ML21314A281
| ML21314A281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/09/1983 |
| From: | Cawley J Office of Administration |
| To: | Weiss E NRC/IE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B956 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-729 NUDOCS 8612170081 | |
| Download: ML21314A281 (45) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLE A R REGULATORY COMM1SSION WASHI G TO
- D C 20555 a ch 19 J
, E'.t.QRA..-.;DL'Y. OR : E ic ~ e i ss Offic of lnspec ion and Enforcemen FRO'. Joseph T . Ca ley , II Ru} ~ and Procedures Branch Division of Rul e s an d Records O fice of Ad.mi ist r ation
. e ..iri:r ; DP. ' F.t: I E; 0 ~ FI AL /,L'IEDIAT ' OTIFICATIO 1 RULE (M.ARCP. 4 ! 1983 t VERSI O*. J A d wi . h requjr d format ad sugg s eds yle changes indica ed are the Fd c *al r .o ic. d he Re ula or Analys is for the f i nnl rul n _ d ulato~ f l~ i il i.y Act Sta cent , h ~ords of is s ua c , and h cita io
.i "'::.' o, pag $ 30 and l of he F deral R gister no ice *hould be revised ed.
l h<' a .., r tt. h d on fo ,a_ or 50.72 s ould re iscd e~ sh o;...':'l, t he o. Jcr of pti ag a hs 1a a so cen chan 1;ed o ainta i n cor.t.in~ti
- r h s c~ti o~ (.ages 34 a, d 35 of the F deral Regis er no ice ) . Adcii i ona l f c 1.....1:-, L e\'isio. hav b~e made i he amenda o language an reg*Jla th_
discussed d
- ing our , 198 1 phone con er sa ion , I suggest ha ycu en t? ~1. OE L!) to c .ari fy he eed for he 50 . 54 provision cont2.i ed i
- he rule .
o . e ha he new ~ 50. 4 para rah has been rcdesigna ed as paragraph (z ) '!'his Jc s 1; a io : ~ay et a .ge dtpe di n upo . he i .ing of p~b ica ion f or o her u es c-011 a .i .1ng new pa agraphs for 50 . 5
- r aphs wi .. i. . 50 . 72 hav been r dcsigna d to ee f om~ n.qu .:. :-ea:en s, ch ck he paragraph xplana ion por tion of 1.he SUP LE~ 1TARY I *r0 MATIO the ule and the Regulatory . Ana lysi s for r eferences to specific paragraphs wh ic h r.a* r .> ed revisi on.
di t or-i ct , c .anges have been made hroughou t e Regulatory Analysis . You should C' ;. \;,
- lt car fully as they add consid"!rably to the cla r i
- and eff c .i eness
- - ~ th an al~'S is .
Pl ~ sc call me on ext . 24269 if you have any questions ccnc rning the mat ers d~ cussed above .
. 'j 'fr C;u~ J\ ,::=
eph T. Cawley , Il 1 1 1 es and P. o tdures Branch Di vision of .ule ad Reco s Offi ~e of ~drni i st at ic :
UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAfi REGULATORY COMMISSION WAS.HINGTCN, D. C. 20555 MA O4 1983 MEMO DU FOR:
- J. Ol mstead, ELD D. G. Etsenhut, NRR FRO': Edward L. Jordan, Directer Division of Emergency Preparedness
... and Engineering Response Offfce of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
§50.72. IMMEDIATE OTIFICATION Pursuant to the discussion of the recent CRGR meeting, 1 proposed that we meet to discus s §50.72 on March 9 at 9: 00 a. m. in my office.
Please find enclosed a copy of the revised §50.72 reflecting the course of acti on that I outlined in the CRGR meeti ng .
~ - -
} vtdward L. Jordan, ' Director
( Division of Emergency Prepared ness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Revised §50.72 cc w/enclosure: F. Hebdon, AEOD J. T. Beard, NRR J. Cawley, ADM C. J. Heltemes, AECD
- J I I
UCLE ' EG A ORY CO ISSIO 10 CFR Part 50 Immedia te otificatio1 Requirement Fo~ Opera ~*ng uclear Power eac ors GEKY: uclear Regulatory Co ission. fl.C 10 ' : Fi no '1fu l e . SUM. R . he uclea Reau1atory Co issio is amending *ts regu atio s whic require ; ,ed *a e no i Cc io f s 0 icant e en s a 1
- ce sed crn. , ercia nuc 1ear ower p . a s in g 0 e peri e ce wit ex s ng require ent:, a d pu ic comments 0 a ro os ed re i s \..: 0 the ru e . he exis i g eg a ; ~ ~1 4ses repor*ing cr*teria that lice .sees have sometimes fou d ague an t at he
* . occo.s ~o~\\
Corrrni ss i o has (fo-e f 2}~ found t t esu 1 not ' fications of little alue. The arrle ded eg a io i 11 clcr'fy the 1
- s 0 repor ... 2 1e e *e ts ad p 'de t e po"*er p 1c ts.
EFFEC T 1 E . E: FO FU- ...;rn ItffO'."'-'," I :: C I ;,.Ci: E ic '. *,1e*ss Off *ce cf S EC ti O c, E. orce e t, U. S. , c1eor e9 u a ory Co i ss *o n , 1 cs hing ton , . C. 2055 5*
I . BC GOU ecember 2 , 1981, the Corrmissio p iis ed
- he Federal , eg*ster a notice o po osed ru ema ing (46 F 61894), ad inv*ted pu lie co e~ o tu rule a i11g. he ropose r ema ing co s
- dere ( ) he i c rpora ion t e ilTV'llediate notification requ
- reme ts of §50-.72 in to §50.5 as a condition of eve ooera ing lice Se o i e uclear egula or' Co ission Aut orizat *o Ac for Fiscal Year 980 (
96-29stX (2) cer ain clar
- ica
- s and re he re orti g requ remen s co tained in §50.72.
Lice sees are now su cer i'i i no
- ca equ ts as e co e s o ei r a ica ons o o erat* g l *censes and/\ o act*o s au orized y e o ea ng icenses. A a plica io s o 1* ce ses u er sec io s 103 and 104b of the Ee gy Act (Act) of 195 as a ended, 42 ~5 1
~"
""TfrlJ:,,.iac
'-'-tlllflll'l!e~r,ree-ww~I"e!"~~t1t1",1M . ~5""4~ i nc1ude emerge nc
. l"~e~eH~l"'fl~~§~Stt9~ lans tat contain the va *ous eleme s se fo ~ in 10 CF Par 5 pe d ' E. 1 3 a 04 ac i *~ re ercia uclea 0 1er ac i ies ha el ec r c
- v r C. CO SU p O . esea c* a d
- cs ea t s a re t s * : ec o hese oti ica ion requ*re e ey are 1 *ce sed u der sec 0 104a a ,d C f t e Sec
- o A e .c
- E eq u _, e elude rocedur es a e a d Federa o ic*a s. 0 ce a 1
operati g ce se\~u_____--'._____d_ 0_4--6~ *s gra ,te d t e ce see s eq
- red 1 CF 2 to ac-**uate i e iate not i fica i o p oc dures u o t e occurre ce f a of P :' s eci ic "sig ifica e en s" described i §50 . 2.
rrier : C.. 5C.._ . n 2 . .. 1E i,~: r- * ~ ;:',.. iGe:'. ~ro'the-,.: \.." c,..:E:
.....,__ __ 1*censees as *o si ua io sore er,ts , *ch re c:u* re ot * -~c . .
- o 0
r s the Jta esand local response orga za ions a d 0 er
~)
e ergency personnel. On August l - . 1980 , the C publis ed a fi a ru e ergency planni g e ect; e on o em er 3, 1980 ( 5 FR 55402). s r e es a lished a l ace ed e . erge cy plan ing and pre aredness progra and, a ong ot er things, required procedures to be established for immediate notif i ca ion o ,C J a e i a d oca e erge cy respo se pe s el J cer 2 si ua ons. ese s ua i o s diS'" SSE i e *s*o ent* led "C r *teria -or Pre ara o a d E alua io o adiolog *ca E1erge cy espo se Plans ad Pre ared ess
- Supp r o uc ear la s" (here* af:er Re is i o II ) t w ic as ssued 'o e er 980, shortly a er e Er.erge cy Pla n*ng ru e eca e e '"fee lL e is*o sec* *e;, or classes e.A Emerge cy Action Levels in ol g o ca ion actio s-- *o ifica io o U usua Event, ler, Site Area E ergency, ano Genera Erne gency. evision 1 also se forth ea ples o'" i
- iati g cc d. io s for eac of ese our Ee ge cy C asses .
u;11; r ().. he ra *onale f'o ca io ofAU usual Ee is o ro ide e::r a prompt notifica 0n of inor e en s which could lead t o ore serious consequ ences
-H.. . OC(vYY ~
g i Ven Ope a t Or error Or ~ Ui Pi e .... l'\.le,,. a Ure) 01\ e )4-\;,., i Ch ,i
....,;"' Y' e. e.,Yi t be i nd i Ca . e Of I e
N G do are 3 a* 1~ at *ssion s Pub lic rocunent 1 H reet : 1, :c.s iir.gtor, , C. e urc cSE f rur ff ;ce . . ,.c u *ati o curre t p,,. *ces r,c e o_ta i re:c ea e~ 1a~ r -0 11 *ssio , :as ing o , 0. C. 55~. Sa ~es *i.rnager
(7590-01) ~ serio s condi ions ich are no yet fully rea .ize , The Alerte ergency class ref ec s ven s w ich involve an actual or po e .ial su s antia degra a io o the le el of the safe of the plant. he s*te Area Emergency c ass ref1 ects
; {.; *, vi~
condi io s ere some sig ca re easesA~re
- e y or are occur
- g) u were a core melt si uation is not indicated based on current inf rmat ion. In this s* ua io )full mob"l *4a *on o emergency perso ne ,e nearA~ite ~ s
-. - f\ . ,,,,.-
ind*c a ed as well as d *s a ch of oni o g ea s andjassociate co ica *o -~ ( I The Ge era 1 E ergency class ; 0 ves ac 2 or i:1ITl ent s sta a core deg a a 0 or e g wit e po ent*a1 0 loss o con ain et. s d*scussed ; he proposed ru e t e criter*a se or in e sio 1 a d e e am les e e s riggeri a e res pee i ve E erge cy C asses ( .... at enda 0 ifica i ac io s ) ro,
- de addi 0 a uidance c e a*; 1g license in he prepara io approval, and ult* a ely, he implemen a io of their emerge cy preparedness pla s w c us be sub i ed o C or eva1ua ion pursua o 10 CF 5 .47.
