ML23151A488

PR-050 - 57FR28642 - Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements

ML23151A488
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/26/1992
From:	Taylor J NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-050, 57FR28642
Download: ML23151A488 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:DOCUMENT DATE: TITLE: CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD: ADAMS Template: SECY-067 06/26/1992 PR-050 - 57FR28642 - MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PR-050 57FR28642 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PR-050 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 57FR28642 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 06/26/92 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 07/27/92 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: EXTENSION DATE: I I 18 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 57FR41378 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 09/10/92 NOTES ON PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES SIGNED BY ED0. FILE LOCATED ON Pl. STATUS F RULE FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-050 RULE TITLE: MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ~ ROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 92-146 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: CONTACTl: RAJI TRIPATHI CONTACT2: eric weiss PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 06/19/92 FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 10/20/92 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE MAIL STOP: MNBB9112 PHONE: 492-4435 MAIL STOP: MNBB3206 PHONE: 492-9005

DOCKET NO. PR-050 (57FR28642) DATE DOCKETED 06/29/92 07/17/92 07/27/92 07/28/92 07/28/92 07/28/92 07/28/92 07/29/92 07/31/92 07/31/92 07/31/92 07/31/92 07/31/92 07/31/92 DATE OF DOCUMENT 06/19/92 07/15/92 07/23/92 07/23/92 07/27/92 07/27/92 07/28/92 07/23/92 07/22/92 07/27/92 07/27/92 07/27/92 07/28/92 07/27/92 In the Matter of MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY (SUSAN L. HIATT, DIRECTOR) (

1)

COMMENT OF MR. MARVIN I. LEWIS (

2)

COMMENT OF UNION ELECTRIC (DONALD F. SCHNELL, SENIOR VP) (

3)

COMMENT OF BWR OWNER'S GROUP (C.L. TULLY, CHAIRPERSON) (

4)

COMMENT OF NUCLEAR UTILITY BACKFITTING & REFORM GRP (NICHOLAS S. REYNOLDS, ET AL) (

5)

COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (D.W. EDWARDS, DIRECTOR) (

6)

COMMENT OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (CK. MCCOY, VICE PRESIDENT) (

7)

COMMENT OF ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. (JOHN R. MCGAHA, VICE PRESIDENT) (

8)

COMMENT OF TURKEY POINT (T.F. PLUNKETT, VICE PRESIDENT) (

9)

COMMENT OF PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (MICHAEL D. LYSTER, VP - NUCLEAR) (

10)

COMMENT OF DETROIT EDISON (WILLIAMS. ORSER, SENIOR VP) (

11)

COMMENT OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (G.C. SORENSEN, MANAGER) (

12)

COMMENT OF SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY (J. D. WOODARD, V. P.) (

13)

DOCKET NO. PR-050 (57FR28642) DATE DOCKETED 08/03/92 08/03/92 08/03/92 08/04/92 08/04/92 09/08/92 DATE OF TITLE OR DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07/27/92 COMMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY (JOHN L. SKOLDS, VP NUCLEAR OPS) (

14) 07/27/92 COMMENT OF WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION (C.A. SCHROK, MANAGER) (

15) 07/29/92 COMMENT OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (G.J. BECK, MANAGER) (

16) 07/28/92 COMMENT OF TOLEDO EDISON (DONALD C. SHELTON, VP - DAVIS-BESSE) (

17) 07/29/92 COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (W.L. STEWART, SENIOR VP) 08/27/92 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

(

18)

DOCKET NUMBER PR .:;.,.L) PROPOSED RULE I o--~ ~6;..,1: t(; Ser.-1->.

