we look at what is written there, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Guite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
.(202) 842-0034 c_-______-__-__-_____-____________________-_____________. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
51 1 it appears that-that is the area you may be trying to remove () -2 3 out. So that's one, it was a big change. It was a nice 4 thread to see. 5 [ Slide shown.) 6 MS. BACKMAN: The next area-with a significant 7- - change is the 50.73 (a)~(2) (ii) , the seriously degraded safety 8 barriers -- plant safety barriers or unanalyzed conditions
- 9. compromising safety. This also has outside design basis and 10 procedures on the next alide. The first two areas Clay 11- already had mentioned that when we looked at these to deal 12 with these issues we cannot think -- well, one we don't make 13 a lot of reports that we're aware of that say that we have 14- serious degradation or.an unanalyzed condition that really
() 15 significantly compromised safety. Events like that we would 16 hope are few and far between, i 17 So any event that really did meet those type of 18 conditions, we believe would he an event that already was l 19 compromising the safety functions. So we would recommend to 20 the task force that the remainder of this criteria also be 21 eliminated because they're redundant to what would be ! 22 retained in other reporting :ritstia. We don't see any l r 23 . change in the number of reporce under that. It really does ! 24 I help ua when we try to decide whether something is important 25 and needs to be reported not to flip through five different I) Is/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut kvenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L___-____-________. .- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
52 1 sections to do it. I 2 Next slide. l 3 And I think we've. beat this to death. We're quite l 1 4 happy with removing outside design bases, particular to go 5 to the loss of safety function criteria and it really -- we 6 believe it should go a long ways to helping clarify the FSAR 7 discrepancy issues that are coming up and an issue in the 8 enforcement arena right now. 9 We do see some significant burden reduction as you 10 pointed out earlier. And we wholeheartedly agree with 11 taking those out, especially the outside design basis, we're 12 really going'to the right area'. 13 [ Slide shown.] 14 MS. BACKMAN: The third criteria that is proposed ( ). 15 for significant changes it ESF and RPS actuations. Now, I 16 broke this apart. The ANPR position'is to keep the current 17 LER-type requirements for the intentional manual actuations, 18 the valid signals, and apparently also the non-valid signals 19 from what are considered risk-significant systems. 20 And the ANPR also proposes to provide the list of 21 risk-significant systems into the regulation. And that is 22- proposed, the reason given to standardize reporting due to 23 the different definitions of our ESF. We can understand 24 where you wan to go, but we have some comments. 25 [ Slide shown.) l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l (s, ()%. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 . Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
53 1 MS. BACKMAN: The task force talked at length on t 2 this criteria and our primary factor we would like to bring 3 across is we think that only valid actuation signals should 4 be reported. That significant problems that might be found 5.- are. generated during an invalid signal would require their 6 own reporting. For' instance, if we have an invalid signal 7 and it trips a plant, it will be reported. There's other 8 places that bring that in. Well, this would require it for 9 an RPS actuation, 10 If_you found something wrong in invalid actuation 11 because something didn't work right or picked up something 12 else, we may have lost the safety function and it would also 1 13 require' reporting under the appropriate criteria. 14 Clay provided a definition and some words that 15 might point towards a position we think is reasonable. I 16 would just repeat one small part of it. The valid signal 17 would be an ESF or RPS signal in response to actual plant 18 conditions that warrant the actuation. 19 And we would expect that that means basically if 20 there were conditions that warranted it and it did not work, 21 that it would also -- that's when you report. Whether it 22 would be under this or loss of function, it's hard to say, 23 but clearly an incident that's going to come up either way. 24 [ Slide shown.] 25 MS. BACKMAN: The second factor we see in this 1
/7 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
V Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
- l. (202) 842-0034 L-- - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -
i l 54 1 particular criteria is the list of the risk-significant
-2 systems. This is difficult for us to address right now. I 3 got my e-mail last night that the Federal Recister posted 4 yesterday that finally the Commission is issuing the l 5 risk-significant guidelines. We're going to need, as an l
l 6 industry, to be able to review that in order to understand j i 7 how properly to apply risk-significance to the reporting 8 criteria. There appear to be some issues in there of
'9 thresholds and what all that may be useful in this arena, l 10 but we just really can't address them yet because we haven't
! 11 seen the final. l 12 And from that position at this time, we have some L 13 heartache basically with trying to put a list of systems 14 into the role. There's a problem in that the plant FSAR is () 15 16 supposed to provide this type of list and does for every plant. Yes, we understand they're different. There are l 17 differences in safety-related status of some of these l 18 systems and there are systems on that list that are.not 19 l safety-related in some plants and how would these plants ' 20 deal with it is a difficult question. They would end up l 21 reporting events that they don't consider to be significant. i 22 For some plants the list would increase and for l j 23 some plants the list actually would decrease reporting, so 24 there are some different positions there. 25 One thing we do see is risk-significant implies O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 55 l 1 PRA, i implies numbers. One plant to another the same 2- system could be high at one and not nearly as high at the l i 3 other in particular in the area of the support systems which 4' could be cooling water. We have systems at Diablo that were L 5 designed by the plant and not our AE, and in those type of 6 situations ours can be quite different from someone else's. ! 7 It's hard to say where it would fall in on that on a list of l 8 risks. 9 The bottom bullet is just a little bit of an i
'10 aside, there's been a lot-of kicking around about ATWS and l 11 we're not quite sure-what the staff is looking for with 12 reporting of ATWS initiations. We do think it certainly L 13 makes sense to report a valid ATWS initiation, but we can 14 imagine a valid one that wouldn't have required another
() 15 report anyhow because the reactor didn't trip. l 16 .So in such a case, well, clearly we would be 17 talking about how ATWS functioned. So we can understand l i i 18 that you're interested in ATWS, however, we're not quite l 19 sure where it really' belongs in the rulemaking in this area. l L 20 Next slide. l l l 21 The event or condition preventing fulfillment of 22 safety function becomes one of the new primary reporting i l 23 criteria for us. It's going to be the area that may ! 24 generate a lot of discussion and a lot of phone calls unless 25 the rule is carefully written and we review back through the l g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
t 56 1 NUREG'1022' guidance. This is one of the areas where the I 2 table' top discussions that Jim mentioned may come in very b(~N-3 handy early in the process to try to make sure that what 4 you're looking for-from *.he rule is the way we understand it ! 5 and the way we-would apply it. We see value there. 6 The idea of using this as the loss of capability 7 for safety functions we like that. We like very much that 8 you're coming out very clearly'and saying, no LER would be ! 9 required.if the safety function is maintained. Clearly we 10 already.have and we still have work at the plants to-do.to l 11 fix these functions, but it helps not to also have to write i 12 an LER about it. 13 As has been said before, we're not quite sure
;14 we're in combination with.the other existing conditions. We
( '15 believe that most of the plants already are considering what 16 the status of the plant is. Maybe you know otherwise, but 17 it wasn't jumping out at us in our-last two days of meetings l 18 that there was a problem in that area. If we find something 19 wrong with the safety injection pump and the other one is
;20 torn up, well, of course we would have to report loss of l ~
'21 safety function. But it doesn't seem to really appear to us 22 that we wouldn't. So we think that there are things in the l 23 regulation that already require consideration of existing i I
l '24 conditions. So we like the criterion. Actually we do like {
'25 that criteria and the paragraph that follows it in the I I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 j (202) 842-0034 '
57 il existing regulation basically as it is written. It does l I~/^] 2 seem to address ~the areas'that are being added to it already _b 3- and we're, happy to see that. 4- Next-slide. 5 Common cause is not being looked at:to change the l 6 criterion, however, in' reviewing the material for L 7. -fulfillment of. safety function we notice that there is some 8- discussion of common cause in the NUREG on that and we would s 9 like to just propose that the NRC consider consolidating
- 10. that all into the common cause section to try to make it 11 clear where you're trying to be with this over arching type 12 of. criteria.
13 In other words, there are several examples in the i 14 NUREG. It's common cause. You're going to confuse the 15 . plants if. common cause is under both and you're going to get {} 16 reports under both and unfortunately that does'mean that 17 some plant's resident will probably tell them they reported 18 under the wrong criteria. And who really cares as long as 19- we report, we' report the right story, we give you the
. 20 particulars you-need, it would help us lot.
21L Historical -- let's see, next slide. 22 This is a little different idea. It is a problem 23 that we've all wrestled with a lot in'trying to decide what I 24 to report. We call it " historical event reporting". Clay 25 talked about it a bit in the fact that we shouldn't be
/'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. k ,T/ m Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
58 l 1 phoning you for sure if we found that ten years ago we had a l
'~]
%.)
2 problem that was fixed by a design change nine years ago. l 3 Well, we also kind of doubt that there's a lot of value in 4 writing an LER on it. 5 The way we look at a historical event is it's a , l l 6 newly-discovered, that a long time ago an old event could j 7 have been safety significant, but it's been resolved in the 8 meantime. 9 And it may be possible to provide some guidance a 10 for us, maybe in the statement of considerations or another i I 11 area to kind of give a statute of limitations on some of l 12 these, to help eliminate the reporting of events that really l 13 no longer exist. We're not sure that too many of these have 14 much widespread use to other plants, especially the really 15 old ones. If there was a problem that we thought was. (G) 16 significant our corrective action program already requires 17' us to consider history notifications. Our resident will 18 have been involved. There are other ways that this l 19 information gets around, but we don't think that too many of 20 these historical reports have had a lot of value. In fact, 21 we look at them and go, does this apply to anybody? and 22 generally say no, but we're going to keep our record clean 23 and report. 24 So we see a low safety benefit on those. We would 25 like to reduce the reporting burden. It is very difficult ('T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- 'sj Court Reporters y 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 -
Washington, D C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L I
59 1 to recreate what happened in the past. It's almost useless [')'
%.J 2 to do a root cause. The people aren't even here anymore, it 3 can be hard to recreate the data and the records and you end 4 up searching archives. We try to maintain our archives in 5 the best state we can, but it's not easy to find old 6 information. So we would like to be able to see a reduction 7 in burden and there's a way to address it.
8 [ Slide shown.] l 9 MS. BACKMAN: We've had some mention already on 10 increasing the reporting interval for LERs. There are some 11 real concrete reasons for doing that. We like to give you 12 an accurate and complete product. All the plants in the 13 last ten years have put in place much more rigorous root 14 cause and corrective action programs that they had in the j,s v)- ( 15 past. These take time and when I go to the root cause folks 16 we try to go through them the way the event occurs and say, 17 we've got this problem and we need the root cause in two 18 weeks and they laugh and they try to do what they can, but 19 it makes it very difficult to get -- to do a good job on the 20 LER to be able to tell you a root cause. A lot of times 21 what we find is during the root cause significant new 22 information about how the event occurred does come up, plus 23 maybe a lot of technical information sometimes really 24 changes our view of the event. We'd like to be able to give 25 you a good and complete product, but it's hard to do in 30 l (i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_jl Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
60 1 days. 2' Developing LERs and LER supplements or revisions 3 is very labor intensive, not just for the licensing 4 departments, but it takes a lot of cooperation from the 5 . operations department, the maintenance departments, 6 engineering to support developing the accurate LERs to root 7 cause. It takes almost as much time to do the revision as 8 it does to do the initial LER. So it really. helps us to be 9- able to lower the number of supplements and revisions 10 required. 11 There's another benefit here. It does help
.12 provide the time to complete the engineering evaluations 13 _ required after discovery so we don't have to go as'hard as 14 we can for 30 days and go, you know, we really still don't 1
() 15 16 have the information. We just can't write a good report that we're happy with. So we end up screeching to a halt { 17 and file the supplement and then proceed along a leisurely. 18 path. It probably doesn't meet your needs any better to 19 give us a little more time to do it right in the first 20 place. And we do see a significant help to have less 21 revisions, less burden. 22' It ought to help the staff too. There's got to be 23 some nuts and bolts handling that you do and if you have r 24 less it should be a reduction for you also. 25 [ Slide shown.] i i I i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. lt Court Reporters l 102S Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 , l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 __.____-________-____-____.___.__________________m___..___._-_________________.______________________________________._____.___._-_.____________m.___.sm______ _____.___._____.._____
l 61 1 MS. BACKMAN: Shutdown events as you noted are a s 2 very slight increase in burden. It doesn't support the
3 shorter report with less narrative, however we understand.
4 And we'think most of the plants or many plants in any case 5 probably already do discuss their operating procedures on a 6 shutdown event. I don't think we've had one lately, I'm 7 happy to say. But they do occur and it'is reasonable to l 8- talk about them. Basically we'll be looking to see how the 1 9 rule looks and make some comments then, but we see that 10 that's a reasonable change. 11 [ Slide shown.) 12 MS. BACKMAN: Human performance issues are a
- 13. difficult-area for plants in the task force. It is often 14 very difficult when we describe an event to just yank out
(
\
15 the human performance stuff and shorten the narrative. 16' We're not sure that you would get across what happened and 17- why.it happened if we tried to shorten our narratives, So 3 18 we're not sure that we see a benefit on the narrative 19 section from going to a different reporting for human 1 20 performance. 21 As I said before, quite well, codifying the 22 guidelines is interesting. We're not quite sure that that's 23 the level of detail that belongs there. We do think, ; I 24 however, that we could take an event and have several of us i 25 go to try and do human performance coding of that event and I l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Oz Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
t 62 1- we could come up with all kinds of boxes. We're not sure
./% 2 that that type of input.ic very useful to the NRC.
3 We have a subjective problem there, a difference 4 in application and thought process from one individual to 5 another. We think that there will be a substantial 6 reduction in the LERs from the rulemaking and we would 7 wonder if this might be an area the NRC can keep themselves. 8 If they look at the narrative and check the boxes, then 9 you'll have pretty consistent coding of two or three people 10 doing it instead of 100 or so plants with all the staff of 11 those plants. 12 We do understand that the information is useful in 13- other arenas to'you, but we're not sure that it would help 11 4 that way. The other problem we do see here is () 15 16 second-guessing sometimes by other NRC staff. Well, sometimes you have somebody who wants to come down on the 17 areas of real concern, is it a supervision issue, is it a L 18 management issub? Well, everything could be a management ! 19 issue if we wanted it to be. It doesn't help you in 20 determining, but there have been times in the past where it i 21 seems that the NRC's interest on a particular plant is going 22 fto tip one way and we would like to remove some of that from l l 23' this type of reporting so it could still maintain that this 24 is this type of event, it belongs in this basket. 25
, So, I think this concludes the industry task force
(~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L________________-____
63 1- .part of the' presentation. We are encouraged by the O 2 refe stiing of attention on the events that affect the loss V. 3 of sa:ety functions instead of getting mired in the paper 4 issues on reporting. We're looking forward to working with L 5 the staff to develop a clear reporting rule so we don't end 6 up-having to call you on Friday afternoon. L 7 I'd like to thank you very much for the 8 opportunity to speak. 9 MR. ROSSI: I think this finishes the series of
- 10 presentations. If anybody has any questions on what was 11 said or anything, now might be a good time to ask them, or 12 other comments are appropriate too.
13 I do want to make one comment and that is that in 14 a number of cases you have provided specific word changes [ u () 15 that you think make things clearer. Any place you can do 16 that, that is helpful to us because then we kind of l 17 understand what your problem is and so forth. So that it is 18 useful if you give us specific wording where you think you 19 know what we're going to do ore you're not sure, if ycu want 20 to say how you think it ought to be worded, that is fine too 21 when you come in with your comments. 22 MR. DAVIS: You'll see all this again by the 21st l 23 of September in a little bit more detail. l l 24 MR. ROSSI: Okay. So you are coming in with I 25 written responses that will cover all this? Yeah, that will ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l I I
l' 64 1 also be useful. Does anybody have any -- there are other [ 2 things that are going to happen, another presentation, but I 13 ' wanted to see if anybody-had other questions at this time?