*,s
~ rev*sio §5 co i u
- 9 effo t 2c e e co si s e -:i res c d~
in he re or i ng
... {7590-01) 5 -
The* NRC considers that incorporation of the i ediate notification requirements o~ §50.72 into §S0.54 as a condition in every operating license granted under sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act will implement the Congressional mandate in section 201 of the Aut~orization Act. Section 201, however. a1so pro vi des t hat immediate noti f
- cation of the NRC be made for "any accident which could result in an unplanned release of quantities of fission products in excess of allowable limits of normal operation established by the
- ., ,~ ' i.
NRC. u ~ provision He~le be implemented by thi l\'"e~oses to §50.72 -eho
*, V, ( I vJ ' YI I ~ le
-eeP1otaiii-.eeJ in this -tlQti,i... *
"I' 11 ~ ~!, i s rv<< ;~ ; '
Besides a~e ndings§ 50.54 and {((o. 72/t'Ae sijeject! of t~ ... ~, .. ~ the RC is de eloping a new §S0.73 11 Licensee Event Report System" (47 F 19543 ). 1 The reporting requirementsof §50.72 are being coordinated with those of §60 .73 A _ +-or li.~tk
- in order to use similar phrasing and reporting thresholds i1111(the tHe *regu1a tions.
I I A ALYS IS OF COMMENT S Tv,*e nty let ers of cormien t were received in respons e to t he Federal Reg isteri ice pu~1i shed on Decem er 21, 1981 (46 FR 61894} 2. This Federal Register notice described t~e propose_d revision of 10 CFR 50.72) otificati on 11 of Significant Eve nts ') and JO CFR 50. 54 )"Conditions of Li censJs. " A d
- scus s ion of the q11;i re signific,ant comments follows:
Copies of these docu ents are a ailable for public i nspe ction and coyin g for a fee the NRC Public Docuraent Room , 1717 H Street, . W., Washington , 0. C. 20555
(7590-01] Generald-
\)J Ye..,. Y"U ( \ l J -to l+(:,}
fe genera co ents ~ tha the ~ orrmissio already has the abi i y t o enforce i s regulat ions and does not need to incor ora et e i te s as no pr posed i , o co di ons o ic se. itt §S-O.S~ The Corrrnission has de ci ded to promulgate~ proposed revision of §50.54 "License Co order to sa isfy t e in et o Congress as expressed in Section 201 of the . C ea eg a ory Co .issi o A t ho rization Act for Fiscal
-th;1 .,...,Jr ri,.11 )C.-t'l Year 198 (p l .C aw 9 -29 ) . s Ac and i s re a .. i o * ,so/
~ ,- '. are dis cusse i deta i in e Federa eg*s er no ic or t e rope ed ru e ( 4 eq u* reme s Se en co e ters said ta~ the r should coord i at the re uire _ *s
_u EG-0654 and eg. Gu ' de 10 CF Co~Y'Yl~+w
- 50. 72 wit other rules a
, o t ese RC1rep rt* g J e.x, 1 "ti' .
ie;_e, 5 iden
- ied o erla ciu A
requi yro ,s:or\ o ~ r csedp . ~ rega rdi ng QY\.
*~ ace* ce,.,:a ,.1~ 2 1ec er wrccri tr ci ec re* ecse res ,.. e ac 1 c ,
- a* g3/4. s u clear and cc , -e roe c i i .. a *t c u cause re 1uc ce e *acue ea ers stc ec : ,e epo t ,C cf
... {7.~90-01].
~
~
". **?-. 7 -
in-plant* releases of r11dioactivity that require e. acu~tion of individual rooms was inconsistent with the general thrust of the rule to require reporting of s gnificant events. They noted that minor spills, sma11 gaseous waste releases,
-. or the dfsturbance of contaminated particulate matter (e.g., dust) may all require the temporary evacuation of individual rooms until the airborne concen-trations decrease or until respiratory protection devices are utilized. T ey noted that these evens are fairly COfl1'Tlon and should not be reportable unless the required evacuation affects the entire facility or a major portion thereof.
In response to these co1T1Tients th wording of this criterion has been changed to signi icantly narrow the scope of the criterion to include only those events which significantly hamper the ability of site personnel to performs fety-related activities. The NRC has also revised this reporting requirement to eliminate reference to building e acuat.on and instead rely on specific radiologica release rate criteria . Plant O erating and Emergency Procedures Several come ters said that the reporting cri eria sho uld not a e refere ce to plant operating and emergency procedures because:
- a. ' It would take opera ors too long to decide whether a pla nt condition was co ered by the procedures,
- b. The procedures cover events that are not of concern to the RC ,
and
- c. The procedures vary from plant to plant.
b \*,tws T e Co , ission-tA k!t-!- t ha t the plant's opera i ng erso el s o ld e familiar ith their procedures . Howe er , the ording of the reporting criteria
has been modifi ed* {§50. 72(b)(l)(ii in the to narrow the events C,o t.'f~d
- ea,tt,r~ to those that significantly compromise plant safety. Not ithstanding 1\ * 'be ,., < ~
the fact the procedures A~ vary from pl ant-to-pl ant, t he Co i ss ion ~s fo1:2nd
._+ t-,.:+t.-Y",o-~ \,t;/1vlJ.
f\ihis *e,ite.-;elresul~ in notificatio~indicative of serious e ent~. Reactor Scrams
. Several commenters said reactor scrams, particularly those scrams below po er operation, should not require notification of the the NRC within ~f 1
~ hour.
In response to these colllTlents, t he Corrrnission has changed the reporting deadline to four hours. However, the CollJTlission does not regard reac or sc rams a!
"non -events" as stated in some letters of corrrnenrlnformation related t o reactor scrams has been useful in ide ntifying safe ty related probl e s. Te
\,t lie v>tS' Commissi on ag~e! that four hours is an appropriate deadline for this reporting
-t~vl..
- Y\~Y~A jl
. requirement because~ event" areAno as i mportant to irmiediate safety as are
~
vother events. Radioact ive Releas.Jfhreshold l<"l<l G-0""'M4W\i -0 Several -<oi.1menh said that the thresholdAof 25 % of allowable limits for radioactive releases was too low a threshold for 1-hour reporting. Based upon this comment and our experie ce, the Co ission has changed the threshold of reporting to 2 ti es allowable limits . This will eli min 2te reports that have pro ved to be of little value. Cit i ng 10 CFR 50.72 as Basis for Notification A few commi,~nters* objected to citing §50.72 as a basis when making a telepho ne no t i ficati on . e letters o comment quest ion ed t he pur pose , lega l effec t) and burden on the licensee.
... l7590-01J 9 -
The
- conmi~sion does not believe that it is a unnecessary burden for a licensee to kno 3nd identify the basis for a telephone notification required by §50.72. There have been many occasions when a licensee could not tell the NRC " hether the telephone notification was being made in accordance with vJ technical specifications, 10 CFR 50.72, some other requirement, orAjust a cou*r tesy can. Unless the licensee can identify the nature of the report, it is difficult for t he. RC to know what significance the licensee attache5 to the report and it b comes more difficult for the RC to respond quic ly and properly to th*~ event.
Persor1: :c4 Radioact *ve Contamin ation Several co enters objected to the use of ague terms such as "extensive onsite contamination" and "readily removed 11 in o e of the reporti g criterion of the proposed rule. Based on this commen~ ne~ criteria have been prepared that do not use these terms. Notification Ti ing The commenters ge era1 ly had two points to rn.ake regarding the timing of reports to the NRC. first, the comments upported notification of the RC after
*,_ bo . . ., .+; it Co W--l't\ev-ks appropri a estate or 1oca 1 agenc i e1 Seco nd , two -{;Ql+lifrnts requested tha there ea new four-to ,.. six-h our report category for events not warranting a report with one hour.
Based on these commen ts and its experience, the NRC has established a 11 four-hour report 11 category titled "Non-Emergency Notification 11 as was suggested. Im;.,::d
- a e S utdol'm Several co menters objected to the use of the term "immediate shutdown 11 saying that tec hn ical s ecificat*ons do not use such a term.
--- Since the term *is used in some bu not all . Technical Specifications, the I
ColliTlission has revised the reporting *c riterion in question. The final rule requires a report upon the initiation of any nuclear po er plant shutdown required by Technical Specifications. Explicit Threats \ I A ff!W commenters said that the intent of the term "explicitly threatens 11 l was unclear . Those commenting wondered what level of threat was being referred I to. The t'erm 11 explicitly threaten" ha., been deleted from the final rule. I I Instead, the wording ofAfinal rule r;fers to "any event that threatened the safety of the nuc1ear powe r plant" (50 .72(b)(l}(vi 1 ) and gi~es examples so that it is clear the Co issio is interested. in real or actual threats. III. SPECIFIC FINDI GS Ove rvie of the Immediate otification Syste When this final rule becomes effec ive, the immediate notification reporting requiremen tI ill pro ide the RC with ti mely reports of e ergencies and other significant events. This amendment of §50.72, "Notification of Signifi-cant Events" will resul t ) in basicall~ three types of impr?vements. One improvement is that the NC will receive not i f ication of safetY,~ significant events that were not previous l y covered under the existing provisions of §50.72. For exa ple , the final r4le requires reporting of any "major loss of emergency assessment or communications capa ility (e.g., significant portion of control room indicator or Emergency Notification System) . 11 This and o her changes in repor ing criteria will prov :de the NRC ith a more co plete Irrnnediate Notifi ca ion System.