• - "'~

(57 f R U-t~.2) 0- S8ftt to >h., iJfflm Of ffle Fc::Je;-2! !'.C~Ji~'t*! tcr p~~ Mon* --- -*

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- /<J1/e/J?,l/1t/ - fe; _ 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AE12 OOCKEi[O USNRC [7590-01] '92 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has amended its regulations to make minor modifications to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. The final rule applies to all nuclear power reactor licensees and deletes reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance. The final rule reduces the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden in event review and assessment. EFFECTIVE DATE: (30 days after publication in the Federal Register). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raji Tripathi, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492-4435. 1

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Commission is issuing a final rule that amends the nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors," and 10 CFR 50.73, nLicensee Event Report System." The final rule is issued as part of the Commission's ongoing activities to improve its regulations. Specifically, this final rule amends 10 CFR 50.72 {b){2){ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 {a){2){iv). On June 26, 1992 {57 FR 28642), the Commission issued a proposed rule requesting public comments on these amendments. Over the past several years, the NRC has increased its attention to event reporting issues to ensure uniformity, consistency, and completeness in reporting. In September 1991, the NRC's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data {AEOD) issued for comment a draft NUREG-1022, Revision 1, 1 "Event Reporting Systems 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 -- Clarification of NRC Systems and Guidelines For Reporting." Following resolution of public comments, the NUREG will be issued in the final form. The NUREG will contain improved guidance for event reporting. NRC's reviews of operating experience and the patterns of licensees' reporting of operating events since 1984 have indicated that reports on some A free single copy may be requested by writing to the Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. A copy is also available for inspection or copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., {Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555. 2 I

of these events are not necessary for the NRC to perform its safety mission and that continued reporting of these events would not contribute useful information to the operating reactor events database. Additionally, these unnecessary reports would have continued to consume both the licensees' and the NRC's resources that could be better applied elsewhere. The NRC has determined that certain types of events, primarily those involving invalid engineered safety feature (ESF) actuations, are of little or no safety significance. Valid ESF actuations are those actuations that result from 11 valid signals 11 or from intentional manual initiation, unless it is part of a pre-planned test. Valid signals are those signals that are initiated in response to actual plant conditions or parameters satisfying the requirements for ESF initiation. Invalid actuations are by definition those that do not meet the criteria for being valid. Thus, invalid actuations include actuations that are not the result of valid signals and are not intentional manual actuations. Invalid actuations include instances where instrument drift, spurious signals, human error, or other invalid signals caused actuation of the ESF (e.g., jarring a cabinet, an error in use of jumpers or lifted leads, an error in actuation of switches or controls, equipment failure, or radio frequency interference). NRC's evaluation of both the reported events since January 1984, when the existing rules first became effective, and the comments received during the Event Reporting Workshops conducted in Fall of 1990 identified needed 3

improvements in the rules. The NRC determined that invalid actuation, isola-tion, or realignment of a limited set of ESFs including the systems, r subsystems, or components [i.e., an invalid actuation, isolation, or re-alignment of only the reactor water clean-op (RWCU) system, the control room emergency ventilation, (CREV) system, the reactor building ventilation system, the fuel building ventilation system, or the auxiliary building yentilation system, or their equivalent ventilation systems] are of little or no safety significance. However, these events are currently-reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv). The final rules for the current event reporting regulations, 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 (48 FR 39039; August 29, 1983, and 48 FR 33850; July 26, 1983, respectively), stated that ESF systems, including the reactor protection system (RPS), are provided to mitigate the consequences of a significant event. Therefore, ESFs should (1) work properly when called upon and (2). should not be challenged frequently or unnecessarily. The Statements of Consideration for these final rules also stated that operation of an ESF as part of a pre-planned operational procedure or test need not be reported. The Commission noted that ESF actuations, including reactor trips, are frequently associated with significant plant transients and are indicative of events that are of safety significance. At that time, the Commission also required all

• ESF actuationsr including the RPS actuation$, whether manual or automatic~

valid or invalid -- except as noted, to be reported to the NRC by telephone within 4 hours of occurrence followed by a written Licensee Event Report (LER) within 30 days of the incident. This requirement on timeliness of reporting remains unchanged. 4