- 4 Yes?
5 MR. MADDEN: My name is George Madden, Florida 6 Power and Light. I have.just a couple of comments also. On 7 the 50.72 portion of the rule, one portion you're not 8 talking about changing is down in the " Notifications to 9 other Government Agencies". There's some good guidance in 10 1022 on that issue, but, again, fit's the kind of thing that 11 when you say, with the rule being all notifications to other 12 government agencies or that affect public safety or the ~ 13 environment,.it's duplicative in some areas. 14 In the case of our plant we have an environmental () 15 protection plan that's Appendix B to our license. It has a ; 16 72-hour reporting requirement in it, not an 8-hour reporting ! 17- requirement for environmental issues and=it' defines a set ! l i 18- scope of issues that are unusual or important environmental ! 19 events that we have to report by. I assume that's in a lot 20 of other licensees Appendix B environmental protection ! 21 plans, although there isn't a standard format and content i 22 for that type of document that's out there and they vary l 23- even between our two units at St. Lucy. We have different 24 environmental protection plans and at our sister plant, l 25 ~ Turkey Point, we have another environmental protection plan. 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l
65 1 And none of them are really consistently the same, there
<~'j 2 'isn't a standard format and content. But the reporting
%, )
3 requirements are in there and in this case it's a 72-hour.
~
4 So we would have to make an eight-hour and then make a 72. 5 Plus there are some other state notifications that I think
- 6. you need to focus on the ones that are newsworthy.
We 7 realize what the agency wants to know. I think is that you 8 don't want to get blind sided by something going on and have 9' some other agency or the public call the NRC'about a plan 10 having some environmental or notifying a local agency. But 11 I think the significance -- and if you move it to the' point 12 of those reports that you expect to see new coverage on, 13 that may be a way to clarify it and reduce the number of ' 14 those and stop the conflict between the two documents and lb I' 15 16 the license, MR. ROSSI: Yeah. Go ahead. 17- MR. MADDEN: I have one other comment on that too. 18 The other would be, if you leave the rulemaking in here that 19' I suggest you talk about people being allowed to remove 20 other environmental reporting requirements from their 21 license because they are duplicative. So in the statements 22 of consideration, if you say that based on this you only 23 don't want written reports, you only want 72 hour reports 24' for environment events, or eight hour calls to be notified,
;25 that those kinds of things can be removed from the license p)
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 . (202) 842-0034 L--_-------
66
'1 and we want have, again, dual reporting requirements in j'~\ 2 different parts of the regulation and the license.
' 's] 3 Thank you. 4 MR. ROSSI: I understand your comments and we will 5 look at the issue of reporting to us things that are 6 reported to other state or government agencies. And you do 7 -- I think you have captured the reason that we ask for that 8 stuff in a number of cases. It is so and indeed so we won't 9 get blind sided. But I don't think you -- it's not clear to 10 me that you have to tell us before you tell the other 11- agency. That.seems inconsistent with our needs. So we will 12 take a look at it. 13 Any other comments at this point? 14 MR. HOPE: Tim Hope, Texas Utilities as a member-IY 15 of the task team. I have a specific question. -d
' Is this 16 where we can ask questions at this point?
17 MR '. ROSSI: Yes. I'm not sure we'll be able to 18 answer them, but go ahead and ask it. 19' MR. HOPE: I think this is a good one to think 20 about, so if you want the pause before you answer, that's 21 fine. This is probably for Mr. Allison. Under the 22- reporting criteria conditions prohibited by tech spec we're
- 23. talking about reductions of some unnecessary reports, 24 specifically in the surveillance area and removal of some of 25 the burden associated with reporting administrative
,q. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
t ) Court Reporters
~'
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 67 1 non-compliances and those kinds of things and we all think I 2 that's a great idea. i ('%s However, I have a specific example 3 that I think everybody has had to deal with already in the 4 last year or so as a result of generic letter 96.01 where ! 5 we've gone back and looked at our programs for dong 6 surveillance, making sure that' the surveillance itself
.7 adequately tests the appropri&te circuitry in sequence for 8 the actuation of equipment.
9 For those as an example where you found that you 10 didn't tests some specific component as part of that 11 circuitry such that that would make all of your previous 12 surveillance or maybe a sequence of previous surveillance 13 technically inadequate and you discover that, you write a 14 new test, you go out-and perform that surveillance testing 15 the new component and'you find that the equipment still 16 -passes the new tests; is that something that would be i
' 17. ' reportable? 1 18 'It's a little bit different from a missed 19 surveillance where you just didn't do it.
20 MR. ROSSI: I know, I understand where your I 21 question is. I'm a little hesitant to try to answer a ' 22 question like that -- 1 23 MR. HOPE: I figured you would be. ;
-24 MR. ROSSI: -- without more thought and 25 discussion, but we do understand your question and we'll i
r ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l (, Court Reporters ! 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
67 1 non-compliances and those kinds of things and we all think 2 that's a great idea. However,.I have a specific example a 3 that I think everybody has had to deal with already in the 4 last-year or so as a result of generic letter 96.01 where 5 we've gone back and looked at our programs for dong 6- surveillance, making sure that the surveillance itself
'7 adequately tests the appropriate circuitry in sequence for.
8 the actuation of equipment. 9 For those as an example where you found that you 10 didn't tests some specific component as part of that 11 circuitry such that that would make'all of your previous 12 surveillance or maybe a sequence of previous surveillance 13 technically inadequate and you discover that, you write a 14 new test, you go out and perform that surveillance testing 15 the new component and you find that the equipment still (}
- 16. ' passes the new tests; is that.something that would be 17 reportable?
18 It's a little bit different from a missed 19 surveillance where you just didn't do it..
- 20 MR. ROSSI: I know, I understand where your 21 question is. I'm a little hesitant to try to answer a 22 question like that --
1 23 MR. HOPE: I figured you would be. 24 MR. ROSSI: -- without more thought and 25 discussion, but we do understand your question and we'll ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD. pt) a
' "C Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 i
E_________________.___.___________________.______ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .
( l .
.1 look at.it on how the rule ought to.be worded and the ;(f 2 ' guidance ought to be worded to try to. address that \s) -
3 situation. That we can do.
-4 MR. HOPE: Okay. Good. And that was really the i_ 5 basis for asking the question. Would you consider that kind L
- 6. of example?
L 7 MR. ROSSI: Yeah, we can consider that when we != 8 word the rule and when we develop the NUREG 1022' guidance. . 9 MR. HOPE: Thank you. 10 MR. ROSSI: Other comments on the previous 11 . presentations to this point? 12 We're going to have more opportunity at the end'of 13 the~ day to come back and cover any other comments or things I 14 that people want to make, but I thought it might be useful () 15 16
~
at this point in time to get comments on-the presentations that have just been completed. 17 MR. ALLISON: I have a couple of conments about -- 18 MR. ROSSI: Okay,.sure. 19 MR. ALLISON: -- the presentation. I guess first 20 -- and I'm not going to try to respond in detail, but I'll 21 just mention a-couple of things. The Commission has j 22~ encouraged the staff recently, in fact, sometimes required 23 it to develop the reg guide along with the rules. So it is l 24 our current plan to develop NUREG 1022 along with the rule. { 25 MR. ROSSI: And'we would send it out for public ! l l l
.(~N JdRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, ( ,) Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite-1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034
69 1 comment when we develop it too. That would be part of that. 2 MR. ALLISON.: That's our plan. Now, I say, it's
'*O' 3 our plan, I suppose I can't say it's an absolute promise 4
because you know what happens when schedules get tight, but 5 that's what we're planning to do. And I really think that 6 NUREG 1022 needs to go with the draft rule or the proposed 7 rule. 8 You mentioned that spurious actuations of ESF that
.9 you feel those shouldn't be reported because they're not ;
10 necessarily safety significant events and that's probably 11 right. On the other hand, the reason we didn't propose to 12 remove it is that those are one of the essential elements 13 we're using in working around reliability data that we get 14 from EPIX and so on. The reason we didn't have a data 15 reporting rule it was concluded we could work around those
~
16 things. So we have to think about that one a little harder. 17 Certainly though, it doesn'c need to be a phone call, I 18 would say if it's only a spurious actuation. 19-Something I didn't mention in the ANPR that goes 20 along this same line is we have instructions from the 21 Commission not to do anything in this rulemaking that will
-22 mess up the senior management meeting and licensee 23 performance review process, short-hand performance 24 indicators. I don't think anything we're proposing does 25 that. But I just -- when I'm talking about other purposes, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,'LTD.
g Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 r C___________________----__-_-------- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------- - - - - - - - - - - - -
70 1 .other.thancidentifying safety-significant events, there are
/~') 2, a couple hanging out there.
Q.i 3 I have a kind of a question to pose about common
- 4' .cause failures. Somebody mentioned that the rule -- that's l
5 a very hard rule to read right now and it is. l And we have 6 the strange situation that if you might have 100 celenoid 7 valves of a certain model in the plant, and if one of them 8 that's essentially powered by number one diesel generator 9 fails and it might be what, have to do with AFW discharge 10 . valve or any other thing, and another one that's powered by j i 11 number two diesel generator fails, that's reportable. On ! 12 the other hand, if you have two, they might be in different
)
13 systems or the same that are both powered by number one 14 diesel generator fail, that's not reportable; would you ( ) -15 support a change that eliminates that distinction? Just 16 says,. report common cause failures which is the 17 risk-significant information when we have components failing 18 from common causes. Just a question to consider. 19 The statute of limitations seems to be a very good ) 20 suggestion or at least it's apparent in more areas than you 21 mentioned that you probably need a statute of limitations. 22 We have cases where people report -- the requirement has 23 been removed from the tech specs, but two years ago the tech
-24 specs were violated. That can be very safety significant.
25 So if you have any suggestions on how to word a statute of C \' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( ,) Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
71 1 limitations it would be appreciated. () 2 Okay. That's all I'm going to say for right now. 3 I think we have some other speakers.
- 4. MR. ROSSI: We do. I guess unless anybody has 5 other questions on the --
6 MR. DAVIS: Jim Davis, NEI. It's safe for me to 7 respond because I'm not technically based in this. Maybe 8 that common cause issue is a good first candidate for a 9 table top type of exercise. I think answering those 10 questions where you pose a question and then 30 days later 11 the industry responds with something and then you review it' 12 et cetera, what you need is a group that challenges that 13 particular idea and runs through all the scenarios that ycu 14 can see and gives you a recommendation on whether they can ( 15 or cannot capture the words and make that a clear reporting 16 requirement.
- 17. MR. ALLISON: Thank you.
18 MR. ROSSI: Your suggestion of a table ~ top 19 exercise or a series of them causes me to ask another thing. 20 And that is, if you have specific -- it might be useful if 21 you tell us the specific criteria and the rules where you 22 think that would be important because I think some of these 23 things are so clear that you wouldn't need -- wouldn't 24 benefit much by a table top exercise. But others that are 25 harder to understand, those are the ones that ought to be (I N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \_ Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 1 (202) 842-0034 I l l 2
72 1-concentrated on and that would make better use of table top
)
2 exercises and the recources that go into it. So when you 3 come in with your written comments you want to suggest that, 4 that would be useful to us. S We'll go to the next presentation. It's my 6' understanding that Mr. Lochbaum of the Union'of Concerned 7 Scientists would like to make a presentation. 8 MR. LOCHBAUM: Good morning. My name is David 9 Lochbaum, I'm the nuclear safety engineer for the Union of 10 Concerned Scientists here in D.C. 11 We've had some discussions with other members of 12 public interest groups on this proposed rule and following 13 Mr. Davis' lead I'd like to ask that members of the 14 coalition that are here today to please stand up. j 15 [No response.)
-16 MR. LOCHBAUM: Thank you very much, you can take
- 17. your seats now. People in the room probably won't benefit 18 much from that, but the transcript, somebody just reading i
19 the transcript may-think I had a legion of supporters here 20 today, 21 [ Laughter.] 22 MR. LOCHBAUM: So, please don't tell anybody. 23' I think in general we agree with the concept of ; 24 weeding out trivial reporting requirements. It's also a 25' distraction for us to read those things so we agree with the ("N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, '
\ ,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l
l L
73 1 approach. We also agree with relaxing the time periods for
}
2' both notifications and follow-up written reports. The 3 proper focus should be on quality and not speed. We would 4 agree with that totally. We also need to indicate that we 5 intend to provide written comments. I don't know whether 6 they'll be UCS or in joint with some of these other groups 7 that we're working with, but we intend to provide written 8 comments, so these are just our thoughts and what we're 9 thinking about at the moment. 10 We also agree with the not reporting late or 11 missed tech spec surveillance if the equipment is operable 12 once it is tested. We're also not comfortable with the X 13 times and Y months criterion. I'm not really sure why you 14 need the second criterion at all, you could go with just the b
\_/
15 first. 16 We strong disagree with any check-the-box format 17 for LERs. That would be the easiest thing you could 18 possible do to hang this up under public opinion. LERs are 19 read by members of the public who are not trained on what 20 the boxes mean. Text narratives are the best thing for the 21 public if you want to understand what the issues are. It's 22 basically an issue of full and complete disclosure and there 23 have been some recent examples of why that's not a -- can be 24 problematic. 25 It also gats real easy if that were to be part of (] (,/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
F- I J 74 1L the proposed rules. It's real easy for groups like us to 2 attack that. All we have to.do would be issue something to l-3 our activists and to our members saying that the NRC and the j 4 . industry is proposing to bar. code information reports, but 5 the public doesn't have scanners. If you come away with
- 6. anything, just don't forget the check-the-box thing i
! 7 -altogether. ! That's the easiest or the most controversial L 8 thing in it from our side.
~9 We're also somewhat concerned about the proposed
-10 : change with respect to reporting outside design basis l 11 issues. I'm not even going to touch the Nine Mile Point 12 example. That's so messed up I don't really want to get i
13 involved in that one.. But I think the example, the kinds of 14 things that we're worried about are like pump vortexing () 15-16 issues where some plants -- many plants have had that problem, some plants have done the analysis and showed that 17 their existing set points and volumes were adequate. Some 18 plants showed that existing set points and volumes may not
.19 have been adequate.
20 We're somewhat concerned that the first plant to i 21 stumble across one of these generic issues does the ! L l 22 calculation and doesn't have a problem and doesn't report i 23 'it . The other members of the community don't know about it 24 and may not have the earliest opportunity to go out and look 25 and fix or confirm they don't have that problem, either way. l
/"' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 g - L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
75 1 A compromise or one way to handle that might make (~N 2 -- in the statements of consideration put those kind of
\ )
N_/ 3 issues under 50.9. We don't have to do quite as an 4 extensive root cause and all that nice stuff, but it still 5 gets out there for other people to be aware of. So that 6 might be a way to get around that threshold. 7 Also looking at -- although we haven't finished 8 the review, there seems to be an inconsistency in how 9 different licensees are handling problems or degraded 10 conditions that are discovered by NRC inspectors. We see 11 some LERs where things identified by the NRC inspectors a'e r 12 reviewed for deportability just like things that are found 13 by plant workers. There are six other licensees that don't 14 do that. So we want to figure out what -- inconsistencies [v') 15 bother us so we look at those and try to figure out what 16 should be done and this rule change may be a way to clarify 17 how those things should be handled. 18 We also think that the LER that is submitted 19 should explain or address when the degraded condition could 20 have been first identified. If it wasn't identified at the 21 first time, that should be explained as well. That's I 22 related to, but not directly tied to the root cause. 23 Basically that's the comments on the rule itself. 24 There was also a solicitation for anything we thought where 25 additional reporting requirement and reduction could be ('s ( ,) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 f 1
76 l' made. We're not going to spend a lot of time looking at () 2 that, by the way, but one thing that comes to mind would be 3 the annual summary of 50.59s. I'm not sure who reads those, 4 but that seems like a lot.of effort for no gain. And if you 5 could make that go away, I don't think anybody would be 6 hurting too bad. 7 So thank you. 8 MR. ROSSI: Thank you. Does anybody.have any 9 questions or comments for Mr. Lochbaum before we go on? 10 MR. ALLISON: I do. 11 MR. ROSSI: I guess Dennis Allison does. k 12 MR. ALLISON: And I would address this not only to 13 Mr. Lochbaum, but to everyone in the audience. The question 14 of say a plant discovers a problem with vortexing, their () 15 calculations were wrong, they redo them, and make it by, but 16 it's the kind of thing that perhaps other plants should know 17 about, that the NRC perhaps should know about and that comes 18 up in a lot of other areas,. too, material degradations, 19 concrete spauling, and things like that. I would appreciate 20 any suggestions as to how you can capture those kinds of 21- things, the safety function is still operable, you decide 22 the plant doesn't need to shut down, but those -- it somehow i 23 seems like the NRC ought to review this. The concrete is 24 degrading, whatever is going on and other plants ought to 25 know about them too. So I would appreciate any suggestions, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. , O~- Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l 1 (202) 842-0034
, ,e L ~ 99 -
l 1 how to word a criterion along those lines. J 2 NR. ROSSI: -Any other questions or comments on Mr.