.*. . {7590-01)
-11 A s~cond improvement is that certain events that were previously reported,
.:. . despite having little safety significance, will no longer be rep.Jrted. For e ample, §50.72 currently requires he reporting of any fatality or injury occurring on the site and requiring transport to an offs ite medic a1 facility.
This has resulted in a large number of worker injury reports. The new rule
~v ~-1/4\~ a.)\
requ*resAreporting~ transport of a radioJctive cont ,minated pers_on to offsite
~ a~ ; L '1 4l. ':lJ Y i -
individual facility for treatmen~~a- if/\ news rel~ase is pla nned o~ notification to other govern ent gencies as been made. These changes and others are expected to greatly reduce the numb~r of inconsequential reportJ; :
".'he t hir~ and perhaps most important impro_vemen) is that .t he ~~'1r;Or\ of
. l. Yt ;s; r .,,.- *.,.r- v~'l, ()'-it f. n* t , , f>->,,.~ .-I ~ _
t is rule has been closely coord1 te*d wJt1f!-RQr u1,fi..'1/4eR& ef Part i9, Pe, t 29,-
., <! '*\+/-:~1*: ,
~~ Part'TT":
i>, Many of the re~ord ng riteria in h~ -fteW ru e are s~milarr in ( 1 Y '1 It L"""" ')\. 1 L ..._ *
~*ording and intent t'ireportingjin the~ §50. 73 Li ~ see Event Report System "
11 This should aid ease of inte rpretation~nd enera 1 improve coordination in t he tat will i e- is e use si i ar wordi ng in their reportin e uirements e . . 1 50.SS{e) and 10 CFR Part 21) . --iA a&1ditie~, ** P, *e,esei RwJ~ Also) ~ -yrov~! r ,~ . w i£.,'n WoJ IJ
/xs being prepared-e~tliAiA~ tAe Cel'Pffli55ie"'s ;"te"t to/\revise emergency p1a ng
,... J II'".
criteria in 10 CFR SO)Appendix Cd, andAlO CFR 50.47 to el iminate Unusual Eve nt" as 11 an emergency class. Paragraph-By-Paragraph Expla nat ion of The Rule Paragraph 50.72 {a) states: 11 Gen eral Req uirements . (1) Each lice nsee of a nuc ear powe r reactor lice sed under §50.2 l (b) or §50.22 shall notify the NRC Operations Center via t he Emergency Notification Syste of: (i) The declaration of any of E erge c Classes s~eci fied
. i590-01) in the licensees ,ppro ed Emerge cy Plan; or (;;)Those non-Emergency evens specified in paragraph {b) of this section. (2) If the Emergency Not"ficat*on Sy~tem is inoperative, the the licensee shall make the required notifications via corrvnercia1 telephone service, ot er dedicatec.1 tP.lephone system or any ot er me thod
\lthich wil1 ensure a report being made as soon as possible to the NRC Operations Center. 11 (3) The licensee shall no~.ify the RC immediately after notification of the appropriate State or local agencies and within one hour of the time the lic~nsee declares one of the Emergency Classes. 11 (4) The licensees all identify: (i) t e Emergency Class tleclaredi or (ii) either paragraph (b)(l) "One-Hour Reports 11 or pa ragraph (b }( 2) "Four -Hour Reports 11 as the paragraph oft is section requiring a Non -Emergency Events Not~ ricatic"'. (b) on-Lmergency Eve ts. (1) 0 e-Hour Rep0rts. If not reported as a declaration of an Emerge cy Class under paragraph (a) of the section, he licensee shall notify t e RC as soon as possible and in a11 cas~s within one hour of the occurrence of any o the follow*ng:"
*This introductory paragraph reflects some consolidation of language that was repea ed in various subparagrap s of the proposed rule. In general, he i en and s ope of this paragraph do not refle~t any cha nge from the proposed rule.
Several titles were added to this and subsequent sections. Fr ea ple paragraph 50.72(b) is titled" o -Emerge ncy E ents 11 and this has t. o subpara-11 graphs(b)(l) titled "One-Hour Reports" and (b)(2) Fou r-Hour Reports. 11 The justificati0n for a ~ e- our deadli e *s based upon the po en ial fort ese e ents to escala e to Emergency Class. The justification for a four-ho ur dead ine is explained in the analysis oft at paragraph.
.: :. ...-~-* .
- .._ .. 4 .. :-*
11 Th
- terms inmediate" and 11 iITr11ediately" used in this and suceedins
.:-;'J, =t ~*
,t ~
-. .. .... ~ . '.\'
paragraphs refer to notifications that should be made as soon as possible . - . *~ *: \-~-. ~ . However, the CoiMlission recogn '. zes that some events have re safety signifi-
'f *.-*,:, . :'
. cance than others and the various duties and e igencies associated with operating a nuclear power plant may mitiga e against an irrrnediate notification for less safety-significant events. Depending on the type of event, diffe nt absolute dtadl ines are assotiated with each immediate notification . As stated in later paragraphs "non-Emergency events 11 may be reported it i n either one hour or four hours depending on their significance, and all declarations of an Emergency Class must be reported w* thi 1 hour.
Paragraph 50.72 (b)(l)(i) requires reporting of: "The in itation of any I 1 n*uclear plant shutdo n required by Technical Specifica. *o s. 11 ile he inten, I and scope has not changed, the change in wording bet een the proposed i nd fina rule is intended to clarify that prcmpt not ification is re uired once a shutdo is initiated. In response to public co ,-ent, t he te rm "i mmediate s utdo II that was usec' in the proposed rule is not used *n the final rule. e te was ag ue and unfa miliar to those licensees that did not have Technical Specifications using he term . This reporting requirement is in ended to capture those events for whic Technical Specifications require the initiation of react or shu tdown . This will provide the RC wit early warning of safety significant conditions serio us enough to warrant s~utdown of the pla nt . Para graph 50. 72( )(l)( i i) [e nc o pass i g e en s pre iousl y classif i ed as 1 Unus ua l E ens and some event s cap ured J proposed 50. 72(b)(l )] requires reporti ng of:
[7590-01)
?":-~.. . . ."""' ',. ~ .~-:-*.,
11 Any event or condition 9uring operation that resulted in the condition of the nuclear power plan * , incllJding its principal safety barriers, being seriousl) degraded; or resulted the uclear po er p1ant being in an unanalyzed conditior that significan ly compromises p~ant safety; in a condit.i;n that as outside e design basis of the plant; or in a cond'tion not gover",ed by the plant's operatir.
.. . and emergency procedures. This paragrap *was adder o provide or consis ent, coordinated reporting requirements between this rule *and 10 CFR 50.73 which has a similar provision. Public corm,ent suggested lh at there be si rnil ari y of termino-
**. logy, phrasing and reporting thresholds on '~th §50.72 and §50.73. The intent
"'", ::~-
of this pa agraph is to capture those evens where the p1ant, i eluding is principal safety barriers, was seriously degraded or in an unanalyzed condition. For exampl e, sma ll voids in syste s designed to re o e eat fro t e reactor core which have been previously shown through analysis not to be safety significa 1 need not be reported. Ho ever, the accumuloticn of vo*ds that could in ibit e ab"li y ta adequately remo e heat from the reac or core, particuler1y u der natural circulation conditions, would consti ute an unanalyzed condi ion and
, ould be e or .ab e. I addition, vo"ding in instrument lines tha results in J
an erroneous i dication causing the operator to misunderstand he true cond'tion of the plant is also an unanalyzed condition and should be reported. The Commission recognizes that he licensee may us~ engineering judgment and experience to determine whether an unanalyzed condition existed. It is no t intended that this paragraph apply to minor variations in indi idual parame ers, or to problems concerning single pieces of equipment. For example, any time, o e or ore safety-re a ed co onents ay e of serv*ce due to es i o, mainte-ance, or a fa u t t ha has not yet been repaired. Any trivial singl e failure or i nor er ror in rfo ing sur eil l ance tests could produce a sit uatio in hie
... ... {7~90-01)
-15 two or more often unrelated, safety-grad';? co. ponents a e out-of-ser ice. Techni-cally, this is an unanalyzed condition. However, these events should be reported only if they involve functionally related components or if t ey significantly compromise p1ant safety.
Finally, this paragraph also includes material {e .g., meta11urgical. che ical) problems that cause abnonnal degradation of the principal safety barrier~ {i.e., the fuel cladding, react~r coolant system pressure boundary, or the containment). Exa ples of this type of situation include: (a) Fuel cladding failures in the reactor, or in the storage pool, that J exceed e pected values, that are unique or widespread, or tha are caused y unexpected factors, and would *nvolve a release of significan quantities of fission produc s. {b} Crac sand brea sin the piping or reactor vessel (steel or prestressed concrete) or major co ponents in the primary coolant circuit ha t ha e safety relevance (stea genera ors, reactor coolant pups, al es, e c.). (c) Significant
- elding or material defects
- the pri 2ry coolant system.