}-
3 Lochbaum's remarks? 1 4- [:No response.] ! 5 MR. ROSSI: Okay. I understand that John Karrick 6
.has some comments that he would like to make.
7 MR. KARRICK: .Yes, I'm John Karrick, I work at the l 8 EnergyjCenter-for Alliant IES Utilities. And I know I'm one 9 of fe,w voices from utility reps that wanted to make at least j .10 a verbal presentation of some of the other reporting 11 criteria other than 50.72'and 50.73 that we will be writing.
- I 12 in comments with. I figured I would take this opportunity 13 to just briefly go over those.
l 14 10 CFR Part 20, there are three criteria, 1906 ()- 15 Delta 1 and' Delta 2, and 2201(a) (1) , all three of which ' , 16 require reports to be made immediately and simply from a 17 .perspectivelof enforce ~ ment activities. It would be prudent
-18 to better identify or~ define immediately, perhaps consistent l;
l 19 with the eight hours that-we're now looking at for 50.72. 20 Also part 2673 (b) for fitness for duty, apparently 21 ~ there's a requirement for 24 hours by telephone. Most.of
- 22. those events discussed would result in immediate removal of 23- access to the facility by.any perpetrators of those types of 24 events and we just. question and recommend a second look at
- l. 25- that. We don't necessarily know the bases for that report, 1'
I i l (']
.s/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1'
L _ __ _ ______-___ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
78 1 but something perhaps a litcle bit longer than that might be p l (;y 2' a worthwhile. effort. -And to reiterate, it was presented 3 earlier, 50.46 for ECCS modeling, (a) (3) (ii) , we would like l 4 to recommend that the annual report for insignificant changes or errors be deleted based on the nature of the 5 6 report itself being insignificant errors. 1
;7 Also 10 CFR 73.81, I don't have a lot of 8 specifics, but for security event reporting, some of which
. 9; i a' r. one-hour reporta-for cases where there is actually no 10 threat, I believe one is an unauthorized access, but there 11 is no threat to the facility and it's currently a one-hour i 12 report. So those are some of the other codes we are looking 13 at writing up to submit for consideration of perhaps 14 reducing burden or better defining the requirement. We hope
., 15 and realize those don't happen often. When they do, we 16 would like to have it clearly defined so on the enforcement 17 end we're able to know the rule.
18 IfLyou don't mind, I had some other comments 19 associated with our presentation earlier on 50.72 and 50.73. 20 Some of'our statements were, of course, how we interpreted 21 -the ANPR and I would.like to hear maybe some comments back 22 -from this panel on a couple issues. One was item 13 on the 23 paragraph regarding enforcement being tied severity level to 24 perhaps for reporting criteria and I was just -- maybe Mr. 25 'Allison might be able to expand on what that really meant I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\-
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
- _ _ _ _ _ _--_---_x________--.------.-------------------------------- - - - . . - - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - __ u
)
79 1 -and did we read that correctly. () 2 3 MR. ROSSI: I'm not sure that we can give you a very good answer to your question, but'I think that that's 4 pretty much directed at looking at things like loss of 5 safety function and loss of safety train and somehow taking 6 those kinds of risk significance into account. And I know-7 -- that -- and I understand your concern and comment about L 8 addressing it in the rule itself. And I don't know what we I 9 intend to do in the rule, but I don't think there will be 1 10 anything more in the rule. And I'm sure you're aware that 11 there are many other; efforts underway in the agency to look 12 at the inspection program, look at enforcement, and that 1 13 kind of thing and that will probably be the place'where your 14~ concerns are addressed. t0 ( / L 15 .MR. KARRICK: Now, leaving the area of 16 enforcement, we all benefitted somewhat from the discretion 17 of FSAR accuracy and deviations and we were interested in 18 your opinion and comments on -- if not some discretion, at l 19 least a board review of any potential deportability 20 violations between now and the time the new rule is 21 implemented. L 22 MR. ROSSI: I'm not sure that anybody here can 23 reply to that comment. I don't think any of us are in a 24 position to be able to give you an answer on that one. I l 25 mean, -- you are? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I 'O- Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
80 1 MR. MIZUNO: I just wanted to know, because if (~) 2 you're going to have to -- I don't understand what you're V 3 talking about. So in order to have a further discussion 4 within OGC, you need to explain to me now what you mean. 5 MR. KARRICK: Okey. 6 MR. MIZUNO: Because in my mind what happened in 7 the FSAR area seems to have no relevance to what we're 8 talking about here. 9 MR. KARRICK: I can cite an example, and as a 10 matter of fact I've drafted the NOV response at my facility 11 right now to a level four violation on a reporting -- 12 failure to report and event that was clearly lower than the 13 threshold of the Nine Mile Point event that got so much 14 publicity. As a matter of fact, the outcome of the Nine (}
\ms 15 Mile Point event and the NRC statements on it were the basis 16 for us not reporting the event at our facility and yet we 17 have a level four violation now that was kind of a -- it's 18 an indication, perhaps, that a lot of the folks in my 19 business try to stay on top of the culture, the climate, and 20 the trends in enforcement as guidance as we're we should be 21 when the residents maybe aren't really there yet or not 22 following as closely and then so the region incurs or we i 23 incur enforcement action for trying to go with the current 24 climate and reporting. So until that is resolved through 25 rulemaking I was simply asking, and maybe Mr. Allison gets gs AlRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I\ ') Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034 i I
i l- 81 1 or AEOD gets phone calls from regional and enforcement 2 branch people for questions, in this case I believe a senior i 3 resident made up.their mind and that was the end of the 4 story, at least that's what we're told. So -- 5 MR. ALLISON: So if I understand your suggestion, there was a discretion given'on basically a FSAR updating 7 right? 8 MR. KARRICK: Correct. 9 MR. ALLISON: For a while, and you're suggesting 10 -that the Commission give a similar discretion for reporting 11 while we're working.on the reporting rule? 12 MR. KARRICK: For.those areas that are known to be 13- very different as far as interpretation, example being
'14 outside design basis reporting.
() 15 MR. ALLISON: Well, we're proposing something 16 pretty different than what the rule requires right now. I
'17 .think we understand the suggestion.
18 MR. ROSSI: Yeah, all we can do, I guess, is take 19 that comment and deal with it when we deal with'the rest of l 20 the comments from this meeting. 21 MR. KARRICK: Okay. Two more and I'll be done. 22 One was, and I think we've made a few comments i 23 .that we interpret the change to operation of a tech spec '
'24 prohibited condition to eliminate reporting of
'25 administrative tech spec violations such as operator crew i
l (" ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 82 1 manning, . overtime requirement violations which are examples ! ./ L t 2 in the NUREG right now. It'is our interpretation that that 3^ will be eliminated through the ANPR as written, th'e correct 4 one. 5 MR. ROSSI: Well, we -- there's just -- the ANPR 6 didn't say that, I don't think. And so -- l 7 MR. ALLISON: We can't really say, but that isn't 8 .what-I had in mind. 9 MR. ROSSI: -- but.let me turn it around'and say 10 that if you believe that's the way the rule ought to be l 11 written, I think when you submit your comment you ought to
-12 make that clear and then we'll deal with it as a comment on 13 the way you believe the rule should be.
14- MR. KARRICK: Okay. () 15' 16 MR. ROSSI: just amongst ourselves with very short time to discuss it or Rather than for us to try to tell you 17 consider it, what we thought we all meant in the ANPR. 18 MR. KARRICK: Okay. And that's somewhat tied to actually a third question I had left was, we were trying, l
'19 20 when we spent several' days, trying to figure out the 21 reference to the current criteria under a new heading like 22 partial. loss and loss of function which is where that 23 . interpretation came from. For event or condition alone,.
24 (a) (2) (v) for 50.73 it appeared when you first read the ANPR 25 that that was. going to fall under the loss of function ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 !
(202) 842-0034 i i i
83 1 criteria but then I believe item 2 talks about clarifying So is it going to stay on its own as a separate 2 it. 3 criteria or criterion, or will it be meshed under another 4 heading with additional changes I guess is a question that 5 maybe should be answerable since -- 6 MR. ALLISON: Well, yeah, the question you're 7 asking-is, there appears in the ANPR what seems to be a neu 8 criterion, loss of. function? l 9 MR. KARRICK: Yes. 10 MR. ALLISON: My intention when I wrote that was 11 only to try to make it clear that we have three things, two r 12 trains out, one train out, no trains'out. 13 MR. KARRICK: Okay. 14 MR. ALLISON: So that's an editorial -- my j' 15 intention was that's an editorial thing. And it seems to 1 16 me, it will work anyway, I don't know, we can't say -- we 17~ can't say right now how we're going to draft the rule. 18 MR. KARRICK: Okay. 19 MR. ALLISON: But it seems like it would work. In l 20 fact, it's probably covered by the current rule, except you t-21 don't think of things that way. When you come up with a
- 22. design problem you don't think in terms of is this an event 23 or condition alone? If you did, you would decide probably 24 it's reportable under that criterion. So it seems to me 25 like a change in guidance is all that is needed there.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O~ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 842-0034 I
84 1 MR. KARRICK: Okay. Lastly, will you be open for 2 I revisions to NUREG 1022 for areas that provide guidance for
\~s' 3 rules that are not changing under 50.72 and 50.73?
4 MR. ROSSI: I think the answer to that has to be 5 yes. I mean, when we go out with a revision to NUREG 1022 6 that goes along with the revised rule. Any comments you 7 want to make on NUREG 1022 we'll consider. I mean, I don't 8 see how we can do anything otherwise. And I would also say 9 that if you want to submit comments on NUREG 1022 when you 10 submit comments on the advance notice for proposed 11 rulemaking, I think you can do that also. 12 Now, recognize that to resolve those comments it 13 will have to be done on the schedule that we use for finally 14 revising NUREG 1022. But we are interested in the comments.
^
15 MR. KARRICK: Thank you. 16 MR. ROSSI: Are there other comments or input that 17 people have? Yes. 18 MR. VINCENT: My name is Bob Vincent from 19 Consumers Energy, Palisades. I'm also a member of the task 20 force here. I would like to comment on the -- first of all, 21 I highly commend you for what you're doing here. This is 22 important and it will help us all a lot. So thank you. 23 A specific comment on the interrelationship 24 between reporting and the enforcement process which we 25 -really haven't touched on, different from what you've ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i ( Court Reporters
\_ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
85 ) 1- touched on in the rule. The new enforcement guidance i
)
2 memorandum talks about expanding use of non-cited violations c) 3 or violations that do not require a response based on the , 4 information that has already been docketed. The mechanism I { 5 for many of those for us to docket that information would 6 often be through the LER process to support the enforcement 7 use of that information, that would seem to suggest the 1 8 narrative approach to an LER is the way we need to keep
.{
9 going. I can't imagine a check-the-box kind of approach f i 10- being-sufficient to satisfy, you know, the staff's needs for I 11 avoiding, you know, cited violations et cetera. So I'm 12 inclined to say the narrative approach is better. I think 13 it works well for us and it might be better for you all. 14 With respect to credit for self-identification of
N 15 problems and issues, the enforcement guidance memorandum 16 does not make it clear to me whether we need to specifically 17; itemize every violation we can find of our own procedures 18 or, you know, our tech specs or whatever, and specifically 19 tick them off in order to get credit for it, or if a 20 comprehensive discussion of the entire event is sufficient.
21 And we have had debates at times because our corrective 22 action documents don't itemize every violation and an 23 inspector can say, well, in addition to these five procedure 24 violations you also violated this item in this procedure and l 25 I can't give you credit for that. ; 1 7-sg ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i
\ ') Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 '
(202) 842-0034 l )
i l 86 l 1 If we.need to'specifically itemize every violation
T :2 we can come up with, then I suggest that be picked up in. l
-(V J 3- 1022 or some interlocking be provided between the
'4 enforcement guidance and 1022 so we can hopefully package 5 this'so we can -- we understand all the ground rules.
6 Rather a minor comment. 7 MR. ALLISON: We'll talk to the enforcement staff 8 about it. R 9 MR. VINCENT: Okay. 10 MR. ROSSI: Well, we can also consider your 11' comment on NUREG 1022 also because you're saying that maybe l
~12 we need to do some things in NUREG 1022 to address your 13 concern. So that part will be ours. But the other part 14 will -- !
15-
) MR. VINCENT: Right.
16 MR. ROSSI: Any of these comments, by the way, i 17 that we're receiving that are not in our area of { 18 responsibility we will make sure that they get referred to i 19 those within whose responsibility the comments are. 20 MR. VINCENT: Appreciate that. I have one other i 21 one that's not yours, it's Office of Enforcement, but in the :
-- from the standpoint of burden reduction, probably the 23 30-day response time to a violation is more of a burden ;
24 currently than -- is often more of a burden than developing 25 an LER within 30 days. Typically with a violation we lose I l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
87 1 seven to ten days between the time -- you know, a letter I 2 citing the violation is written and the time we receive it. 3 So we will typically only have two to three weeks rehlly to 4 put together a violation response when we have 30 days to i 5 put together an LER. 6 That could be. fixed - .I would suggest the 7 standard violation response time in the boilerplate be 8 changed to at a minimum 30 days from receipt, not 30 days 9 from the date of the letter and it would be much better if 10 .that could change to 45;or 60 days. That is not a rule 11 change that's simply the Office of Enforcement boilerplate 12 for violation. So that's a related comment here, not 13 directly related obviously to reporting, but it's a similar 14 comment. Thank you. () 15 MR. ROSSI: I understand and we will pass that on 16 to the Office of Enforcement. 17 Yes. 18 MR. MADDEN: George Madden, Florida Power and 19 Light again. To go along with what Bob Vincent just said, I 20 in actual regulation, I think it's 20 days for a violation 21- response or as specified by the Commission and the l 22 Commission has boilerplated that to 30 days. I can cite 23 some other examples of that. In one case, in OGC, I 24 understand the interpretation on issuing license amendments, 25 what I'm told,by my project manager, is 30 days unless we go ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
-- - -~ ]
88 l j j 1 through some justification of why we want more time, and (~'g 2 that, again, is from date of issue or signing. I most Q' 3 recently had a case with a 30-day implementation of a 4 license amendment where the project manager mailed it to me 5 when it finally got through to process it was nine days 6 after the letter was signed and I had now 21 days to process 7 all my procedure changes and get -- when I originally 8 received the license amendment. So a lot of the things that l 9 the staff does in 30 days in response to us in asking us to 10 respond to something, we have the same process as you do in i 11 trying to get something out of our house in management l 12 reviews and in most cases the management review is 10 days 13 off of whatever due date you put to get it through 14 department heads and vice presidents and people and chief (~'N 15 nuclear officers to sign something. So that's one reason V 16 when you're looking at the actual detail of something, we 17 need more time than 30 days in almost all cases to respond 18 to something that the staff has put out there or is asking 19 us to implement no later than in the case like a tech spec 20 change. 21 MR. ROSSI: I understand and I guess we have 22 somebody from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation here 23 that we'll pass that comment on to him and that we can -- 24 well, you don't need to take it now, but I'm sure the office 25 will get that comment as well as the Office of Enforcement i f'ws ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. () Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i l L-__-_.__-.______--_.
89 l 1. will get theirs. 1 L (w 2 Other comments? l Tg / l 3 MR. MASHBURN: Fred Mashburn, TVA, and I'm also a j 4 member of the task force. This is fairly specific. It's in l' 5 the category of other requirements outside of the 72.73. It 6 doesn't apply to all of us, but some of us have built in our 7 . license a license condition for a 24-hour report violation 8 of not meeting a license condition. That's something I 9 would like for you to look into. I feel like the 10 significant stuff is getting folded into 72.73 space and 11 we'd like some clarification for our licensing folks so that 12 maybe some relaxation of that. Maybe we could take it out 13 of the license. 14 MR. ROSSI: I understand your comment.
/\ 15' MR. MIZUNO: Well, let me just throw in something.
U 16 I mean, since this is a license condition, I presume if you 17 want to get it off of your license you ask for a license 18 amendment. And I guess you could even consider it to be a 19 cost. beneficial licensing amendment and get expedited 20 treatmentlof it. So one would imagine that the ball rests 21 in TVA's court or any licensee's court at least where a 22- license condition exists. Unless you were planning for us to 23 issue some sort of generic letters or some bulletin or 24 something that says, hey, if you've got these kinds of 25 license conditions, you know, we're amenable to taking those ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l-O, I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters g Washington, D.C. 20036 ' (202) 842-0034 l 1 _ ___ __- _ -__ - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -----------------J
90 1 kinds of license conditions out. I think that something 2 like that could be considered. I would think though that 3 the industry as a whole would want to come in and say, hey, 4 this is something that you want us to do. You know, you 5 want us to pursue this, issuing some sort of guidance on as 6 to removing these kinds of conditions. 7 l MR. MASHBURN: Again, one reason I think the whole { 8 industry has them is because this is at present in all the 9 license -- we have, as I understand it, tried to go down the
)
10 license' amendment path and got told turn around. So, yes, I l 11 am sort of asking for that kind of a guidance or something 12 .that says, yes, we would be amenable to listening to that. 13 MR. ROSSI: Are you saying you submitted a request 14 for a license amendment and it wasn't approved or not? k 15 MR. MASHBURN: I don't know, I think it was more 16 on the lines of -- I don't know if the license amendment 17 actually got submitted or not. 18 MR. ROSSI: Other comments? 19 MR. THOMAS: My name is Jeff Thomas and I work for 20 Duke Energy. Listening to other speakers comment on other 21 reporting requirements, I was just doing a little 22' calculation through my head saying, well, what's left out. 23 And I believe 50.54 was left out. That's changes to faulty 24 assurance program, change to emergency plan, you know, 25 changes to the security plan and the garden qualification l l l p) ( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ( u_-_----_--__---_---__---__- - - - _ - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ -- _ . - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - -
91 l' program. Those rules require, like you submit emergency g~ 2' plan implementing changes within 30 days of the change and i
\- -
3 so.Lome of those requirements seem pretty stiff. 4 MR. ROSSI: It's primarily the time for submitting 5 this information or is it submitting it at all or --
'6 MR. THOMAS: In my view it's submitting it at all.
7 I mean, if'you look at 50.59 you have a year, 50.54 for EPIP e8 changes, 30 days seems pretty stringent to me. It just 9 doesn't seem to fit. 10 MR. MIZUNO: Well, I think what you're referring 11 to is the fact that if you want to make a change to your 12 emergency preparedness plan, for example, or QA plan under 13 the 50.54(a), I believe the procedure is that the licensee 14 submits a proposal to the NRC and the NRC has 30 days to say 15 -- to advise the -- advise the licensee as to whether the
}
16 change represents a -- or violates the criterion that is set 17 forth in 50.54 (a) for making the QA change. And I think 18 that that was a -- well, it is the subject of an ongoing 19' petition by NEI -- you know, it was submitted by NEI to 20 change that. So I think we're looking at that now. 21 MR. THOMAS: Okay. Yeah, I understand the 22 reduction in effectiveness, or reduction in commitment for E 23 plan and QA. This is a little different. This is when you 24 actually make a change to your EPIPs, you know, under your 25 licensee's program where you don't have to receive prior NRC l lf ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, 1 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L l L
i 92
'1 approval, you still have to submit those changes within 30
\ ex i l ( 2 days. l %) l 3 MR. MIZUNO: Okay. I see what you're saying. 4 MR. THOMAS: So that-seems a little -- I just l 5 wanted to add that in the other reporting burden criteria. { 1 l 6 MR. MIZUNO: And I presume some written comments 7 will come in and propose an alternative time period, right? 3 1 8 Presumably. 9 MR. THOMAS: Right. 10 MR. MIZUNO: Okay. Because I mean, we understand 11 that you don't like 30 days, but then it would be useful in 12 your comments to tell us what you think would be an 13 acceptable alternative and the reasons why. Otherwise -- I 14- mean, especially in the context of an ANPR, I mean, the (~h ( ) 15 whole purpose of the ANPR is for the industry to come in and l 16 give us the ideas so that by the time it goes out into the 17 proposed rulemaking package it reflects our consideration of 18 your proposal as opposed to a typical two-stage notice of 19 proposed rulemaking where the NRC just develops something 20 and puts it out there, and, you know, you just have one go 21 around to say yes or no. 22 MR. THOMAS: One other comment. We all agree that 23 the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking is aggressive and 24 we appreciate that. But when you look at today's reporting , 25 burden and the reporting burden that would exist under any [3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\-) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 l
(202) 842-0034
93 1 rule changes, if you look at the gap in between, I was () 2 3 wondering, I think we mentioned in our previous presentation that some type of relaxation in the interim. I I know we 4 specifically mentioned outside the design basis of the plan. 5 Of course, that may be a little controversial right now, but l
.6 I think there are other areas that should be considered like 7 narrowing the definition of operation or condition 8 prohibited by tech specs, things like that that would not 9 require a rule change, but would give us some interim burden
- 10. relief. l 11 MR. ROSSI: Any other comments or input?
12 [No response.] 13 MR. ROSSI: Well, it appears that we have 14 completed the meeting today in terms of getting your ( )- 15 comments and input. And I would like to thank you all. I 16 think the comments that we received are very balanced and 17 thoughtful and it's clear you put a lot of work into them. 18 I think it also helps us when we have groups of the industry 19 that get together and discuss them and come in as a group. 20 with comments. That helps a lot because then we know that 21 it has -- the comments have wide support. And so -- and I 1
- 7. 2 ' think your comments were very focused and as I think several 23 of us have said a number of times, the more specific your 24 comment is in terms of the wording that you believe is 25 appropriate, and the wording that you believe is what we had
[ \ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court-Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ; i Washington, D.C. 20036 ' i (202) 842-0034 !
L~ ! 94 l l l 1 in mind, or you hope we had in mind when we wrote the 1 O) s_ 2 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, all of those things 3 'will help us in developing the rule. ,
- 4- So I would like to thank everybody for coming and 5 I.think it_was a very useful meeting. And it sounds like we 6 in the-NRC are at least headed down the right road to making 7 these rules more risk-informed and less burdensome and focus I 8 on safety which is clearly what we want to do.
9 So thank you very much. I 10 [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the meeting was l 11 concluded.) 12 , 13 14 O
\~ 15 16 l 17 18 19
! 20 21 22 i I' 23 I l' 24 25 () ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 b__ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________m._-_____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
-REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I
'This is to certify that the attached proceedings before-the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in.
l the matter of: i NAME OF PROCEEDING: PUBLIC MEETING ON ADVANCE l NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING l TO MODIFY REACTOR REPORTING
. REQUIREMENTS 1
l l- CASE NUMBER:
' PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD l'
p-C were held as herein appears, and that this is the-original transcript thereof for the file of the United States' Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record.of the foregoing proceedings.
> A/O w M Cindy Th mas Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
I l
\
E___.__.______________..______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ ..
I r K o A t c M a e E R L r U e R w o D P E r S a 8 e g O P O R l N c u r o 4 )#
- i M
t n e e 9 9 1 1 2 O P f
- c
%4#
t F t s i l n b O u E C I T i e m e r u
&p( P A
q O e N R E g _ C i n t _ N r o A p e V R D O A
7 dd u ee d _ 0 ee e 5 nn c t s o ts p r d n' n eC G s a r r Rd eo f N 2 uN e d t c e 7 cg e I K h e 0 h t e n a n A i 5 i t w wne s e l a e ot r n ie o M R t r u l i eotvia c ns E F C t s n e nt eh s s vc c u t at n L esw i n s r ue u ar v n c me U 0 r ms i g sdf oe e nt s i 1 a iees yF R l f gu nc r on ice s ei mta tueE t S r epwn D i i u q d t l of ae s v n o gt r , m f E na e n f go r ere S h a p grdiu onig no v mur f o l ad mt O c n gt rn n oio ssih n uh sfr oR nuq O P i i i t i n tr b e r t pr r O o - og or rpit pn gs t pl er gh of eoeot l a n oE R sd ein t i ne a r c t L P tn e r r t rer n dd e e mr e o omyiddi i t d t s ee h F mo h p f neer nii dd t O t e pdi ridd a evv o r en ad ee gvoot mfn n e r el eeee er r oi Y ck ihg emc r nnr f pps h i n R si s l a t t adnquu e yd a e e et u nn o n onn ooi o A t r s e er r e cf e r t t ant i gii t t a M t ui rt e i aa c u q os t d a a c d a a ct e c elpu e n nnir ormmf i M eme b r l i i i f r d i r v mdexii t mmr poo a ef f o U R miooo t cTTTeREEECRInnM l l l S P e hj e t n I Nt b o AeO k
- - - C - - - - - - - - -
e a h T me
- _O 1
r d s o e e/ u l u d n i n r g a t n nd i e o t r o rm C c po 9 ef G r n 9 r i
- e N / l ok u 9/ 2 t s d I
0 ci r K ) d 94
/ 0 a e A e 8d 9/ 8h t ee h c
u /e 9/ g r b s M E i t n 8Si s 1 h / 7 1 uo r en ht ca d n 9Rb l 1 d s n L o / / e 9 h e o a c C u t U ( 1 82Ap9 Si 9 as r n oh a n a R . 9/
/9d d/Rb l
s t t l p 3 n n5 C ut s) h D n 2 e a a1 Apnt eh tn 3 ga u E o /u / e 7 opo S s 7dR d6e d dn mgu m0 O t n de reGv R or en ua amo m5 sl s e v P e m hs saC p d R de os c s od cn i t e O i l t optsGv i s a ud p R m b nt a nR o r - tu ts 2 nt o o ue ee eC pnp P c pml uu m open l e7 i
) s F t s
s sa mrodd oeeu r mt adi r u0 q5 e if l ci b fa O e wceecluub l r R ut u s s r r t oF ps Y q elePl R cooc i ppl a a i l l i n up sC ( e R l r b oob nn en a yh A uN RdAPPPPFFuiigur r i R1 0 r t t P e ne P d s n M Nc h at h ta N d e u e nf id h M AS - - - - - - - CS Aol i y pI nT U e e em h h S T* e* T( bisee 1 2
1 7 0 n a 5 c d t n a a h t 2 s 7 l e 0 u r 5 g R n F i t C r o 0 p 1 e r g s r i n gu e t o E g n s c S n i d s a a u n i e O h c l c g r r P ni s e n O R s i
,e h o e s t U s t sd mn o P t n
ngi e ent d n de e oi migr t r n u sl f i m dnpr oib t p m t e n c o e eo mr prc e m ms i t s d ane o r o u mr o/ o s el d s cd e t a e er n u s a s s t s a q e l epppi p oonu t s e vl e d r r iumooen u e Rl at cd ePP r r g ne i qm P ucjhen et at e r fo r Nib t co h ta Ar a OSC - - CS on si - ep l ak s h Ti*n
- o e* I t i r
O 1 2
_ e t n v Ri s e n e d t n n a i t h E a e e c r o L e l at r e i f - p i t e f pr r h k wto c po i ns e h t i u t t n c h i gi r r s desns gt e i n r r e s t st ' nx pe i w k o C t i a ga n mie C s n R i c nr ge eb G R t i r er N oigih h t N n t s t s N e e r a e s s r o e t or ;u I K h e t s at a h t ap pd oet de m t i s t aht n re yr h d s A n h e r oyc ee h o t h i t dd t b a eu M E i w c t s sm w r udl s e a o r ns ei s L s s e me t t n bi u vgap p r en t e s e go reh U n m t y t n p r c a h g s wse i
,C su "x e i ys s i R m t
sf i s t r g n oeR ,o sd F e r n f o o pcNt b t O ei o no en r nh O i ud t r c r at r o e ec quo ni , eiof c f mh i S el p r c e i ot a n e hf pet h ew E nr t au dr t i npgk i r V gi u c t ggun c ug n sd u nisi etr h qn I T i tr e er t ca b i s etayt oc p" o ei r y opi l u a n f C pmqnn o gd nt n uied er a gi r na E e r aeioos t i t r l c mf a e i l J x r t tr c s r onisd ey B e ee ct o pi e l eh o oe ht ; h a r oet p l O op es r pb nd st Cpe r t r eo rnnengm e r d ge gR n e l ep r ga n l gosi e eu ieiN l gin c h mn t i f y o h o and nlynpf e a i cl ewit t c x i l w r egent ed pi i n u edl ut i t r e h mr pm y f e t t ixmd og r d ;ef t i o i r ap l etr EiAd b o t s i ed r sR ooSf l c m o pe T r o e oee e ox a Tno T e _O 1 2 3
, , . j l ll <
_ ~ 6 O S T N E M D _ N _ E n M s e n o o e A i r t c u i t a n s d c u D e n t c a m t n E c u a e T o r f r o v _ p y F f e _ A s f t e S E r e n L t s o f p w P e a e o s t e s v n _ M g a d O l e e a f o t m E m c r o v m u r s n e s n u h o T e i t a v s i h s f N u g l l o o t n r R s n i e c l a o o E O s i t v e g h t f L - C i r o r u h n d d e n s e e i p t dr g s t d d h F i e e e a n i i t O s r d g e v v o e l a t a i s e v o o t d l t r e r p r p s Y f o i i t f o u o n f o n n n R n o o g i g n o o i A n d e n o i t a g n i t a i t a t a _ c M i t r o i r u i t r o i i d t i f c i t r o m m i f M p e q e p e n o i r a p e f r o f r o i d o U R R R C l C R n n M S I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O
_ a - s t o - e e r s d S a n b l o n E b a a i U g n n g s m e S i i i t s r S s s n u n u I n e o b i t a a - e di t tn n c c s - N i l t s n e ol a G d i u s a ci r - I n t f e b t o S a e de - ut E n n b d i mdn g D g i s e e na s oe i t s e s R d e nn t d bf a O i s s d o F est n g n se - t i n oi a tei o d i S m g si n c O n - ) L E et c mnu mo r i s e ce n ef r n t V sy ep i t t e l s E of c d s i - L nd e st i l nn s d t o s a o e n c - E n n n t o gi n i C e a n t d t d a e i s r - N ) n n c e n e o si ud A ns i t de a n mo i d sr s o C I r ai r t t oc t ir r F t m f s nn se _ I h t o r ( oes sf u t - el a N of r n ba e o ts e n G b e mo i - I ( p a r g di i S mt eo t ei s n mmr mt a _ t n l gn teo t el u s ya n nec sf r s c _ i ye ya l S c Sl i S p S c O 1 2 3 4
t n n a a o n o o i h t i t a t r a i t a i r no i v i d i v e i o e est n es i t r i t r di o dit cly d u r g c r g r p nc ou t on i r o on ep h a cm i t cr r s t er n t cm er t oy o f o o f o a S t a ef r ds pe i t a ef r d e h em E nf r t B U eo ne s p f v en ox i i sf op sf S o yo i t o yo ed i S nt i l a e c n n l ae n o nn oep I n acn nl b a a u a nl aba i t N otr u r p f t r r p csr p i yo n eA G t of cp y o a oa ug r I net n gi n c t p e e n c f go S f ur ef i f a r gin yi r yt o a i s s o s t t ) E s em a tt em e f ti ( e D t e net d e t d e t a 1 F f aeh asy mn r e as y s ss7 O s aemf o t d es r f oms r eT d es ae0 mn5 l r l u o n ei r l u a r u , G miut r q n c nreo p u q 't s cf no f o l r b 5 e9 N I oe em f r i d tcnc ut i to reni adi n e pta0 r a T et pnf l l i l u uu yt t n l l pur o o r 5 R el or f i l ee ot n t pR O t orr fu wts y t i b rr h weo nit yeF t r C P ycutn gae a pcyn ut goc i l n e0 tnr s a i _ f E a bb i l t ee i r e s ce bi ts r u a 1 R i b h t ev odd f hd r ef pt a o r, a r pne o t e odd yi t pne c nev - _ pypmeef ao r r i s sl ob eef r r i f d e cl pld test i i ol uwo i c oph st c f o moyh usi a h ep l e s o l moia r h h p sWH s E csTt s aE pTt s o _ i t l s r o a o L e e P*
- Nee 1 2 3 -
=
z s en i r n h a e t e i o t c D b c t i c yidf d e l a e b ngan e l i r s t a r u us s h r o di e s e i n a ci t ed l c c f a sn i i eiu R d t y nt fe t l n bi bo A n a ei ve o l e a p w S F n did c b a g i t n ei s o cao n i K a t ci n s r d s h s r S t d m i o nl i n t a o a E p gu o t b r r em e i a e mt U r sbi e e c t ht gn r a o S ed h n s s i f o ou c f gr l b st u f a e n reo S g wda i t ti n y I o i i ne . et y N nnh i t t t tr g .