(d) _erious temperature or pressure transients. (e) Loss of relief and/or safety al e functions during operatic. (f) Loss of containment function or integrity including: {i} contain ent lea age rates exceeding the authorized limits (ii) loss of containment isolation valve function during tests or operation, or (iii) loss of main stea iso a ion val e u c *o d r g es or operation (iv) loss of containffient cooling capability Paragrap S0.72(b) (l)(i ii) [enco 1 ass*ng a portion of pr osed 50.72 (~)(2)] requires reporting of:
[7S90-01] . ...... :~
.. _.~ - ~,-... :-
* .. ~1..
"Any na ural phenomenon 9r other external condition that posed an actual
- .,lf*~...
.. \ -.; t:.,:.
threat to the safety of the nuc1ear po er plant or significantly hamper.s site
":+ .. ~
-~--...;.r. personnel in the perfo ance of duties necessary for the safe operation of t he
. r<:
. .../:.*:'!
- ~; plant."
.. * ?
This paragraph was reworded to correspond to a similar provision of 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(iii). Sy ma ing the requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 s
- ilar i language. when possible, the Conn1ission hopes to increase t e coordination r -
be ween these rules.
... The paragraph has also been re orded to make it clear that it appl"es only to acts of na ure {e.g., tornadoes) and external azard s (e.g., railroad tank car explosion). References to acts of sabo age ha e been remo ed, since these are covere by §73.71. In addition, threats to person el fro internal azards
{e.g. , radioactivity releases) are no covered by paragraph 50.72 (b)(2)( i). This paragraph is intended to capture t ose events where there ~s an actual threat tc the plant fro an eternal condi*'on or natural phenomenon, and here the threa or da age challenges t he ability oft e plant to co ti nue to operate in a safe manner (including the orderly shutdo'rln and a i ntenance of sh utd o *n conditions). The lie nsee should decide if a phenomenon or condition actually threatened the plant. For exa ple, a minor brush fire in a remote are.a of the s i te that as quic ly controlled by fire fighting personnel and as a result , did not present a threat to the pant should not be reported. Howe er , a majo r forest fire, large-scale flood, .or major earthquake that presents a clear threat to the plant should be repor ed . As another example, an industrial or transpor ic acc ident w ich occurs nea t e si e trea ing a plat sa e y co cern s ld be reported .
One* -:v ent r 0 1--.dS concerned that e ents occurring on land o ned by the u - ility adjacent to the ut lity 1 s plan
- ight be reportable. Tis is not the intent of this reporting requ*re n. The C *s concerned ith t e safe y of
~
~
~ plant and personnel on the utility 1 s site and not 'th non-nuclear ac
- 1ties on land adjacent to the plant.
Paragraph S0.72(b)(l)(iv) [encompassing events pre iously classified as "Unus~al E ents"] requires the reporting of:
.. "Any event ich resu s or should have resul ed in Emergency Co e Cooling System (ECCS) discha e to the vessel as a result of a al 'd sig al."
This paragraph sin end~d to cap ure those events ta result in either dutomatic or anual actua ion of he ECC or ould ha e resu1 ed i acti ation o the ECCS i some component had not failed or an operator ac *on ad not been ta en.
... One example o such an e en ould be i a alid ECCS signal ere ge erated by plant cond* io s, and the operator pu all ECCS pups in 1 - o-loc . Ee hough no ECCS discharge occurre J , the event ou ld be repor a le.
A "valid signal" refers to the ac ual plant condit'ons or ara eters satisfy'ng t e requiremen s for ECCS initia ion. Excl uded fro tis' report'ng requirement would be those ins a~ces where instru ent drift, spurious signa s, u an erro , or other in alid signals caused ECCS. Hoe er, sue e e s a be reportable und r other of sections of the Co 1 *ss*on's regulatio s ased upon other details cf he even . In particular, paragraph 50.72(b){2)(i ) would require a report wi ti *n four-hours if an Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) were 2c uated. Experie ce "th noti ications made pursuant to §50. 2 has shorn tat e e s i vol ing ECCS disc arge to the vessel are ge era ly more serio us than ESF
actua ions withou discharge o the vessel. Based on tis e perience, the Co ission has made this eporting criterion a "One-Hour Report . 11 Paragraph S0.72(b)(l){ ) (enco passing events previo sly classified as Unusual E ents] requires reporting of: uAny event hich results in major loss of ell'.lt?rgency assessment or cotm1u'licttions capability (e.g., significant portion of control room indication Emergency otification System"). This repor ing requirement is *ntended to capture those events that would i pair a licensee's ability to deal with an accident or emergency. Notifying the RC of these events may pe it the RC to a e so e co pensating easures and o ore completel assess the consequences of such a loss should it occur during an acciden
- ore ergency.
Paragraph 50 . 72(b)(l)( i) [encompassing some portions of the proposed
§§50.72(b) (2), (6) and (8}] requires the reporting of:
"Any eve t ha threa ened the sa e y of
- e nuclear po er plant or significantly ha pered site personnel in the perfor ce of du ies ecessary for the safe operation of the nuclear plant *ncluding fi res, tox*c gases o radioac-
. tive releases. 11 Adding t he phra e l!foc1uding toxi~ gases or radioacti e releases" to paragraph S0.72(b)(l)(vi) of the final rule covers paragrap 50.72( )(8) of the proposed rule and the 11 e acuatio,, u portion of paragraph 50.72(b)(6)(iii) of the proposed rule. Since pu lie co , ent as critical of this 11 e acuation 11 reporting criterion in the proposed rule, the staff made this change in wording for the final rule.
Wh il e aragraph 50.72 (b)(l)(i") of the f' nal rue r ari ly cap ures acts of natu re, paragraph 50.72 (b)(l)( i) captures other events, particularly acti by personnel. The Co ission believes this arrange en oft e re po rting criteria
r**.- . *
-.9
... 1
- in the fjnal rule lends itself to re precise interpreta ion and is consis
- en
......,. ,'--.: with those public comnents that requested close-r coord'nation be een t e reporting requ*rements in this rule and other portions o t e Conrnission's regulations *
... This reporting require et is intended to capture those events, particularl those_cavsed by acts of personnel ich endanger the safe y of the plant or interface with personnel in performance of duties necessary for sa e p1a operations.
evertheless, the licensee must exercise some judg ent in reporting under this sec ion. Fore ample , as all fire on site that did o e da ger any plant equipme t, that did no and could no reaso a ly be expec ed to enda ger t e plant is not reportable. Paragraph S0.72(b)(2) requires tha :
<<If not reported under paragraph (a) on {b)(l) of is sec o the lice see s all notify the ' C as soon as poss e a d i a l cases, it in four hours of the occurrence of any oft e follo ing:"
Although the reporting cr*teria con ained *n t e su parcgra s at ollow
- ere in the pro r QSed rule, public corrmen pro pted t he Car.mission to establish this 0 Non-EMergency 11 category for those evens wi slightly ess urge cy and less safe y significance that ay be reported within 4 hours instead of 1 hour.
The rationale for no permi tting reporting later tha four hours is t ha t the Co *ssion wants o ob ain such reports fro personnel who ere on shift at t e ime of :; e e *e *hen th's is possible, ecause the perso e1 o s ift at e ti me of thee ent will a ea better now1 edge of t he circumstances associated wit the even .
- Paragraph 50.72(b}(2)(i) [encompas:.:'lg some even s captured by proposed 50.72(b)(l}] requires eporting of:
' ny even found ile the reactor is shutdo n, hat, had it been found while the reactor was in operation, would have resulted in the nuclear po er plan , including its principal safety barriers, ~eing seriously degraded or in an unan~lyzed condition that sign *ficantly compro ,ises plant safety".
Based upon public cormients that requested close *coordina ion be established between §50.72 and other rules, his reporting requirement is similar to a requ *ir-ement in §50. 73. E cep* for referring to a shutdo n reactor, this
- repor ing require ent is simila.r to an "One-Hour Report" in §50.72(b)(l)(ii).
Because is refers to a shu do reac or, eve ts ca tu red by his req ire e ha e 1ess urgency and ca be reported ith in four hours as a 11
'on-E ergency. 11 Paragra h 50.72{b)(l) of the proposed rule as spli into 50.72(b)(l)(i') and 50.72(b){2)(i) *n the final rule in order to perm* some type of reports to be ade
- i hin four hou s ins ead of 1 hour, because -these re orts ha e less safety signif 'cance . In te ms of their co ined effect, the overa 1 inte and scope of these paragraphs has not changed fro that in the proposed rule. Since he ty es of .events in ended to be cap ured by th is reporting requiremen are si ilar to
§50.72(b)(l}(ii) e cept that the reactor is shutdo n, the readers ould re er to thee planation of §50.72(b)(l)(ii) for more details on intent.
Paragraph 50.72(b)(2)(ii) [proposed 50.72(b)(S)] requ*res reporting ~f:
'Any e ent or condition resulting in manual or automatic actuation of any Eng ~neered Safety Fea ure (ESF), including the Reactor Protection System ( PS).
Hoe er, ac uation of_a ESF, *ncl uding the S, at resulted fro ad as par of the preplanned sequence during testing or reactor o eration need not be repor ed.u
. . ,I A
- 21 In response to public co nts, this repor ing require ent t,as been made a
Non-Emergency' because the Corrmi ssion agrees i th the corrmenters that e ents captured by his r quire nt generally have slightly less urgency and s.a fety
... significance than those e ents included in the "One-Hour Repor s" parag aphs. The intent and scope of is reporting requirement have not cha ged fro that 1n the prbposed rule. This paragraph is in ended to capture events during which an ESF actuates, eit er manually or automa ically, or fails to ac uate . It is ased on he premise that the ESFs are pro ided to mitigate the consequences of the eve t; there ore, (1) they s ou1d or prop r1y when called upo and (2) t ey s ou1d not be challenged un ecessarily. The Commission is interested t)Ot in e e s where an £SF as needed to i igate the consequences of he e et ( e her or . .. not t e equip n perfon.:ied properly) and events here an ESF o erated u necessarily. 11 Actua *on 11 of ultic a nel ESF ctua ion Sys e ,s *s defined as ac uat*o of enough cha nnels to co ple e the in* um act ua *on log*c. erefore, s
- g e cha ne1 actuatio s, whe her caused fa'1ures or ot er ise, are not re ortab1e if th~y do not co plete he m'ni um actuation logic.
Oper ion of an ESF as part of a planned tes or operational evolu ion r.eed not be rep~rted . Ho ever, if during the test or e olution the ESF ac uate s 1 in a way thai is no~ part of the planned procedure , tat actuations ould be reported . For ex mple , if the normal reactor shutdown procedure requires tha t he control rods be inserted by a manual reactor trip , the reactor trip need no be re red . oweve, if condi *o s de velop u gt es dow a require an au omatic reactor trip, such a reactor trips ould be reported. The fact that the safety a a1 s *s assu ies ha an ESF ill actuate auto ,atica y
'(759 -01 dur
- g an e en does no e i ina e he need tor port that actuation. ctuat *o s that ne .d not e reported are those int ia ed for easons other than to itigate t e consequences of an event (e.g., a the discretion o the l'censee as par of a planned procedure).
Paragrap 50.72(b)(2){iii) and (iv) (proposed 50.72(b)(4)] requires report.ing of:
"Any e ent or condit,on tha alone could have prevented _he ful illment of the safety function of structures or syste that are needed to:
(i} Shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe con itio, (ii) Remo e residual heat, (
- ii) Con rel he release o radioac i e material, or
( i ) Mi i gate he consequences of an ace i den . Eve ts co vered in 50.72( )(2)(iii) of his part y include one or re p~rsonnel errors, equip ent failures, and/or disco ery of des
- n, analys*s, fabricatio , co struc io and/or rocedural
- adequac
- es.
- owever , indi i-dual component fa*iures need ot be re ported pu suant tot s paragrap ;
redu dant equ*pment in the sa e syste as opera le ad av*a1 1e to perfonn e r.equired safety function." ln respons e to pubic comments, the ords "any insta ce of perso al error, equip en failure, or discove of design or procedural inadequacies" ta appeared int e prop:"lsed rule have been replaced by e ords e et or cod. ion". 0 This simplification in language i~ *ntended to clarify what as a confusing phrase to many of those who co en ed on the proposed rulE. Also in response to ub 1 i c co ent, his report* g requi remen is a "f ' n-E erge cy to be 11 repo ed with*n our ours i stead of i hin one hour.
... . ;, .: {.7590- 1 his reporting r quirement is similar to one conta i ned in §50.73, thus reflecting public. co ,ent identifying the need for closer coordination of reporting requ*rements between §S0.72 and §50.73.
In surrmary, the ording of this .paragraph *has been changed to ma e it easier to understand, hi1e the i~tent and scope of the paragraph ha e not been changed. *This paragraph is based on the assumption that safety-rela ed syste 5 and structures are intended to mit\gate the consequences of an accident. Wile 1 pa ragraph 50.72(b)(2)(ii) applies to actual dema ds for actuation of an ESF, paragraph 50.72( )(2) (ii ') co ers an event ere a safety sys :e could have fai le.d to perform 'ts intended function because of one or mon1 perso e1 errors, including procedure io a *o s; equip ent failures; or design, ana ys s, fa ricatio , construction, or procedural deficie cies. e events o ,d b
... reported regardless of the situation or condition that caused e str cture or syste t-o be una ailable.
The app1ica ility o paragrap includes those safety s s es designed to mitigate the consequences of an accident (e.g., co tain e so a o , e rge cy filtra *on }. Hence , inor operat*onal events sue as val e pac ing ea s, w ic could be considered a lac nf control of radioact* e material , shourd not be reported under this paragraph. System lea s or other si ilar events
- y , howe er be reportable under other paragraphs.
This paragrap does not include t ose cases where a syste or co onen i s remo ed from service as part of a planned e elution , in accorda nce with an approved procedure, and in accordance with the plant's Technical Specif'cations. for exa p e, if the lice see remov es part o a syste fro ser ice to perfor maintenance, and the Tec hn ical Specifications permit the resulting co figurat*o,
[7 and t e syste or com onent i~ reti:rned to ser ce it in it ~ t* ,e 1i i speci* f r~ in the Technical Specifications, t e ac ion need no be rep rted u der this pa r ph. owever . if, hi,:t ~1e co is out of ser ice, the l'censee idel't'Hies a *C onditic th ~ could ha " pre,ented he syste fro performing *ts inten ~~d function {e . g., he : tcensee finds a set of elays tha is ired incorrectly) . th t : ondition st be reported. It ou' i be noted ~hat there are a limited number of single-train sys es tr1at perfo safety furr~ 1.. ns (e . fJ. , the High *essure Coo 1nt Injection st t in BW s) . For such sys -. 1s , loss of the~ 1) 9 e trai ould prevent _,e ' *1l fi 11 men f the sa e funct
- o of t ;.: sys e and, t ere e, mus be epor e even thou9 the plant Technical Sp : i fica io s may all s c a cond, . 'on to exist for a specified length f time .
- s ,ru ld also be noted that, ; a po e . ia l seriou ., h1.11 , n er r s de t a could ha e prevent d 7*u 1fil lmen .. of a safety u cti , ,.:t eco, ery ac ors resulted in t e error being c.orr cted, t e error is s ill rep<.rt~ e.
The Co iss *on recogr*;~es hat ea . ication oft is ado er aragrap s of this section ~ olv~i . e use of engineeri g *udg en t e par o -. i censees . In this case ~ a e~hnic al judg en st e made whet er a failure or ope . ator oction hat disabl 1 rt train of a safet ys . ad coul *.:I ha e, but did u , affe ta redundant *; a, :\ . If so , his would const *t ea e ent that "could ha~ pr e ented" the fuli i 1 e of a sa ety fu ct*o , ad, accordingl)' , JS be repor e . f a to ponent fails by ar, apparen ly random mechanism \ :7:) or may not be * *11 0 ta le " f t e fu ctional .: 1.. du da co one could fa il
- t e sa ,e meet>.,, *sm . T be repo:-tab1e , *t i., oeces 1 ry tat he fairu c ,stitu ea co dition h re U ~ ~e is reaso a 1e rl rn . . . . a e f ctional y re un ~an
. *. 1J ;;i:..-u*
, \,
,1; train lir* channel *ou1d rema1n operat *ona1 until i co pleted its safety funct*on or is repaired. For example, if a pump fails because of improper
... lubrication. Jnd e g*neeri g judgment ind'cates th t .here is a reasonable expectation that the funtt'onally redundant pump, hich was also improp.~ly lubr*catea, would have also failed bE!fore it completed i s safe,ty unction, then the fa .ill.ire is reportable and the potential faiiure Jt the func . .onally redundant pump rnust be discussed in the LER. Interaction between system. particularly a saf_ty syste . and a non-safety system, is also included in this c iterion. Fore a~ple, the Co is~ion s
*ncreas*ng1y concerned about the effect of a 1oss or degr dation of what h' d been ass umed to be non-essen ial inputs~, safety syste s. Therefore, this paragraph also includes those cases wh~re a service (e.g., heat i ng , ventilation, and . o1ing) or input (e.g., comp ressed air) which is necessar for re1iabJe or lon~-term opera ion of a safety system is lost or degraded, Such loss or degradation is reportable " f he prope r fu l fill men t oft *-~ safet function ls not or can not be assured. Failures tha affect inputs or services to systems hat ave no sa e y function need not be reported.
Finally the Commis_sion recognizes that the ~icensee may also u e engineering judgmen to decide when personnel actions coulQ_ have prevented fulfill ent of a safety fu ,c tion. For example, when an individual improperl operates or maintains a component, he mi ght conceivably have made the same error for all of the functionally redundant component (e.g .* if he *ncorrect y calibrates
~ne bistable amplifier in the heactcr Protection System, he could conceivably i correctly cali brate all bis ab ea plifiers). Ho ever, for an e ent to be reportable *t is necessary that the actions actually aff~c or involve components i ore t han one train wr channel of a safety s s e , and the result of the
(75 0-01)
.., * ".t-. *~ . ~
... : ~ . .\ actio s st be undesirable from _he perspecti e of protecting t e alth ad
; . ~ -'.
~ 4 ' ~ ..... . . safety of he public. The components can be functionally redundant (e.g._ t o pumps in d'fferent trains) or not functionally redundant (e.g., the opera or correctly stops a pump in Train "A" and, instead of shutting the pup dischargE val e in Train 11 A, 11 he mistakenly shuts the pump discharge va ve in Train B"). 11 Paragraphs 50.72(b){2)(v) and (vi) [proposed 50.72(b)(6)) require reportir 11 (i) A y airborne radioacti e release that exceeded 2 times the applicabl concentrat *ions of the limits specified in Appendix B, Table I of Part 20 of this chapter in unrestricted areas, whP.n a eraged over a time period of one ho (ii) Any liquid effluent release that exceeded 2 t*mes the 1i ti ti g co . Maximum Permissible Co centration MPC (see o el of Appe dix B to Par 20) of this chapter at the point of entry into the receiving water (i.e., unrestricted area) for all radionuclides except tritium and dissol ed noble gas
~en averaged over a time period of one hour."
Immediate notifications must be made to the Corm1i*s sio i accorda ce with
§S0.72(b)(2)(v). These i ediate notifications also meet the req uireme s of
§ 20 . 403( a ) ( 2 ) of Pa rt 20 of th i s ch apter . 11 These paragraphs have been chang d to clarify the requirf. ents to report releases of radioactive material. The first of these two paragraphs is similar o §20.403 but p1aces a lower threshold for reporting events at corm1ercial powe i reactors. The lowe r threshold is based on the significance of the brea down of the licensee's program necessary to have a release of this size, rather han on the significance of the impact of the actual release.