.h e d hiwfea n s on pa " t f O G l u i t
s i oa eh go s e r a I S owd r P er r c i nf d g wn ei e u st t gn n E i s e l i s n r o r ona a D l e a uh pmoth Mse e n pivh h e g e pr vd e r at c F mr s n n o go u l s h at l O a it e s eo i xl d eue r mm N u t o
)
i w i r ah n G i t ot o aw (
) s u eicd nwyrsf l
3i qel u N i o g s ep e o l ( h esb r n uo I T P n e f ub s sl
)
( a t s
) epw e b cr R l ed t o ih i n n 6 es 4 y
( i l oi s O i l i t e a a 9. r f h t P Mub al ht ba p 0l 0 on e t af e 5 an 5 t o" E ne ih o a p hi na n aat ni;yt R NTS c t l e iSo i o cci r er c ppc u i i t t e t oe cC l l h T* e Nt h SE eC e pme S ai s O 4 5 6 l l i
d a e e c em p t b n n a ono n y a l e a f m r ei vt v o s o e c e m g i f a r d n n n w e l C s a i o i d e p l eR er t n i v t r o c e n wN di ut a t a r e S i t s e e o n C s r C m E s c R e R p si ed om N d n N i u M I ss e r po t e r u e q e T a m e e r r e l cm s) e s n (s h t h a G i y ore w n e t w h N cre pt s ob s c ne s n u I T eh e r e t n i t a c t n s gw r c e v e n e v s R e s t ns e pa i e e OOP mt en e d en i i o ct a e r uyl i st nb o ems r ur i u s E gv n r a t e p ai o y t ne e pt R i a d ct i t r a s gp c apn et a cef r e L l e no ga c r i d tu s a A eu t ag l a l p d n s l vi n u o uoy t I d p ol f T n a i t n ob ge eit I N oc cn aa s gnt wa nh t i wh n eg ym ia g s g t e I ts c n i l tr nhi nt i tr nndii i r nt r l uy ot rt i nt i ot r d o oa o f l l powic i po et s si a ep a pd p ept ei r st r r m r ued at r gr e r r rede a n o yr ene ad e sdh p a u s dh c a- hsa r o r r l b u ohh eie ec ur oiec hh eur di o r h TT nSO t T nSO t yT wipn e h r n i g i h O*e e* E
- ee T* o O 1 2
3
1 1 O i g n y t w f e l o a l o s f d de e ni h aif t t e , c h s e h p t o m t s S b d n s n og T i a min f t S i d , n E d e m e e m S Yr o T p p m e T nf i r E o r r o t a ht sepe t C d f r e s i wcf N e pr no b oon ea - A d i s ,t i c ct e n sl n b L l u t a l a aia L o s n O p i l I teoS pXa E w i t T mn c V s ec oain t h n e ch R s t,f uh t e - s n t h U t dl , o et teie l n o oe S e t r r nd c c s u n c immt E - l a esi a t c - r i e T l l r f aoZt ot nt mn i e e A L 'r v c e s s mte t e ea ,nd n u i sl h u s t p g y pt s me i e hg un ar n . t iqw i o l a se r o n x oio emt c f o eel s r n g vh o oTF l i eFNf o o u r i n e e t r h h - oy l Tee Te* pp ep O R a 1 2 -
k i s r S r o E y R t e U f a D s E h C i t w O s R t n s P e t r F d v o e e p O p p f y e r i E o r t n d e O G d d e d e A b e i a e n R d i E l r e n u i V o i t r c l t u O w r s C n o h e e r E i r t y e o l D I i t r - t n e S c r r t g u T n n a c U i t r d ec n n t o O o u n p d a e r ei c r fi s e s s n o i h i g d i t t T i s i O
l u a s o c r en h t m e eo ht io t n e s _ l o se t,d i t v a s y a r u nnh r o _ t t a c ht ru e o mcd s l
. er ue N ns t .
i r oor ut c u O o r qn) c t t ot o _ if I T i d n c e e (s u r v nt r _ C n o a e e os oie r ht yt f i N ct c i nd o U r n e ga o h ut n goonn . F t f i d n ci t _ ny n nirt gc - Y et w ve o a n n o r T ef ad t s r oiut pt f c E e ei sya _O F yst n e u d r xt er A a h h neee uirr f a e gt S S _ F i t nf r toA
)
( i s qh met e ue sh t r r oh n o n _ O pe: o ooh t w e f t t f o S r l mt l i ade w todt S eidl i t i r f e ni s n n u O l uud qf e tevetimS o eh L e e r e or al l n ) st h e de r pe ni A ybb u( i f l l ue a nd mf e ou ch o teo al r t t t na t t neh a wid n d _ e vt n gr e _ r r re s i ed upm mn otn ee c i i et e dr en ev n l e evs o ooee O h a y Th s T wlapar r
e 4 c O 1 n s a m i c e f t s i n s dr g y s s s a i s m m d g e e n k s n t t s a i l s y t s i r o y s r o s d e c g r e _ e h g n n t v m o i l i o i t f h e i t a s r p f t s a gms u o _ l i p o y si t el a s t u s mms ynn s i N n m n e e o s ms a i e r t O d s t i o ar I e ns s t as c yr et s ct n T noR y s umr r s ae cet o i i A iA t t f e fnS f et wmn U di F o at scs s y eam wu o o ei O T l yed g n t e s d mes er r te phi c a t vn t C t nyo er t t et ugd s l awe o i r A t st a om n e l a st pseo nny yai asl s itc r mt nyd s c si c t r r mn fyc o st teeecec n i F s S nd yt i s ein s a eot oal n ntcf ee r n asl ewyeneg i E crt b i o t i s cr agn o r n a c ctoe scnet aodd at ed t i ooi n n nc ar l o s r d yoe eyd mi u _ r n nym s e v i pec cf c eeb t i r ai s s u t r n ayr F ee c io l e e o aiagid o t s tr egi i nepb o gcie nr t ait ein l r c S r r E ee f nag l xn c t aa hh o i enmouomnt e m TT t wREEIsACEASR o r i s l l fo eooeeeeeee e t e* t n e t e e h h T I n T O -_
u i v e t h t a r u f r u br t o o r d i s a dn e t a n n a c nr i s y a e , o r oep c l m h t p o a u t n n t n h n e ad a i v r i r h e g n e o r o t s t r n ) n o i ih oe r rr e e e s c e E p p dr s s t l i ol i C u a uf af r o n g co N s e d u t r o r n s e dl t A o a i d sr eu a tc s t c s ea n s a u oe M d st en o n o i v c o r r p h r
,t n
R i de e i s i t , e go em c ge a r - O ns e t a c nh r u e( F s d s n i n i t od e ( d R s e d a emn s u wd r c e n e _O E P is ns oa eh m c poms l l oe oc t o r r r o ui epd ec r o v t a ov l _ i r uotime u f e t k o sl ecao s f r N a s mi r n- a e gcc s f s v h ef a ovt eocoi ol A t rr ti i l yr f e r i t oi n k r ed nic r s a eir n a po - M f nd i s a m nn i s e r i e ehl gr ys n r t e na ee n ot n b co c gen r U i e i us c i H es c u gi r ns gi g q n n od st n s i e ol f e o s oac r r ee ei r r e a e k u rpof of o r i t r mit a s s n ece ee vt f c o aphh o r i l minno ooio n l u r r t t c ra ep a _ oi neii t i h ee - f b r a i ct ct aatr u t n ta a o chh t eb po s p a n e u al po e r r e eWWoh nCT np a r l ems a epl h r n vr e s r upo cOF r r oiEPR - - - mo ur sf i r h e r h e H e T pe**e T* e O 1 2 3
n c f
- l o
i t a o v r o o n p h r p s a i e c p e;k r a a r gr t o r x a rno n i
)
d es r p p b o e h ef e w e o ru dr a e t no u t c da ox h i ni ge i n l e enb k t e np s ey t t uht at c n r e e un o en sh t h a a c d n c hi t g d nk c e ma ul ( e et r ec i a h h e E s s a t
;n i
v e upc s oh i v gs n C r c er a i nno N di dt g s e d osr i r r t p e A l u on ei n n i u q aa gc O M wieo pvt o et r nr eiy n u ke R t s al da d vom;en O t nmn a l ueimn t e a oi o F e r oy o R mfoi t b n an wh mcs t r ;v i E dn in r e e df ogr P e e ed nip n e l zt r ue N mi a n nub r t i d c n u g i es ,i a s A d od ec n e z i ef r r f f aotr t ;n M i t eai d r s e a r s m ot ae e U l pyei n mhh r ue m H ml t ni ecliim t t c d g urssu ea l t i e l npidd s o r coan ox cE gA u n er r r EF or pm e a h s Te
- Aee O 4 5
a r f ge e t nh p a n i t t o eht o a r v m i n as i t a e pr o e r h m m of edld e r eg wna oy us t f o ht r ni n t a , c s i n e v t ht nt adn e i o e h t s de c r o s vt h a tn e e n t d re S s u n a e t d st l T e et n nh n e c e v ci nd e s N u i ot e n n d i e E po o nn s s mt p o p e V i r w e do mu r e E odt m ce o mo t t t t e n syee w r uc c e u t N ob r e bh s sb h a
,ir oh o O W st mns s t t f o
f e ov s ha t s s O e oma c d et n u mr eu e D t s d te n y i f e tal d t i l T s n yit s o i r t u s a
,a s c a ms so yf U st r n l
c s ec sl a H en r e u e e h t t a e n ht i o S ehf b ss st uvt t h e o e t d a r t oi d ec r m l ops e t iuef uk d urt h oa os e e a qst e y s nt wr i r r u if v f t ee a o t r f s r t y,d e e o toih l i tv e t o l t c nt l u r tual s r b ad e np e p n a or r n ee t i eh mu c p l t v t a s av mt e s i f y a e e nt s e a on r g i r o i nc ne r et hef r r gn ah r i ut uh cT aT pd t h e u qd e r e i s egt s Ai n t s e n t r d e e e O h Te e h e T n omv e Mee* e l l
c w a o o r n p k p t l e a s b x l a l e a r e l o s b eb pa b a l a e i oi l w a a h s t v y e v t a i a t b a k h e d i l od cc m n i b t n e ut i a a na hc s nt r s ed v l e e p we l a,eme na b a r o n ob na k r nt f , e t M o i o. e it r t l p o i r o c e t s p e R a fora b a t n n t f f l a o O mt r en e r e e re F r r t s e p r e ev wv oe b e d mew O R oot fnff a o n ) weg d t e m u n a i t E i e ei l s n uh n , dn()s egb e ( i h t m L c nirna m a i nr u ad s g f n l d e i s a n
,a i
ar et c r oi r o n e r mop po b e t d s u m h a mt nt e r t t oen d d d c i t n f r it a a od n e e a e pc e s r i i a e d u nt r eo nd eitl i a er m r d un nd uwmt e du ac i t paf ar n e r ee
, l i
ad u aet adb et nt vd ef e r e ai guoosd l r a mr h e a r h ett the ai s mu st cc e e r huot tt r tet imt mi d f d ecah t at a eh e o d nmpt nteioe e ne r nn u ei nwlut r mt oi t h e t s mt s e h a nu mut nmr a oi aos o pEbWpRI pTMHFREW ei i i b u u u i t i q q q d d dE l
- - E - - E - - - - - - -
a u n o O i ce e-e I ' !
e s c e n u N a s s E l l i D i e n R vr i g u s U s d e B t e f a o G l g N I f o i n t g T n r o R i t p s r e e O o p r r u P e f y d E r i r e R d e l a c o c r h n N d e d pc a o O e n i _O _ n a f o or t an n e e p mi o S u c g p r t T e u a a oa C t a d e s e x r f ir nm e v o E n ef o r mob i F m - i t c e c n F i ni l e n g eh t at E o d mn nik i is r e L - o v t t c s r t c oue A n o u n opoh sfr e ee n P i t d e i t r e et a c s pw I c r c a C e no u dud a p _ t N d n e e n i nt r ad c I e r a c r t mo nmt u R i xidl i uh o EEA r r r o HS f P os i n j t a s g i n i n Mte i S Me** M** O 1 2 3 6
~ pn i ua ) oh C n r g c R opn y gc e N i i r t ua t s n nS o a oh cr u i kr reR t i l g c s nb ugc e d n o u C r e o i wcA n o i p o i ta pn nS i f o f nd i c c r er k eR r fa o c n s i u C r s bf t o l e a l o t sl aR i m h i t ua wcA n o ondnS s r p CmG Sm w sf yaf c i n ( r o R r R R o o B e at aRi s RNf pP oooAo C C C M f t a d slaRC m E oNt t t t O 5C s7R r R mGAm o L h d y o d U k sAeee ggg n e g o a C,Nf C nC D r o n a aa a a t e d ooo a o ok k k Rk Rt t t Rt OEH wst aaacccGc c npppR p a d u n6 sil,t o 0 N ogggR e a a ga eeGe a C i e eee C k k k Ck mluuu of ue uena v l b t t a S u l l l l ec o ue a c a ccfaoa c p mr r r r r i r d ppp t oddd gd d mb mupt l p e ee s n e e g p a c eeein e e l l l l R c s s sf s s opa nuuuf u u i l P i l oooe o o i c r B e r r r er r eMml aab i N u b pppr ooob p o oif pct a l l a r a l l Ap pppep pr r r r l r b aOmnnn of f f ef i i i i n u s ec i t t f s s e vddd eeee pd sl l eh aipyv cddd pd eeeeeh s l ui eiii i i i ii i c c vvvmvliad el i cb vvvmvl ob i s erooo r r o obi r t ui0 eu r r rooo o r DRPPPCPPIn3RPPPPCPP 888899999 99999990 999999999
/ ////////
99999990
////////
1 1 6785622 1 5237567 021 200200
/ ////////
01 01 1 020
////////
9901 1 2245 667891 1 1 O 001 1 00000 000001 1 0
r o e e _ p l
, m e
r d e r e - i r i gu _ e f i n q h l p i pe t r _ S o m e e g T r i o s k n N f s a dit r r E e o oo c p t g M n a g n e e R r E dC i h y R I c f nR aN i U e) d s3 o g g Q o7 p m i nn E i t t o0 r r R r p 5 o oi s f h px d s c ee G d n n e a Rf _O N a a t o a r C o I y 2 d p p R yr T f i 7 i dn a N a R t n0 ad om O e5 c e t m d R P i F l a r m eu d s E o C i t o i R t nf u a d0 e1 t en i G s R ",de t ok sd ps E e n i r 1 i v u n H q oy o i e vr T e r e d o e r e p) O b R" 3 s m t e( r
, ,9 a ts e , 0 s/ t r e 6 n 13 s n t e tem 4 e/
no s 1 m2 nm e e i - Ge1 mr s n r i e Eif uo _ mu oq i Cd r R q -O R u U e s C e r Nb N R (a l
'e MEETING NOTICE i .W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AF98
- Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors; Meeting
' AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing a public meeting on August 21,1998 to discuss a contemplated rulemaking that would modify power reactor reporting requirements.
- DATE: Friday, August 21,1998.
ADDRESS: The public meeting will be held in the auditorium of NRC's headquarters at Two I White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville Maryland 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis P. Allison, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, Washington DC 20555 0001, telephone (301) 415-6835, e-mail dpa@nrc. gov or his alternate, Bennett M. Brady, telephone (301) 415-6363, e-mail
- bmb1@nrc. gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 23,1998 (63 FR 39522) the NRC published in the Federal Reaister an advance L notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to announce a contemplated rulemaking that would ! modify reporting requirements for nuclear power reactors. Generally, the ANPR requests public l comments on whether the NRC should proceed with ruleni. king to modify the event reporting l requirements in 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," and 50.73, " Licensee event report system," and, if so, the nature of the modifications that should be made. Several concrete proposals regarding rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 50.72 l and 50.73 are also provided for comment, including the following: , (1) Objectives for the rulemaking, which are in summary, j (a) To better align the reporting requirements with the NRC's current reporting needs,
. (b) To reduce the reporting burden, consistent with the NRC's reporting needs, and (c) To clarify the reporting requirements where needed; (2) A number of contemplated amendments, including, L - (a) Amendments that would clarify the requirements for reporting of design issues and limit I l
such reporting to design issues that exceed a specified level of significance, and (b) Amendments that would extend the required reporting time to 8 hours for events that do not involve emergencies but do warrant prompt notification; and (3) A contemplated schedule that would lead to publication of a final rule by about { January 7,2000.
The ANPR also requests public comments on other reactor reporting requirements, beyond 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, that could be simplified and/or made less burdensome and more risk-informed. For example, the time limit for reporting could be adjusted based on the safety significance of the event or issue and the need for NRC's immediate action. The burden associated with reporting events, conditions or issues with little or no safety or risk significance should be minimized. In addition to the public meeting on the ANPR at NRC Headquarters on August 21,1998, which is the subject of this meeting notice, the ANPR will also be discussed, along with other subjects, at a public meeting on the role of industry in nuclear regulation in Rosemont, Illinois on September 1,1998. A notice of the public meeting in Rosemont, lilinois on September 1,1998 was published in the Federal Reaister on June 26,1998, (63 FR 34946). Written comments on the ANPR are due September 21,1998. At the pub!ic meeting on August 21,1998, with regard to the proposed rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, the NRC is particularly interested in comments or statements on the following topics: (1) Whether the objectives of the proposed rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 are appropriate, and if not, how they should be changed; (2) Whether the contemplated amendments to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 are appropriate and, if not, how they should be changed; (3) How the contemplated amendments to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, or suggested changes to the contemplated amendments, would affect the reporting burden; and (4) Whether the contemplated schedule for amending 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 is appropriate and, if not, how it should be changed. With regard to other reactor reporting requirements (beyond 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73) the Commission is particularly interested in comments or statements on the following topics: (1) Additional areas (beyond 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73) where reporting requirements can be risk-informed and/or simplified; (2) Amendments that should be made in those areas: and (3) How the suggested amendments would affect the reporting burden. Many States (Agreement States and Non-Agreement States) have agreements with power reactors to inform the States of plant issues. State reporting requirements are frequently triggered by NRC reporting requirements. Accordingly, the NRC seeks State input on issues related to amending power reactor reporting requirements. Participation l The meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. and is open to the general public. interested individuals may address relevant remarks or comments to'the NRC staff at the l l meeting. To facilitate the scheduling of available time for speakers and orderly conduct of the l meeting, members of the public who wish to speak at the meeting should request the opportunity to speak, in advance of the meeting. To request the opportunity to speak at the public meeting, contact the cognizant NRC staff member listed in the For Further Information Contact section. Indicate as specifically as possible the topic (s) of your comment. Provide your O ' O l
name and a telephone number at which you can be reached, if necessary, before the meeting. Registration will be available at the meeting for a limited number of additional speakers on a first come basis.. Agenda for August 21,1998 9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Introductory Remarks - 9:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Discussion of Contemplated Amendments by NRC Staff 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon' Public Comments and Statements 12:00 noon - 1:00 p.m. Lunch Break 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Public Comments and Statements (Continued) 3:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. Concluding Remarks Note that public comments and statements may be completed earlier than indicated and, if so, the meeting will be concluded earlier. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of ,1998 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Charles E. Rossi, Director, Safety Programs Division, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data. - I- i i
~
3 l
ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AF98 Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending the event reporting requirements for nuclear power reactors: to update the current rules, including reducing or eliminating the reporting burden associated with events of little or no safety significance; and to
. better align the rules with the NRC's current needs, including revising reporting requirements based on importance to risk and extending the required reporting times consistent with the need for prompt NRC action. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking invites public comment on issues related to such an amendment.
e
. The Commission is also interested in evaluating other current regulations to identify areas where reporting requirements can be simplified and/or modified to a less burdensome, more risk-informed approach, and this advance notice of proposed rulemaking invites public comment on identification of other reporting requirements that are potential candidates for such modification.
- DATE: Submit comments by September 21,1998. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, Washington, DC 20055-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudication Staff. Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and
- 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays.
Electronic comments may be provided via the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc. gov). From the home page, select "Rulemaking" from the tool bar at the bottom of the page. The interactive rulemaking website can then be accessed by selecting "Rulemaking Forum." This site provides the ability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking web site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc. gov. Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW., (Lower Level), Washington,
. DC. These same documents also may be viewed and downloaded electronically via tha interactive rulemaking website established by NRC for this rulemaking.
' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis P. Allison, Office for Analysis and Evaluatica of Operational Data, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6835 e-mail dpa@nrc. gov.
O
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 50.72 has been in effect, with minor modifications, since 1983. Its essential purpose is ".. to provide the Commission with immediate reporting of twelve types of significant events where immediate Commission action to protect the public health and safety may be required or l where the Commission needs timely and accurate information to respond to heightened public ; concern." (48 FR 39039; August 29,1983). Events defined in $50.72 are currently required to be reported, by telephone, in the following time frames: , (1) Declaration of an emergency class is reported immediately after notification of - : appropriate State or local agencies and not later than 1-hour after declaration. l (2) Non-emergency,1-hour events are reported as soon as practical and in all cases within 1 hour of occurrence. (3) Non-emergency, 4-hour events are reported as soon as practical and in all cases within 4 I hours of occurrence. (4) Followup notification is made immediately during the course of the event for: further ! degradation in the level of plant safety, other worsening plant conditions, declaration of an emergency class, changes in an emergency class, termination of an emergency class, results of ensuing evaluations of plant conditions, effectiveness of response or protective measures taken, ; or information related to plant behavior that is not understood. l Section 50.73 has also been in effect, with minor modification, stince 1983. Its essential purpose is to identify "... the types of reactor events and problems that are believed to be significant and useful to the NRC in its effort to identify and resolve threats to public safety. It is O designed to provide the information necessary for engineering studies of operational anomalies and trends and pattoms analysis of operational occurrences. The same information can be
- used for other analytic procedures that will aid in identifying accident precursors." !
(48 FR 33851; July 26,1983). Events defined in $50.73 are reported, in writing, within 30 days of discovery. Most of these events are initial!y reported under $50.72. However, for two i
- categories of events the initial report is the 30-day LER. These categories are
- (1) operation or condition prohibited by the plant's TS and (2) failure of independent components due to a common cause.
Experience has shown a need for change in several areas. Specific proposals under consideration are discussed below. State Input Many States (Agreement States and Non-Agreement States) have agreements with power reactors to inform the States of plant issues. State reporting requirements are frequently l triggered by NRC reporting requirements. Accordingly, the NRC seeks State input on issues I related to amending power reactor reporting requirements. Appropriate State agencies will be requested by letter to provide comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking. i O 2
Specific NRC Proposals for Amending 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 Objectives The objectives of contemplated amendments would include the following. (1) To better align the reporting requirements with the NRC's current reporting needs. Examples would include: (a) extending the required reporting times, consistent with the need for l timely NRC action and (b) revising the reporting requirements based on importance to risk, such L as by adding reports related to actuation of systems that are risk-significant and dropping l reports related to actuation of systems that are not risk-significant. l (2) To reduce the reporting burden, consistent with the NRC's reporting needs. Examples include: (a) reducing or eliminating the reporting burden associated with events of little or no safety significance, provided reporting is not otherwise needed to support NRC regulatory ; programs, and (b) simplifying the reporting effort, such as by redesigning the LER form to employ a " check the box" approach to the extent feasible. (3) To clarify the reporting requirements where needed. The principai example would be clarifying which events involving design or analysis defects or deviations must be reported. i Issues and contemplated amendments: The issues under consideration and the contemplated amendments include the following. ; i (1) Requiredinitiaireporting times. In the contemplated amendments, the required initial ! reporting times would be as follows. l (a) Emergencies: Declaration of an emergency cles would continue to be reported immediately after notification of appropriate State or lati agencies and not later than 1-hour after declaration. Emergency actions taken pursuant to f 0 CFR 50.54(x) would continue to be reported as soon as practical and in all cases within 1 hour of occurrence. (b) Follow up notifications: Follow up notifications during the course of an event would
. continue to be made immediately.
(c) Loss of capability to perform safety function: An event or condition that could prevent fulfillment of the safety function of a structure or system [as described in 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iii) and 50.73(a)(2)(v)] would be reported promptly (e.g., within 8 hours) if the plant is in a mode where the affected structure or system is required to be operable. Otherwise, the initial report would be required in writing within 30 days. It should be noted that an event or condition that ggy]d. prevent fulfillment of a safety function includes desian and analysis defects and deviations. For example, if there is a defect in an analysis.g04 as a result of that defect a system is not capable of performing its specified safety functions, that is a reportable event or condition under this criterion. In addition, reportable events or conditions can result from factors such as: personnel errors; procedure violations; procedural errors; equipment failures; inadequate maintenance; or deficiencies in fabrication, construction or equipment qualification. (d) Partialloss of capability to perform a safety function: An operation or condition prohibited by the plant's TS [as described in 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B)] would continue to be reported in O 3 N_ _ _ _ _- _- _ ____ ______- _ _-____-_______-_____ - _- ____ _____ _ ___ ___ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l-l writing within 30 days. It should be noted that an operation or condition prohibited by the plant's TS results from any operation or condition. includino a desian or analysis defect or deviation. h" that results in one train of a multiple-train safety system beina incapable of performina its specified safety function for a period of time lonaer than allowed by the TS. i (e) No loss of capability to perform a safety function: Conditions. includina desian or i analysis defects or deviations. that do not result in a structure. system. or train beina incapable l of performino its specified safety function would no longer be reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 l and 50.73, unless they meet one of the other reporting criteria discussed below. However, other regulatory requirements such as 10 CFR 50.59,10 CFR 50.71(e), or Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 may be applicable. 1 (f) Other non-emergency events: Other non-emergency events that are currently reported in l 1 hour would be reported in 8 hours, except for a condition outside the coverage of procedures, which would be deleted as discussed further in item (7) below. Thus, the remaining events in l this category, which would be repe ted in 8 hours, are summarized as follows: (i) Initiation of shutdown (S/D) required by (TS); (ii) Serious degradation of plant including its principal safety barriers; (iii) Plant in unanalyzed condition, significantly compromising plant safety; (iv) External condition that poses an actual threat or significantly hampers site personnel in the performance of duties necessary for safe operation of the plant; (v) Valid Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) initiation signal that results (or should have resulted) in discharge to the reactor coolant system; i (vi) Intemal event that poses an actual threat or significantly hampers site personnel in the s performance of duties necessary for safe operation of the plant; and, (vii) Major loss of capability for emergency assessment, offsite response, or communication. Unplanned actuation of the reactor protection system (RPS), which is currently reported in l 4 hours, would be reported in 8 hours when the reactor is critical. Otherwise, it would be reported in writing within 30 days. Unplanned actuation of an engineered safety feature (ESF) other than the RPS, which is currently reported in 4 hours, would be reported in 8 hours if it
- resulted from (a) intentional manual actuation or (b) a valid signal (i.e., a signal in response to
! actual plant conditions that warrant ESF actuation). Otherwise, it would be reported in writing within 30 days. l Other non-emergency events that are currently reported in 4 hours would be reported in 8 hours. These era summarized as follows: (i) Airbome radioactive release that results in concentrations over 20 times allowable levels in an unrestricted area; I (ii) Liquid effluent in excess of 20 times allowable concentrations released to an unrestricted area; (iii) Radioactively contaminated person transported to an offsite medical facility for treatment; (iv) News release or other government agency notification related to the health and safety of the public or onsite personnel, or protection of the environment; (v) Defect in a spent fuel storage cask structure, system, or component which is important to safety or significant reduction in the effectiveness ci a spent fuel storage cask confinement system. fm Q 4
Feilure of independ:nt components due to a common cause would continue to be reportable in writing within 30 days. (2) Clarification of requirement for reporting an event or condition that could prevent fulfillment of the safety function of a structure or system. The current rules require reporting ;
' "Any event or condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of i structures or systems that are needed to: 1 (A) Shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition; (B) Remove residualheat;
- (C) Control the release of radioactive material; or (D) Mitigate the consequences of an accident." [ Emphasis added.]
l 1 In the contemplated amendments, in order to eliminate any potential for misunderstanding the requirement, the wording would be revised to require reporting any event or condition that alone or in combination with other existina condition (s) could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to . . ' (3) Reporting of design issues: In the contempitsted amendments there would be no specific criterion to require reporting conditions outside the design basis of the plant. However, - depending on whether they result in loss or partial loss of capability to perform a safety function, design or analysis defects or deviations would be reported as discussed in items (1)(c) and ; (1)(d) above. There has been some confusion and controversy about the meaning of the current requirement to report conditions outside the design basis of the plant. For instance, in one case
.A the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) characterized a building design basis as follows:
V pressure relief panels will relieve at about 45 psf in order to ensure that building pressure does i not exceed its design pressure of 80 psf. When it was found that the panels would not relieve at ! 45 psf but would still relieve well below 80 psf, controversy ensued between the NRC staff and
- the licensee regarding whether a report was required.