Based u on publ,c co ent, the report i ng threshold has been changed ~ro 11 25,4'" in the proposed rule to 11 2 times 11 in the f inal rule. Also, based on public co ent, this has been made as a 11 Non-Emergency" to be rt:ported wi thin 4-hours instead of within 1 hou . .
.*., * (7590-0
,.... . ' ].
-27
.... . . Alsb based on public col'.mlent, this reporting require ent has been changed
- .,. . :i. ~:
to make a more unifonn requirement by referring to specific release cri 11.eria instead of referring only to Technical Specifications. This reporting requirement is intended to capture those events that constitute unplanned or uncontro 'l led releases of a significant amount of r,adioac-tive material to offsite areas. Unplanned releases should occur infrequently , however , hen they occur, at least moderate defects have occurred in the safety design or operat ion al :ontrol established to avoid their occurrence and, therefore, such events should be reported. Paragraph 50.72(b)(2)(vii) [proposed rJle 50.72(b)(7}) requires the reportir of:
. 11
.Any event requiring transport of a radioact i vely contaminated person to an offsite medical facility for treatment."
Three chang'es have been made to this reporting requirement. One is to e1 irninate the phrase "occurr*ng onsite ~' because it is implied by the scope of the rule. The second change is to replace uinjury involving radiatfon 11 ith 11 radioactively co tam*nated person." This c ange was made because of the difficulty in definfog injury due to radiation and more importantly *because 10 CFR Part 20 captures e ents involving radiatio n exposure. The third change. in response to public comment, was to make this re orting require et a four-ho ur notification, instead of one-h ou r notifica ion . Paragraph S0.72(b){2){viii) rnot in proposed rule] requires reporting of: 11 Any e et or situation related to he health and safet of the public or 0 1 site personnel or ro ection of t he e vironrnent and for \-\'h ich a ne\l.'S re ease is planned or not'fication to other government agencies -has been or will be made.
[7590-01)
. *~*~ .
.... .* . . ... Such even may include an onsite fatality or release of radioacti ely con ami-nated materials " Besides covering some situation such as radioactive releasei
.. that warrent RC attention, this criterion covers those e ents or situat ions that wo~ld not otherwise ~arrant NRC attention except for the interest of the news med*a. other government agencies. or the public. In tenns of its effect c licensees, this 1s not a new reporting requiremen because the threshold for reporting injurirs and radioactive releases was much *lower under the proposed rule. This criterion ill capture those events previously reported under other criteria when such events require the NRC to respond because of media r pub 1i c c1ttention.
Paragraph 50.72(c) [proposed 50.72(c)J co cerning:
<<followup Notification. With respect to the telephone notifications ade under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, each lice11see. in addition to ma ing the required notification, shall during the course of the event:
(1) Immediately report any further degradation in the level of safety of the plant or other worsening pl,nt conditions including those tha require, or initiation of any of the Emer~cncy Classes if sur. initiation has not bee previously declared, or the chang~ from one Emergency Class to another or a tennination of the Emergency Class. (2) Immediately report the results of ensuing evaluations or assessments of plant conditions, the effectiveness of response or protective measures a en, and information related to plant behavior that is not understood. (3) Maintain an open, continuous commun ication channel with the NRC Operations Cen er upon request by the NRC. 11 This paragraph has remained essentially unchanged from the proposed ru l e, except for addition of the title 11 Fo11owup Notification" and some renu , ering .
/ ., . .. ..{7590-01]
.. *..: . . ihi s paragraph is intended to provide the NRC with timely notification
- ~#.
- -* : ~ ...
when an event becomes more serious and add itional information or new analyses clarify an event. This paragraph also permits the NRC to maintain a continuous co ,unications channel because of the need for continuing follow-up infonnation or becaus~ of te 1eco,miun i cation prob 1ems. IV REGULATORY ANALYSIS The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation. The
..
- t ana lysis examines the costs and benefits of the Rule as considered by the Convnission. A copy of the reg ulato ry analysis is available fer inspect*on and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Roa , 1717 H Street, N ., Washingto, D. C. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Eric Weiss, -Office o*
. lnspection and Enforcement, U. S. uclear Regulatory Corrrnission, Washington, D. (
. .. i 20555, Telephone (301) 492-4973.
V PAPERWORK REDUCT O ACT STATEMENT Th e information requirements contained in the regulation hav e been approved by the Office of Manageme t and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act , Pub. L. 96-Sll(clearance n~mber 3150-0011) . VI REGULAl ~QY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATIO In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. ~~5 { ) , he Commission he re by certifies t hat t *s reg u ation will not ha 1 e a signi-ficant economi c i mpact on a substantial num er of smal l enti ties. Thi s regulatic affects electric utilities that are do inant in their respecti e ser vice areas
(7590-01] and that own and opera e nuclear utilization facilities licensed under Sect *ons and 104b of the Ato ic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The amend ents clarify .... ...-* and modify present1y existing notification require ents. Accordingly, there is new, significant economic impact on these licensees, nor dote affected full licensees fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulat~ry Flexibility Act or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth in regulations issued by the Small Business Ad inistration at 13 CFR Part 121. VII LIST OF SUBJECTS I 10 CFR PART SO
. .. Antitrust, C assified informa io Fire pre ent, Intergo ernme~tal
.. relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors. Penalty, Radiat*on Protectio Reactor siting criteria, Reporting requirements.
Pursuant to the Atomi c Energy Act of 1954, as a ended, the Energy Reorganization Ac of 1974, as amended, and section 552 and 553 of itle 5 o the United States Code, the following amendmen ts to Title 10, Chap er I, Code of Federal Regulations P a r ~ O , ~ e publ *she as a document subj ect to codification. PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUC IO AD UTILIZATIO FACILITIES
- 1. The authority ci ation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186 189, 68 Stat. 93~ 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as a ended , sec. 234, _83 Stat. 1244, 2s a ended (42 U.S.C 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2'33, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 6' 1242, 1244, 1246, as amend d (42 U.S.C . 1841, 5842, 5846), u less othe ise n ed
~'."590-01]
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 29~1 {42 U.S.C . 5851). Section 50 . 78 also issued under sec. 122. 68 Stat. 939 (42
. q U.S.C. 2157.). Sections 50.80-50.81 also *ssued under sec. 184, 68 Sut.Ais amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100-50.102 also issued under sec. 186 , 68 Sta . 955 (42 U.S.C 2236).
For the purposes of sec . 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),
§§50.lO(a), {b}, and (c) , 50.44, 50.46 , 50.48, 50.54, and 50.80(a) are issued
. b under sec. £lb, 68 Stat. 9 8, as amended (42 U.S .C. 220l(b)); §50 .10(,) and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 16li, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(i)); and §§50.S5(e), 50.59 (b) , 50 . 70, 50.71, 50.72, and 50 . 7 are issu ed under sec. 1610, 68 Sta . 950 , as a ended* (42 U.S.C . 2201(0)).
~
- 2. A new paragraph (.ii() is added to §50.54 o read as follo s:
? 1
~ ~ °) In
§50 . 54 Conditions of licenses.
~ * * ~
h~ case of every utilization facility licensed pursuant to Section
~
5J-A. c 104 b of the Act, the licensee shall im ediatel y noti fy t ~ R Operations Center of the occurrence of the event s specified in §50.72 of t hi s par.
- 3. Section.r{0.72 is revised to read as follows: _____... --
*§50.72 Immediate noti f ication requirements for operating nuclear power reactors.
(a) General Requirements . 1 {1} Each 1 i ce 11 see of- nuclear p<:>wer reactor J,*c~ r,f'
; ?h I licensed nder §50.2l(b ) or §50.22Asha11 notify the RC Operations\-\,C ;nter via the Emergency Notification System of: (i) The declarat *on of any ofA{[nergen*cy tr ie- 1
"-' VJl cLrcv)feJ o +h.t. r u"t. l I .
11 ~.jt s+ vi ov C. ht c,k W IOE:t.b 0 Y\t. ~ ~ i S' § ~ S'1 ,-. "",..,;J'N't 1 1other requirements or
- edia e no tificat ion oft e C by l I~ce~!e~ :c ~ f ' ( "
operati g nuclear po *er reac ors are co tained elsewhere in this chapter, in particular,
§20.4 03 , §50.36 , and §73.71.
>590-01)
~ ~las ses spe.cified in t he licensee's approved Emergency Plan? or (ii) of e..
those non-1mergency events specified in par.agraph (b) of this section (2) I the Emergency Notification System is inoperative, the licensee shall ma e the required notifications via com.] eri ca1 e1ephone service, other dedicated telephone system, or any other method which ~,; 11 ensu~a report ~~1ng made as soon as possible to the ~RC Operations Center. 3 (3) The licensee shall notify t e NRC immediately after notification of the appropriate State or local age nci es and within one hour of the ti me the licensee (.. C. d~c,l_~res one of the frnergency .fl asses. ~) r ;" s ec..f-:o~.