Under the contemplated amendments, the pressure relief panel example, discus
- 1 above, would not be reportable because the structure (building that houses the potentially affected safety systems) remains within its design capabilities so that the systems within the building i would still be capable of performing their specified safety functions. The event would be
{ reportable if the pressure relief panels would not prevent the building from exceeding its design capabilities such that the systems housed within the building would not be considered capable of performing their specified safety functions because of potential building collapse. (4) Reporting of errors in and corrections to ECCS analyses: Reporting of errors in and corrections to ECCS analyses would continue to be govemed by 10 CFR 50.46(a)(3)(ii) when it applies, as is currently the case. As required by that section, failure to meet the ECCS acceptance criteria (i.e., peak clad temperature [ PCT] greater than 2200*F, excessive cladding oxidation, etc.) would be reported pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 (e.g., within 8 hours) and 50.73. Errors where PCT increases by more than 50*F but remains below 2200*F would be reported in writing in 30 days. Lesser errors would be compiled and reported annually. O
- i
(5) Reporting ofinformation with a significant implication forpublic health and safety or common defense and security: In connection with the contemplated amendments, no changes O would be made with regard to the requirement in 10 CFR 50.g(b) to report ".... information identified by the applicant or licensee as having for the regulated activity a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security." (6) Reporting of missed orlate equipment surveillance tests. Section 50.73 requires reporting a condition or operation prohibited by the plant's TS. In some cases, this leads to reporting events that consist of late surveillance tests where the oversight is corrected and the equipment is tested. These events have proven to be of little or no risk-significance when the
. equipment is found to be functional or, attemately, the requirements of the TS are implemented (i.e., any applicable action statements are carried out) and no systematic breakdown of compliance with the TS is involved.
In the contemplated amendments, the reporting requirement would be eliminated for events that consist of late TS required surveillance tests where there is no systematic breakdown of , compliance with the TS, the oversight is corrected, the testing is performed, and the equipment ' is still functional or, attemately, the requirements of the TS are implemented. i (7) Reporting of a condition outside the coverage ofprocedures. The current requirement is to report when the plant is in "a condition not covered by the plant's operating and emergency procedures." Experience indicates that this criterion does not result in needed reports. In j addition, this criterion is redundant since the other reporting criteria capture events of safety significance. O in the contemplated amendments, the requirement to report a condition outside the coverage of procedures would be deleted. I (8) Reporting of events that result in actuation of an ESF. The current requirement is to report "Any event or condition that results in a manual or automatic actuation of any Engineered Safety Feature (ESF), including the Reactor Protection System (RPS) except when .... .* This l~ leads to confusion and variability in reporting because there are varying definitions of what constitutes an ESF. It also leads to reporting for systems of lesser risk-significance, such as reactor water clean up system (RWCU) isolation. in the contemplated amendments, instead of using the term ESF, the rules would specify the systems for which reporting is required. Systems with lesser risk-significance would be dropped and systems with greater risk-significance would be added. The result would be similar to the j ,. discussion in the NRC staff's reporting guidelines. (See NUREG-1022, Revision 1, " Event i l Reportmg Guidelines,10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73," January 1998, Page 60.) These changes I' would result in the following list: (a) Reactor Protection System (reactor scram, reactor trip). (b) Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (general actuation signals affecting , numerous components such as: safety injection actuation signal, containment isolation signal, I or recirculation actuation signal). l (c) Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) O s
including: high., int:trmrdiats , and low-head injection systems and the low pressure injection i function of residual (decay) heat removal systems. (d) ECCS for Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) including: high- and low-pressure core spray O- systems; high-pressure coolant injection system, feedwater coolant injection system, the low pressure injection function of the residual heat removal system; and automatic depressurization I system. (e) BWR lsolation Condenser System and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System. (f) Containment Systems including: containment and reactor vessel isolation systems
' (general containment isolation signals affecting numerous valves, main steam isolation valve
[MSIV) closure signals in BWRs); and containment heat removal and depressurization systems, including the containment spray and the fan cooler system. (g) Electrical Systems including: emergency ac electrical power systems, including emergency diesel generators (EDGs) and their associated support systems; the hydroelectric facilities used in lieu of EDGs at the Oconee Station; safety related gas turbine generators; BWR dedicated Division 3 EDGs and their associated support systems; and station blackout diesel generators (and black-start gas turbines that serve a similar purpose and are started from the control room and included in the plant's and emergency procedures). ' (h) Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) Mitigating Systems, (i) PWR Auxiliary Feedwater Systems. i (j) Service Water (actuation of standby, emergency service water systems only). (k) Reactor Building and Containment Annulus Filter Systems. (9) Shutdown events. The current rule requires providing the " Status of structures, components, or syGtems that were inoperable at the start of the event and that contributed to the event"_ and "An assessment of the safety consequences and implications of the event. This 4 assessment must include the availability of other systems or components that could have I performed the same function as the components and systems that failed during the event." In some cases, this does not provide enough information to estimate the risk associated with important shutdown events. in the contemplated amendments, these requirements would be clarified to better indicate information required on the status of systems that are included in the operating or emergency procedures that could have been used in recovering from the event to support risk assessment of the event. (10) Human performance. The current rule requires reporting the following information regarding human performance as a part of the narrative description of the event contained in the wntten 30 day report:
"(1) Operator actions that affected the course of the event, including operator errors, procedural deficiencies, or both, that contributed to the event.
(2) For each personnel error, the licensee shall discuss: (i) Whether the error was a cognitive error (e.g., failure to recognize the actual plant condition, failure to realize which systems should be functioning, failure to recognize the true nature of the event) or a procedural error; I (ii) Whether the error was contrary to an approved procedure, was a direct result of an error in an approved procedure, or was associated with an activity or task that was not covered by an approved procedure; O ' I i i
(iii) Any unusual characteristics of the work location (e.g., heat, noise) that directly contributed to the error; and O (iv) The type of personnel involved (i.e., contractor personnel, utility-licensed operator, utility non-licensed operator, other utility personnel)." Human performance information is needed to support analysis of human error probabilities used in risk assessments. This helps in making risk-informed decisions regarding human performance issues in areas such as inspection program development, evaluation of licensing actions, preparation of generic communications and resolution of generic issues. Consistent with the advanced incident reporting system of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and l- Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Committee on the Safety of Nuclear installations (CSNI) and the Internailonal Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the contemplated amendments would require information on how the human performance factors listed below affected the' event to the extent they apply. (See NEA/CSNI/R(g7)15, PART I, improving Reporting and Coding of Human and Organizational Factors in Event Reperts," April 1998, Page 15 and Page 16.) (a) Personnel errors and human performance related issues in the areas of procedures, training, communication, human engineering, management, and supervision. (b) In the area of procedures, errors due to missing procedures, procedures which are inadequate due to technical or human factors deficiencies, or which have not been maintained current. (c) Training errors due to a failure to provide training, having provided inadequate training, or training (such as simulator training or on-the-job training) that does not provide an environment comparable to that in the plant. (d) Communications errors due to inadequate, untimely, misunderstood, or missing - communication or due to the quality of the communication equipment. (e) Human engineenng issues related to the interface or lack thereof between the human and the machine (such as size, shape, location, function or content of displays, controls, equipment or labels) as well as environmental issues such as lighting, temperature, noise, radiation and work area layout. (f) Management errors due to management expectations, corrective actions, root cause determinations, or audits which are inadequate, untimely or missing. (g) In the area of supervision, errors due a lack of supervision, inadequate supervision, job staffing, overtime, scheduling and planning, work practices (such as briefings, logs, work packages, team work, decision making, and housekeeping) or because of inadequate verification, awareness or self-checking. (h) The department for which key personnel work and the type of work or activity being ,
. performed. 1 This information is already being captured in the narrative section of most LERs submitted under the current rule, as discussed in the NRC staff's reporting guidelines. (See NUREG-1022, Revision 1, " Event Reporting Guidelines,10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73," January 1998, Page 110.)
The amended rule would explicitly recognize the information discussed in the guidelines. j i in the amended rule, such human performance information would be provided using a I
" check the box" approach added to the LER form, to minimize the reporting burden. l LO e i
(11) LER form. The current LER form relies heavily on a narrative to provide information such as the human performance information discussed above, equipment that was not available, and equipment that was actuated. It appears that the ,eporting effort could be reduced by adopting a " check the box" approach to the extent practical. A narrative would still
- be required to convey an understanding of the event. However, data regarding human and equipment performance, for example, would be included in the narrative only if they are pertinent to understanding the event.
In conjunction with the contemplated amendments, the LER form would be redesigned to reduce the reporting effort. To the extent practical, this approach would be compatible with equipment failure reporting in the industry's Equipment Performance and Information Exchange (EPlX) program. (12) Electronic reporting. The NRC staff is currently planning to implement an electronic reporting program, known as the Agency-wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), that will in general provide for electronic submittal of many types of reports, including LERs. Accordingly, no separate rulemaking effort to provide for electronic submittal of LERs is contemplated. (13) Enforcement. Since the criteria for reporting arising from this rulemaking would focus on matters of safety significance and be more risk informed, the reporting criteria may be a relevant consideration in determining the severity level of a violation under the Enforcement Policy. The staf' intends to consider the reporting criteria in its ongoing review of the severity levels in the NRC Enforcement Policy. Contemplated Schedule. The contemplated schedule for the rulemaking is as follows:
- 8/21/98, Conduct public workshop to discuss ANPR
= 9/18/98, Receive public comments on ANPR
= 10/16/98, Provide proposed rule package to NRC staff working group for comment
- 11/27/98, Provide proposed rule package to formal concurrence chain
- 1/8/99, Provide proposed rule package to CRGR and ACRS 2/5/99, Complete briefing of CRGR and ACRS
= 2/26/99, Provide proposed rule package to Commission 4/2/99, Publish proposed rule -
- 5/2/99, Initial public comments due to OMB (with copies to NRC), 30 days after publication 6/1/99, Receive OMB approval,60 days after publication 6/15/99, Public comments due to NRC, 75 days after publication 7/2/99, Provide final rule package to NRC staff working group for comment
- 8/13/99, Provide final rule package to formal concurrence chain 9/17/99, Provide final rule package to CRGR and ACRS
- 11/5/99, Complete briefing of CRGR and ACRS 11/26/99, Provide final rule package to Commission 1/7/00, Publish final rule
- Comments reauested The Commission invites advice and recommendations from all interested persons regarding changes to the event reporting re, qui
- ements for nuclear power O =
reactors contained in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. Comments and supporting reasons are particularly requested on: hj V (1) the objectives; (2) the contemplated amendments, including: (a) the clarity and specificity of the contemplated criteria for reporting design and analysis defects and deviations; and (b) the proposed initial reporting tima of 8 hours for events that warrant prompt telephone notification but do not involve emergencies; (3) the contemplated schedule. To the extent feasible, commenters are requested to address the following factors. (1) Identify a sprecific reporting requirement. (2) Describe the problem with that requirement. (3) Describe the proposed resolution. (4) Estimate the change in resource burden as a result of the proposed resolution. In order to support meaningful consideration, comments on resource burden should provide the basis for the burden estimate in sufficient detail to allow specific identification of what causes the burden and how particular changes might affect the burden. Other Reactor Reporting Requirements Obiectives: The NRC is also interested in evaluating other reactor reporting rules (beyond 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73) to identify areas where reporting requirements can be risk-informed and/or simplified. For example, the time limit for reporting could be adjusted based on the safety significance of the event or issue and the need for NRC's immediate action. The burden OV associated with reporting events, conditions or issues with little or no safety or risk significance should be minimized. Comments reauested: Public comments are requested to identify and propose changes to other reactor reporting requirements (beyond 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73) that are potential ! candidates for modifying to a simplified, less burdensome, more risk-informed approach. This ! issue will be included in the agenda for the public meeting to discuss this ANPR, which is , identified in the schedule provided above. ' I O l V 10
1 l l 1 .. List of Subj: cts in 10 CFR Part 50 !vf) Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental
. relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, j
l Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. ' l The authority citation for this document is: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of ,1998 ) For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. l l L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations j l l ; i
}
r 11
-. j i
MEETING NOTICE l W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AF98 ' Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors; Meeting , AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing a public meeting on lt August 21,1998 to discuss a contemplated rulemaking that would modify power reactor l reporting requirements.
' DATE: Friday, August 21,1998.
l- ADDRESS: The public meeting will be held in the auditorium of NRC's headquarters at Two l White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville Maryland 20852. j FOR FURTHER INFORMATION' CONTACT: Dennis P. Allison, Office for Analysis and l Evaluation of Operational Data, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6835, e-mail l dpa@nrc. gov or his altemate, Bennett M. Brady, telephone (301) 415-6363, e-mail
- bmb1@nrc. gov.
l -Q . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
l . .
- i. . On July 23,1998 (63 FR 39522) the NRC published in the Federal Reaister an advance _
i notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to announce a contemplated rulemaking that would i modify reporting requirements for nuclear power reactors. Generally, the ANPR requests public comments on whether the NRC shculd proceed with rulemaking to modify the event reporting
. requirements in 10 CFR 50.72, *lmmediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power ;
- reactors," and 50.73, " Licensee event report system," and, if so, the nature of the modifications l
( ' that should be made. Several concrete proposals regarding rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 50.72 l and 50.73 are also provided for comment, including the following-(1) Objectives for the rulemaking, which are in summary,' ) (a) To better align the reporting requirements with the NRC's current reporting needs, j
. (b) To reduce the reporting burden, consistent with the NRC's reporting needs, and j (c) To clarify the reporting requirements where needed; (2) A number of contemplated amendments, including,
' (a) Amendments that would clarify the requirements for reporting of design issues and limit i such reporting to design issues that exceed a specified level of significance, and ;
-(b) Amendments that would extend the required reporting time to 8 hours for events that do not involve emergencies but do warrant prompt notification; and )
(3) A contemplated schedule that would lead to publication of a final rule by about '
' January 7,2000.
_Q' l f
The ANPR also requests public comments on other reactor reporting requirements, beyond 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, that could be simplified and/or made less burdensome and more risk-informed. For example, the time limit for reporting could be adjusted based on the safety significance of the event or issue and the need for NRC's immediate action. The burden associated with reporting events, conditions or issues with little or no safety or risk significance should be minimized.- In addition to the public meeting on the ANPR at NRC Headquarters on August 21,1998, which is the subject of this meeting notice, the ANPR will also be discussed, along with other subjects, at a public meeting on the role of industry in nuclear regulation in Rosemont, Illinois on
- September 1,1998. A notice of the public meeting in Rosemont, Illinois on September 1,1998 was published in the Federal Reaister on June 26,1998, (63 FR 34946). Written comments on the ANPR are due September 21,1998.
At the public meeting on August 21,1998, with regard to the proposed rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, the NRC is particularly interested in comments or statements on the following topics: . (1) Whether the objectives of the proposed rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 are appropriate, and if not, how they should be changed; (2) Whether the contemplated amendments to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 are appropriate and,
~if not, how they should be changed; (3) How the contemplated amendments to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, or suggested changes to the contemplated amendments, would affect the reporting burden; and
! (4) Whether the contemplated schedule for amending 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 is a ppropriate and, if not, how it should be changed. O With regard to other reactor reporting requirements (beyond 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73) the Commission is particularly interested in comments or statements on the following topics: (1) Additional areas (beyond 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73) where reporting requirements can be risk-informed and/or simplified; i (2) Amendments that should be made in those areas: and L (3) How the suggested amendments would affect the reporting burden. l Many States (Agreement States and Non-Agreement States) have agreements with power reactors to inform the States of plant issues. State reporting requirements are frequently i triggered by NRC reporting requirements. Accordingly, the NRC seeks State input on issues related to amending power reactor reporting requirements. Participation l The meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. and is open to the general public. L Interested individuals may address relevant remarks or comments to the NRC staff at the meeting. To facilitate the scheduling of available time for speakers and orderly conduct of the meeting, members of the public who wish to speak at the meeting should request the opportunity to speak, in advance of the meeting. To request the opportunity to speak at the public meeting, contact the cognizant NRC staff member listed in the For Further Information Contact section. Indicate as specifically as possible the topic (s) of your comment. Provide your O 2 L l
, name and a telephone number at which you can be reached, if necessary, before the meeting. Registration will be available at the meeting for a limited number of additional speakers on a first come basis. l Agenda for August 21,1998 9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Introductory Remarks l 9:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Discussion of Contemplated Amendments by NRC Staff 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon Public Comments and Statements l 12:00 noon - 1:00 p.m. Lunch Break
.1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Public Comments and Statements (Continued)
, 3:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. Concluding Remarks Note that public comments and statements may be completed earlier than indicated and, if so, the meeting will be concluded earlier. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of ,1998 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Charles E. Rossi, Director, Safety Programs Division, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data. <O
'O /
3 l t_
O . Comments on ANPR -- 10 CFR 50.73 for NEl Event Reporting Task Force NRC Public Meeting August 21,1998 Vickie Backman Regulatory Assessment Supervisor Pacific Gas & Electric Co. QEI O 10 CFR 50.73 PURPOSE
= Provides written (LER) reporting criteria
. Reporting operational data should be related to events that could affect the l health and safety of the public
. NRC uses 50.73 reports to identify and resolve threats to public safety
. Reporting events of low safety .
significance is a significant burden to QE I plants and NRC O I
O mummmmmuummmmmmmum Criteria with No Changes Proposed by ANPR or Task Force
= Completion of TS Shutdown Deviation from TS per 50.54x
= Natural phenomena or external condition a Common mode failure l
= Airborne and Liquid radioactive releases
= Radioactive release LERs meet 20.2203
= Fires, toxic gas releases, radioactive releases, other events that are actual threats QEI O
e Criteria with Changes Proposed by ANPR or Task Force
= Operation or condition prohibited by TS
= Serious degradation, significant unanalyzed condition, outside design basis, not covered by procedure
= ESF and RPS Actuation
= Event or condition that could have l
prevented fulfillment of safety function
= Reporting interval I
= LER section requirements QEI I
(
O ummmumuummummmmumuu Operation Prohibited by TS \ l = Major change proposed
. Missed or late swveillance tests s LERs eliminated where no programmatic breakdown exists and the oversightis corrected
. Corrective Action programs already deal with failure to perform tests s Reduces reporting burden significantly
. Task Force agrees with ANPR l O
Operation Prohibited by TS is Redefined
" Partial loss of capability to perform safety function.. ..it should be noted that an operation or condition prohibited by the plant's TS results from any operation or condition, including a design or analysis defect or deviation, that results in one train of a multiple-train safety system being incapable of performing its specified safety function for a period of time longer than allowed by the TS." (ANPR issue 1(d))
= Task Force presumes that the ANPR provides a change in focus of " prohibited by TS" reports to only require '
reporting in instances where a safety system train is l incapable of performing its safety function.
. Provides reduction in reporting burden for issues involving administrative non-compliance. g O
3
1 l l l O l 50.73(a)(2)(ii) Seriously Degraded Safety Barriers or Unanalyzed Condition : Compromising Safety ANPR retains serious degradation of plant / safety barriers and unanalyzed condition significantly compromising safety Task Force recommends that these ; reporting criteria be eliminated i
= Conditions involving serious l degradation orsignificantly compromising safety would result in j reports under othercriteria l 7' :
I O . l 1 50.73(a)(2)(ii) Outside Design Basis or Not Covered by ; Procedures i
= ANPR removes Outside Design Basis
. Use loss of safety function critena
. clanfies FSAR discrepancyissues ANPR removes "not covered by procedures"
. didnotprovide usefulinformation
= Significant burden reduction on ODB reports
= Task Force agrees with ANPR Et I I
O 4
O . ESF and RPS Actuations ANPR Position
= Keep current LER requirements
. intentionalmanual actuation
. valid signalactuations
. non-valid signal actuations
= ANPR proposes to provide a specific list of risk-significant systems in 50.72/73 '
. standardize repoding due to differen yy definitions of ESF O
ESF/RPS Actuations Task Force Recommendations
= Only valid actuation signals should be reported
. significant problems will be reportable under othercriteria A valid signal is an ESF/RPS signal in response to actual plant conditions that warrant ESF/RPS actuation.
yi O . 5 l
O ESF/RPS Actuations Task Force Recommendations Listing of risk-significant systems in regulation is inappropriate
. Plant FSARs specify ESF equipment I
. plant specific differences in safety related status
. risk-significance of a particular system can vary greatly between plants
. List wouldincrease burden for some plants l
= Valid ATWS initiation only occurs if there are I valid RPS/ESF failures; this remains reportable f
'V' (
)
I O ! Event or Condition Preventing < Fulfillment of Safety Function Loss of capability to perform safety function criteria proposed in ANPR matches this criteria
. No LER would be required if capability to perform safety function is maintained . Task Force believes "alone, or in combination with .
Other existing conditions" does not provide clarification
. Current reporting criteria already require licensees to considerexisting plant conditions l = Task Force concludes the existing criterion is reasonable as presently written yI (O j 6
O ' Common Cause l Task Force Recommendation
= Common Cause reporting criteria will be maintained ;
= Consolidate all common cause reporting in one section of NUREG-1022
. delete from Event or Condition i Preventing Fulfillment of Safety Function section '
%E' i I
O i Historical Event Reports
= Historical Events are newly-discovered old events that couH have been safety significant at one time, but have been resolved
- = A statute of limitations should be provided to eliminate reporting of events that were resolved by plant actions prior to discovery and the condition no longer exists
. Low safety benefit
. Reduce reporting burden QEI O
7
O muummmmmmmmmmuumunu Reporting interval Task Force Recommendation
. LER shall be submitted within 60 days after discovery of event
. Rigorous, time consuming Root Cause and Corrective Action programs
. Developing accurate LER is laborintensive forallplant departments involved 1
. Provides time for completion of engineering evaluation afterevent discovery l . Fewer LER revisions required reduces reporting burden gg l O l g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Shutdown Events
. ANPR proposes that additionalinformation be provided to betterindicate:
' status of systems that are included in operating or emergency procedures that could have been used in recovering from the event" l . Supports ANPR risk assessment of event Task Force assumes intent of this change is to maintain focus on capability to perform safety function QEI O
8
O Human Performance issues
= Human performance is often critical to understanding an event and cannot be easily deleted from narrative
= Codifying guidelines permits unintended variation in HP evaluation
. Categories are subjective
. Differences in application
= Task Force recommends maintaining current rule
. Less ambiguous than ANPR Q'E I 1
O l O 9 L---______-_____________--__-____________________. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I I O mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm > Prompt Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors 10 CFR 50.72 Clay E. Williams Supervisor, Deportability Compliance San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
'n' O
Prompt Reporting
= Essential purpose for prompt reporting ;
is to: I
- Provide Commission information needed when Commission action is required
= Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking '
- Better align reports with NRC needs
- Reduce reporting.orderh
- Clarify the rule Q'IE I O
I
O imummmmmmmmmmmmmmmu Comments on Existing l 10 CFR 50.72 i = 50.72(b)(2) [Non-Emergency 4-hour l Reports]
- Task force supports this proposal l
- Consistent with NRC need for !
information l - Consistent with the NRC's need for complete and acurate information ! l
'1F ' ;
O ! Comments on Existing ! 10 CFR 50.72 1
- . 50.72(b)(2)(i) prompt reporting of certain conditions found when the plant is shutdown.
- Inconsistent with NRC need for information
- Plant is in a safe mode Task force recommends removing this l
reporting requirement
'1F '
l O 2
O Comments on Existing 10 CFR 50.72
= 50.72(b)(2)(ii) [ Reporting of ESF Actuations]
- Recommend retaining the current exclusion for actuations that " result from a preplanned sequence during testing or plant operation" QNE I O
ESF/RPS Acuations Task Force Recommendations Listing of risk-significant systems in regulation is inappropriate
. plant FSARs specify ESF equipment
. plant specific differences in safety related status of their systems
. risk-significance of a particular system can vary greatly between plants i
I l O 3 l
l O t Task Force Recommended Wording for 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) -
"Any event or condition that results in a valid ESF signal except when the actuation results from, and is part of, a l preplanned sequence during testing or
, reactor operation. Valid is defined as an ESF/RPS signalin response to actual plant conditions that warrant ESF/RPS actuation."
'V' u
'O Comments on Existing 10 CFR 50.72
= 50.72(b)(2)(iii) - [Any event or condition that alone...]
l - Current criterion applies to current and ! historical events or conditions l - Revise rule to apply only to "any current !- event or presently existing condition that alone could have..." l
'T' O ,
4
O aummmmmmmmmmmmmmunu 50.72 l'b)(2Xiii) cont'd
- Task force does not recommend using the wording proposed in the ANPRM for this criterion. (...alone, or in combination with other existine conditions...)
- Current criteria already requires licensees to i consider existing plant conditions
- Does not provide rule clarification QEI O i General Comments:
= NUREG-1022, Rev 1 will also require revision
= Many of the recommendations will simply require deletions from NUREG-1022, Rev.1 l
O
O aummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmu Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors Process Comments Walter Pike Industry Reporting Task Force Member Florida Power Corporation QEI O ! 4
= The proposed rule has an appropriate focus on the ability of l
systems to perform safety functions versus reporting items that don't impact the ability to ! perform safety functions. l Comments are provided by Section of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TF' O I
..)
O I (1) Required Initial Reporting Times The proposed I hr and 8 hr reports are appropriate for 50.72 type reports The proposed 30 day written reports are recommended to be 60 day reports
- today's industry root cause evaluations are more comprehensive
- driven by corrective action programs
- greater data gathering and rigor
- results in fewer supplemental reports gEI O
(le) No Loss of Capability to i' Perform a Safety Function
= This proposed nonreportability is ;
appropriate because safety I requirements are still met. (1f) Other Non-emergency Events l = Additional comments to follow
%EI O
2
O l (2) Alone in Combination with other existing condition (s)
. Additional clarification is recommended ,
= Additional comments to follow (3) Reporting of design issues
. The proposed reporting of design issues l based on actual capability to perform the safety function is appropriate. :
QEI 1 O (4) Reporting of Errors in and Correction to ECCS Analyses ; Suggest no reporting oflessor errors ( 10 CFR 50.46 requires a deportability update (5) Reporting of significant implication information
=The requirement is appropriate
%EI O
3 L__
O (6) Reporting of Missed or Late TS Surveillance Tests
=The proposed reporting is appropriate
. Important reduction in burden without safety impact (7) Reporting of a Condition Outside ;
the Coverage of Procedures l
. The deletion of this requirement is appropriate because safety significant reporting is already required.
V' I O (8) Reporting of Events That Result in Actuation of an ESF
= Report only valid ESF actuations
= No reporting ofinvalid actuations
. Additional comments to follow (9) Shutdown Events
. Assessment of systems that failed to perform the required safety function is appropriate.
. Maintain consistent safety function focus V'
O e 4
O mummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (10) Human Performance
= Proposed rule would not reduce reporting burden = Would create reporting confusion a Current narrative requirements provide accurate reporting = The guidelines should not be codified QEI O
(11) LER Form
. Agree w.ith allowing narrative when the boxes would re tult in an inaccurate report
= Agree whh the concept of using EPIX to replace equipment related LERs (12) Electronic Reporting
. The industry agrees with using electronic reporting
. This would require a change to 10 CFR 50.4
'tE I O
5
' O. (13? Enforcement
= Delete
= Enforcement is covered by other l
Rules and NRC procedures
. = Any automatic link between reporting criteria and enforcement severity levels could discourage conservative reporting .
QEI O i l Relaxing requirements l
= Staff should consider relaxing the outside design basis reporting requirement immediately--while rule making progresses l
'V' O
6
O imummmmmmmmmumummum l Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors ; August 21,1998 i l , 1 l James Davis l Nuclear Energy Institute l 202-739-8105 l v' I iO Industry Task Force Presentations l
= Rulemaking process--Jim Davis I = Overarching issues--Lonnie Daughtery
= Key Points--Walter Pike
= 10 CFR 50.72--Clay Williams
= 10 CFR 50.73--Vicki Backman v'
O I
O Current reporting situation Too many reports oflittle safety i significance
= Drain on resources for minor items
. Both licensee and NRC staff
. Particularly Control Room operators
. Distracts focus on more significant issues
= Inconsistent enforcement activity
= Leads to confused public gEI O
Do we need rule change? ,
= Change is needed to ensure
. Clear reporting requirements
. Only needed reports l = Overall, the staff's proposed changes will improve reporting process i
. Working to fix some issues since early 90s
. Need for rulemaking process to work
. Should involve users--regions and industry
= Proposed time line in ANPR is acceptable 9i O
2
O Industry issue Task Force
= Will be in place until rulemaking completed
. Focused expertise on reporting issues
. Some involved since early 90s
= Involvement will improve quality and speed process
. Members willing to help
= Need open process O
Implementation a key issue
= Must be consistent with intent of rule
= Guidance needs to be developed in parallel with the rule change
. NUREG 1022
. Enforcement guidance
= Requires involvement of all interested parties: NRC headquarters, regions, licensees and other stakeholder ;
yI l O ! 3
I O ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Revision to NUREG 1022
= Must be processed in parallel with rule change
. Needed to understand full impact
. Implementation a problem in the past
= Propose public review in parallel with rule change review
= Update ANPR to include NUREG 1022 update process TF' O
Table top exercises
= Test key parts of rule and guidance early in development and review process
. Industry and regional staff
. Public meeting
= Using scenarios, test for clarity and consistency of requirements
= Feedback insights to NRC staff during rule review process
= Could start as early as October 1998 ,
O 4 4 4
3 O imummmmmmmmmmmmmmma Workshop
= Two-day workshop early in public comment period
. Intent and implementation review
. Include detailed discussions in breakout sessions Allows any issues to be identified early in the review process
= Industry TF members willing to provide support QEI O
Summary--break the loop
= Keep process open l = Update implementation guidance in parallel ;
= Involve users, regions and industry
- e Include tabletop exercises and l l workshops as part of development i
EI O
O INTRODUCTION i Lonnie F. Daughtery Entergy Grand Gulf Licensing Coordinator Over Arching Issues 1
'O' l O umunummmmmmmmmmmmmu l Over Arching issues 1
. Bounding the term "significant"
. Avoid codifying NUREG 1022
. Reducing non-risk significant reports
. Purpose of reporting
'T' O
I
'O ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmu Bounding The Term "Significant"
= A clear definition of"significant" is required
= As currently used, "significant" has been interpreted as "any"
= Providing a definition is consistent with NRC's objective to eliminate insignificant reports
= The NRC should clearly link "significant" to loss of functionality which will aid in clarity.
i
'1F '
O - t i Avoid Codifying NUREG 1022 l i
= ANPR discusses referencing the NUREG 1022 in the rule
= Task Force recommends not referencing NUREG 1022 in the rule l
'1F '
O 2
3 i O MM Reducing Non-Risk Significant Reports
= Task force agrees with NRC objective to eliminate reports for events with little or no risk significance
= " Risk Significant" must be clearly I defined
= If not clear, could be misapplied (i.e.,
significant = any---not the NRC's intent)
'V' O -
l Purpose of Reporting
= What are the specific NRC needs met by the short term reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72
. is the short term for NRC response only?
What are the NRC needs supported by the long term reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.73.
. is the long term for data gathering only?
'V' O
3}}