\).J ' 'yv\ \ I'\ v' ? vv- i, r 7, p or c~ /-.., C I (4) N.he licensee shall identify: {i) the J mergency ft ass declared, or (ii) either paragraph (b)(l) "One-Hour Report" *or paragraph (b)(2) 11 Four-Hour Report'-' - -
~~r--- - - - - - -- -- --
as the paragraph of this section requiring~ Q on-Emergency Events notificat*on . ( ~) Non-Eme_rge_~cy Events. (1) One-Hour Reports. (;)Yf not report -d as a (.. C. 'I(' declaration of an jmergency Vlass under paragraph (a) of this section , the 1-icensee shall notify the NRC as soon as possible , and in all cases within one hour of the occurrence of any of the following: (~; (i) ... The initiation of any nuclear plant shutdown required by Technical Specifications . (~) +++:,- Any event or condition during operation that resulted in the condition of the nuclear power p1a t, including its principal safety barriers, being seriously degraded; or resulted in the nuclear power plant bei g: 2These Emergency Classes are addressed in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 entitled "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Rad iologic al Energency Response Pla s and Preparedness in Support of uclear Power Plan s" e . 1, ovember 1980. Copies o 'UREG docu men ts are ava
- lable at the Co,nmission's Pub li c Document Room 1717 H Street, NW, Washingt~n, D. C. 20555. Copies May be purchased from t e Go vernment Printing Office. Information on current prices-may be obtained by writing the U. S. uclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555.
Atten ion: Publica ions Sales Manager 3 cor.r.-:ercial telephone nu ber of the N C Operations Center is (202) 951-0550.
(1 In an unanalyzed conditi_, that significantly compromises pla t safety; (2.) ~ In akondition that was outside the design basis of the plant; or ( ~ In a conditio not governed by the p ant's operating and e ergency procedures. (C) ~~;;) Any natural phenomenon or other external condition that posed an actual threat to the safety of the nuclear power plant or significan tly hampers sitt per-sonnel in the performance of duties necessary fc - ~he safe operation of the plant. ( b) Any event which resu ts or should have ,* su l ted in Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) discharge to the vessel as a result of a valid sig nal . {_l[..) -f¥+. Any event which results in a major loss of emergency assess men t or
' ;c "'t.>r' communications capability (e.g. , significant portion of control room jngis a~iQ~, '
r---, , Emergency otification Syste . ( ) -+-,;) ~PJ even~ ~~at threatened the safety of the nuclear power plant or isign~ficant1y hampered site personnel in the perfonnance of duties necess ary for the safe operation of the nuclear power plant including fires , and oxic ga~or radioactive releases. (2) Four-Hour Reports .~f not reported under paragraphs(a) or (b)(l) of t hi s
- section, the licensee shall notify the RC as soon as possible and in all cases , within four hours of the occurrence~ any of the following:
c~) -.(.-1/4-}- Any event , found whiie the reactor is shutdown, tha , had it been fo und wile the reactor was in ope ration, would have resulted in t he nucleai power plant, including its principal ~afety barriers, being seriously degra ded or in an unanalyzed condition that significantly comp romis es plant safety.
, ) -44# Any event or condition ha t resulted in manual or automatic cc uatio of any Engineered Safety Fea ure (ESF), including t he Reactor Protection Syste (RPS). Howe er, actuation of an ESF, including t he RPS, tat resulted fro ad
~759 - J was par of the preplanned sequence during tes ing or reactor 0peration need not be reported.
(( ) ( i ;,; t
- ny e el"lt or condition that a 1one cou d ave prevented the ful il 1-ment of the safety funct'on of structu es or systems that are needed to:
( 1") -{A) Shut down the reactor and maintai n it in a safe shutdown condition ,
-( 2)-f&1-- Remove* residual heat, -(3) ~ Control the release of radioactive material , or
( ,) ~ Mi t igate t he consequences of an 9cci dent.
-, o (,.,/ - {(i ) (G) sec.
(c.) f;....-} Events co ered in -iW.72 (b)(2) H~ri' of t hi s ~ may include one or more personnel errors, equipment failures, and /or discovery of design, analysis , fabrication, construct*on, and/or procedufal inadequacies. Howeve * ~ndividual IJ er (b")('2)(;/"" , 1t,,., ~- *. , componen fa i 1ures need no be reporte~-p:!::14"!tiaF.t te th i-s pa ragraph~H redundant equipment in the ~a"'!.~ system was operable and available to perform the requi red safety function.~ {D) M ~ Any airborne radioactive release that exceeded 2 t ime s t he applicable concentratio s of the limits specified in Apoendix B, Table II of Part 20 of this chapter in unrestricted areas, when averaged over a ti me period (2.) of one hour * ...fet-Any liquid effl uent rel ease that exceeds 2 ti es the limiting combined Maxi mum Permissibl e Co nc en tra ti on (MPC) (see t, ote 1 of Appendix B t o Part 2Ol"'of this chapter } at the point of entry into the receiving water (i.e., unres ricted area) for all radio uclides except tritiu and dissolved noble gases, when a eraged over a time period of one ho ur. ~ - , (vi) lfflffleQiiti not.4.fieat ioA s 1t1ws t I.ii mi;e te t~e ;t"'"inion ill eeeeFaa Rr;.e.., with §50.72(e)(2)(¥} . J: """"'J e.. ..., ~ t ... :1 ~ Y'~&-if'" es Jn, ediate notification ~ a so eet e requiremen s r of §2O .4O3(a)(2 ) of Part 20 of this c apter. (£) ~ A ny e ent requiring the tra nspo rt of a radioactive y contaw.inated person tq an offsi e med'cal facility for t rea t ent.
L7590-0l]
' (
(F)--<vHi1 Any e ent or situa ion related to the health and safety of the public or onsite personnel or protection of the environment and for which a news release is pl~nned or noti ication to other govern ent agencies has been or ill be made.
<~te,
~ events ay include an onsite fatality o_n inadvertent release of radioactively
,,,,.,~....t- .pAr
~ra.r~ contam: nated materials.
l~c) nt~~ r l\ ~
~~}
Followup otification.(i)w;th respect to the telephone notifications
~ f\ made under paragraphs (a) and (b) of t his section, each licensee in addition Q'{t J* ,
{ to ma ing the required notification , shall during the course of the event: 1ll q
;)1 edia ely report any f ur t er degradation in the level of safety of he lant or o her worse ing pl ant conditions including thos e that require r or d c.lc..Y'.(+;11 ~ (.,. fA d ~Zl((Y4- ;o A~R itia ti e~ of an o
- he / mergency qi asses if such i"i~ctio 11 has nvt beei:i f W,t l\..,.,.. (_ : +
e .... o-f- A, ~ c previous ly~eccl e ~eLor A heAchange from one 1mergency ~1ass to a,,otherJ oY/ta 1 iV\. t' f t..,_ 0 4t~ L C. termination of * ~mergency Vlass. ( L\i)~ Immediately repor t~~ he results of ensuing e a1uat i ans or assessments of plant conditions:fthe effectiveness of response or protective measures ta en, an~A~nformation related to plant behavior that is not understood. (',;i) -+3-t- Maintain an open, continuous col'll11unication channel with the RC Operations Center upon request by the NRC. Dated at Washingto n, D. C.* this day of 198 . For the uclear Regulatory Conmission Sa mu el J. Chi l Secretary of the Commission
REGUL TORY A ALYSIS (§50.72) OBJECTIVE The objective of the revised I ediate otification System described in 10 CFR 50.72, "!rmiediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuc1ear Power Reactors" is to enhance the safety of nuclear plants by providing for timely notification to the NRC should sa ety significant events occur at operating nuclear reactors. BACKGROU D The existing provisions of have generated basically three types of proble s. One problem is~certain safe y significa nt even are not l,,J\,,c. required to be reported. A second problem is that certain eventsAare i signifi-cant from the perspective of protecting the public health and safety are required to be reported. The third)and perhaps roost imp)rtan problej is tha existing reporting requirements are not coordinated; For example. 10 CFR 50 . 3. the new "Licensee Event Report" rule and the existing 10 CF 50 .72 do not use 1 similar terminology. phra:;ing or reporting thresholds. 1 In addition to the reporting problem noted ab ove, special consi deration must also be given to Section 201 of tne ue:lear Regulatory Commission Authorizat*on Act for Fiscal Year 1980 (Pub . L. 96 -295). The in* ~nt of Congress as expres3ed
)
in that laJ was that the Co ission establish specific guidelines for identifying accidents which could result in an unplanned release of ra dioact i ity in excess of allowable limits and to require immediate notification of these incidents. ~ 7'fi : re ision ofS§S0.5 a d 50 . 72 is consis ent with ~ e intent of Co gress as A expressed in the Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1980. The I RC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on ece ber 21. 1981 (46 fR 81894} and su sequently received twenty letters of public com ent.
These 1 etters were generally supportive of the proposed revision of 10 CFR 'SO. 72 and these 1ett,e rs were most useful in the development of this final rule .
-ALTER
*- --- TIVES At the outset of this rulema ing, a wide variety of regulatory alternat ive s was considered . One al t ernative t hat was r ejected was the possibility of simply revising 10 CFR 50.72 without regard fr coordination with other rep orting requirements. The need for coordination with o~her provisi'ons of 10 CFR, most notably the new LER system (10 CFR 50.73), resulted in the selection of t he approa ch defined in the final rule , Each of the reporting criteria adopted in the final rule as selected from a range of possible alternatives and each was co sidered carefully, usually by a corrrni ee representing the various elements Y- c. ~J; e. o of the RC staff familiar ith the rega~ informa .. ion and how the information could be collected from 1 icensees in the least burder som mann,e r through a part icular re po rting requir:e~ent . r .
. 1, f q
. l\j t T;'r,i,-,J ~t,, (, 1, i'( ~ 1 . . \AJeY<.,
The three alternatives fo1'report1ng/(e qu1rementsjron ta1r. in §50.72 .....-e : H
- 1. ~ave approximately the same numbe r of repo rt s *
)
- 2. ~educe the nu~ber of reports *l or l ~
- 3. i nc rease t he number of reports .
c._; -k:,, ~-~**wr \,Jh. \ Alternative 1 would -tffl13~ e.the~burden on licensees -but wo1:l1 d i.,e rm*H ft ,s-,~j
"-t he reporting triteria -te Ge reidse_d in order to enchance clarity and increase the usefulness ot the notifications obtained.
Alternative 2 w~ uld ~educe he burd en on lice nsees but would also reduce the ability of the NRC to have early notification of less signi ficant eve nts t~at migh develop into serious acciden s . One of the *re2sons fur lsi!i!l!tff the /repor ting
.J.-.i '
criteria It the~* a1*e m,'tli is to hav.e precursor evepts telephoned ~ the RC so C ~ 1~; , n ir~ r - ~ r.,r -JI.,, rr 1. l-Ye>Y c oi t"i-.cn 5t ;t , . ,., ,. .. , I\ tbr tsri t can be +ea e;c .J:>.t.w1 e the se pre ee: JeYi lleeePllle .ceie !!e. ' * ' \' *
- Alternative 3 is un arranted because improvements ca be made at the present level of reporting by eliminating w.necessary notifications and substituting ,.. ~*
us ul notifications. There is no e1 ,1'H"'!t reason ~ increase 4"" the
.... ~ ** of ** ,., t,c,& -c,o,,,.,,} ,ve,\ 0 t \ccvo"-h"J.
Consequently, a1terna ive 1 was selected. BE EFITS AND COSTS The RC staff weighed the costs and benefits associat~d ith re ising 10 CFR 50.72. The optimum benefi is derived by revising both 10 CFR 50.72 and related portions of other reporting requirements. Accordingly, revision of 10 (\e.vJ CFR 50.72 is being coordinated ith develop ent of~10 CFR 50.73. In addition, a nu ber of substant{ve or administrati e cha ges are being developed that will amend other sections of 10 CFR Par~So,g-20,and Par 21. The value of revising 10 CFR 50.72 goes beyond dollar be efits. The capability of the NRC to make timely decisions and to provide adequa e assurances . regarding actual or potential threats to public health and safety depends on the rapidit with hich significant events occurring at nuclear cor.imunicated by nuclear power reactor lice sees to RC. The majori ty*of events occurring tnroughout the nuclear industry pose little or no serious or immediate threatd-'to the public health and safety; however, certain events do pose such threats or generat~ fear or unusual concern. ll,, NRC has an obligation .to collect facts quickly and accurate ly)*-~ A ,
-,;g11iHe&l'lt e¥@R\~assess the facts j take necessary action j ~nd inform the
\>.l~ r,~t1d;c.tt+- t ve-....fr oc v,r, public about the extent of the threat, if any, to public heal't'h a1d safety,A Not only must 1RC act promptly to prevent or minimize in *ury to the public , it ust also tal:e a propri~te acFion to alle iate fear or concern created as a fhL Dtlvt- ~le.. O J, 11 ;J:..: Co ij result o f ~ event .
The staff expects that ther~ ill be little significant additiona l cos to the C or to licensees associated wit h the eff;;tik. rule hanges T lltv ~,..~ I eA ~*~bMil'i-"it1111~fMfi:...*..,_~*iee"°w1+1elt-tl-,;1"k~e-tt"toMpreor;-;fft,tt-*""'o!Ptu~t t h costs that 41 s ¥@ Dae A assoc i ate d it h establishing and implemer,ting a "pro pt notification system II E cos;j"a-;e 6 m n-years per year of NRC staff effort for manning the telephones fo r notification and $1.5 million per year for dedicated telephone lines to each operating convnercial power reactor facility. Other Sovernment Agencies Improvements to the immediate notificati on requirements would contribute to impro ed State and local emergency response around nuclear power reactors. Applicant agencies {e .g .* TA , DOE) would be affected as presented under Section 1.3.3 be1ow. Industry There should e little additional cost to the industry associated ith i A.. dd J; on... implement i ng the final rule "EihiA!e&Ai -'itigR.Jl to those incurred in order to lVY ft\ comply
- ith RC' sAe mergency preparedness regulations.
The present cost of reporting under §50.72 for the entire industr is estimated to be $46.000 per yea r exclusi ve of the costs incurred in order to th! comply with NRC's emergency preparedness regulatior; ~ basis of this cost estimate is as follows: The person~~;:1t he notification pursuant to §50 . 72 is usually the shift
. .w.d superviscr who is a licensed senior reactor operator, ~ taki ng into acc ount
~e,~ rJ-o'f')' r
#x..,sa lary , cost of t raining , and overhead, -+t+!/l ime is v.*orth approxi ately SlOO per hour.
Each telephone notification to the RC Opera ions Cen er pursuant to §50.72 )*rts I<~*.+ ~ on average~lS minute althoug most notifications ta e less time and a fe ta e much m re time. 1 The RC Operations Center typically receives 5 telephone no ificatiol'\5 A pursuant to §S0.72,tper dayj---------------- - - ----
~
A computation at the pre,ent cost to the industry is: (S calls ) x ( l hour~ } x ( 365 ~ ) x 100 dollars = $451625 day 4 call year hour N t,.,U e. r+.~ . . f * ;./ +k ~ *, ~ \ vJ}e.. ,* / A-1*"1:n@ ia@v1sed §59.7a is ~rom~1gated~ th~ cost of reporting ~s @Gti1+1atee 11'i e e 1- oYie~-k <!. ff re ain unchanged. survey ofAtelephone notificatio s made to the C Operations Ce ter during January l983 st'le~cea. '1 i , IJ.d fh.t. i)\ w i~ ~J l **
'wf.:f& Ji c""'- --tl. Lv h!c;,h 95 ~ reports by .-eact~s would still b~ reported under the revised §50.72.
wtY'--- v,,\,- i£,~ 67 ~ reports~ oulo not be required by the revised §50.72.
\,,It~ I; ~....,_rti& VJt ~
- 11 Acourtesy calls and o her calls made by reaeter~ but~not required
§50.72.
1.1vc. (... 6 I'\ co~rtesy calls and other calls requesting assistance regarding evens not related to power reactors . 179 - total event-orie ed calls. I\
" ~ ~ cv *. J Sso.12. ~<- v-,o,d J ~ ti This suggests thatLpproximate+;o'" 41% ( -6!_) reduction in the nu ber of If 95+67 reports,mod& J)tirs~nt t J §50 :-,r . However, a sriall counter ailing *ncrease in A s~
reporting could be expected from ~ new reporting criteria as* loss of emergency 11
assessment or comunications capabiHty" (50.72 {b)(l)(v)) and 0 news release or notification o other governmen agenci es 0 (50.72(b)(2)(viii)). Public Improvements to the i ediate no ification requirements ould pro ide increased confidence that the health and safety of the pu 1 ;c *~uld~t,otec ed during a r.adiologica1 emergency because the State and l ocal govern ents would be better informed. Decision on the Act*o Since the final rule reflec.s many o'* public cormients, and should impro e the public health and safety. the final rl!le ch?nges should be published in he Federal egister to become effe c ive within 60 days o the date of pu lica ion. SPECIFICATIO OF CRITERIA Befot e chen~C! te t liE p, cpo!e d I ale n!g0ctee b; puttl It tdlffiient we, e ma.de,
-am";~~";.(~:g*. ~5 / "h1i * *...-at, fo11 nd
- he , F.V I sea so. 7Z cu 1,oe n *""""""""
aent. . adopted for promulgatiori in. the final rule \7)flect ......., } l i rapJn t -/ y bl ;u i O )1'...t_ f" - f .., I ,
'~A,. . _ ,
changes recommended byApub1 ic eo~11e1tt. . J' The revised 50.72 should be a substantial improvement in terms of: Clarity The final rJle clearly and explicitly includes reporting cri eria for events that were previously rlescribed by examples in NUREG-0654. Order The order of the criteria in th e ~in~1 ru~e hjs changed from that int e 7n I h O 1 Hu. f:t*'I~ ~ It proposed rule. ~ eorgan,za *onX, he criter*o/.' imorove ents *TN(.f"(_ ade ~
- i ~ (~ ~ "\ W; . ;\ e,y- I
~co sistency .aee'61:0on,\sim ilar criteria inAlO CFR 50.-73.
I ba fi Ra l l"'Ule i"e:01 po, at e-- IUR:Y of the same t ypes of , ! \'Orting cr i h ri a-eport ti ing ~ 7"hL -P ~~ I le. l li t;(. * )) ~, re r-vlr ( or ,i t- 5 Both the 131"epo!ed 1 arid f,ne-uhs 1;nco, po,etJ a prov*sion tha req!.l ires Ii ""~ (
~ t o notify t~e RC 'as soon as pos sible and in all cases withi one hour f t he occurrence." In addi ti on , the final ul e incorporates a provi s*on for reporting some occurrences ithin 4 hours instead of 1 hour . This is permitted because occurrences sa isfying some of the criteria reflect less serious or less il11l1ediate safety significance. The 1 hour reports are covered by-Sectioo- (b}(l) 0 ,7 and he 4 hour repor s are co ered by ~c ti on (b)(2).
I FI AL OECI SIO {) '
\,)* Based on , the co e ts recei ed on the proposed rule, and ~ts on assess ent Vt , 1 ~ (ov-., .,.. ., \;
of_ t h~Aimpact of this rule , the ....ta ff has cone uded 1j I
- 50. 72: wi ll (l } no t place an unacceptable burden on he licensees, (2) have
"- w \\\ -tt-significant saf~t benefits for the public, (3) l reduceAreporti g burden on
~ ~,\ f\ "
licensees, h(4) ~increase the effec i e ess of ther l e iate Notificat ion Sys e .
~ ~""" :a, Ther efore , the <etiff concludes t h~t lQ fR 1e~i'2/ rule should be promulgated .
Document a e:
' CC --REG A AL SIS Requestor's ID:
ICHELLE Author's ame: E WEISS Document CoimlE!nts: REGULATORY A ALYSIS}}