The reported information is used by the NRC in confirmation of the licensing bases, identification of precursors to severe core damage, identification of plant specific deficiencies, generic lessons, review of management control systems, and licensee performance assessment. Discussion The NRC has determined that some events that involve only invalid ESF actuations are of little or no safety significance. However, not all invalid ESF actuations are being exempted from reporting through this rule. The relaxations in event reporting requirements contained in the final rule apply only to a narrow, limited set of specifically defined invalid ESF actuations. These events include invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of a limited set of ESFs including systems, subsystems, or components (i.e., an invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of only the RWCU system, or the CREV system, reactor building ventilation system, fuel building ventilation system, auxiliary building ventilation system, or their equivalent ventilation systems). The actuation of the standby gas treatment system following an invalid actuation of the reactor building ventilation system is also exempted from reporting. In addition, the final rule excludes invalid actuations of these ESFs (or their equivalent systems) from signals that originated from non-ESF circuitry. However, invalid actuations of other ESFs would continue to be reportable. For example, emergency core cooling system isolations/actuations; containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems, main steam 5

flow, essential ~upport systems, etc.; containment spray actuation; and residual heat removal system isolations (or systems designated by any other names but designed to fulfil the function similar to these systems and their equivalents)~ are still reportable. If an invalid ESF actuation reveals a defect in the system so that the system failed or would fail to perform its intended function, the event continues to be reportable under other requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. If a condition or deficiency has (1) an adverse impact on safety-related equipment and consequently on the ability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, (2) has a potential for significant radiological release or potential exposure to plant personnel or the general public, or (3) would compromise control room habitability, the event/discovery continues to be reportable. Invalid ESF actuations that are excluded by this final rule, but occur as a part of a reportable event, continue to be described as part of the reportable event. These amendments are not intended to preclude submittal of a complete, accurate, and thorough description of an event that is otherwise reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 50.73. The Commission relaxed only the selected event reporting requirements specified in this final rule.- Licensees are still required under 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, "Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants," to address corrective actions for events or conditions that are adverse to quality whether the event is reportable or not. In addition, minimizing ESF actuations (such as RWCU isolations) to reduce operational radiation exposures 6

associated with the investigation and recovery from the actuations, are consistent with ALARA requirements. This rule excludes three categories of events from reporting: (1) The first category excludes events in which an invalid ESF or RPS actua- ,tion occurs when the system is already properly removed from service if all requirements of plant procedures for removing equipment from service have been met. This includes required clearance documentation, equipment and control board tagging, and properly positioned valves and power supply breakers. (2) The second category excludes events in which an invalid ESF or RPS actuation occurs after the safety function has already been completed (e.g., an invalid containment isolation signal while the containment isolation valves are already closed, or an invalid actuation of the RPS when all rods are fully inserted). (3) The third category excludes events in which an invalid ESF actuation occurs that involves only a limited set of ESFs [i.e., when an invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of only the RWCU system, or any of the following ventilation systems: CREV system, reactor building ventilation system, fuel building ventilation system, auxiliary building ventilation system, or their equivalent ventilation systems, occurs]. Invalid actuations that involve other ESFs not specifically excluded, (e.~., emergency core cooling system isolations or actuations; 7

containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems, main steam flow, essential support systems, etc.; containment spray actuation; residual heat removal system isolations, or their equivalent systems), continue to be reportable. Licensees continue to be required to submit LERs if a deficiency or condition associated with any of the invalid ESF actuations of the RWCU or the CREV systems (or other equivalent ventilation systems) satisfies any reportability criteria under §50.72 and §50.73. Impact of the Amendments on the Industry and Government Resources Relaxing the requirement for reporting of certain types of ESF actuations reduces the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden. This reduction is consistent with the objectives and the requirements of the Paperwork Reduct ion Act. These ame*ndments have no impact on the NRC' s ability to fulfil its mission to ensure public health and safety because the deleted reportability requirements have little or no safety significance. It is estimated that the changes to the existing rules will result in about 150 (or 5-10 percent) fewer Licensee Event Reports each year. Similar reductions are expected in the number of prompt event notifications reportable under 10 CFR 50.72. Some respondents, in their comments on the proposed rule, dated June 26, 1992, submitted an estimate of approximately 15 percent reduction in their reporting burden. 8

Summary of Connnents The NRC received 19 conunents - 2 from individuals, 3 from industry-supported organizations, and 14 from utilities. Except for two respondents, all commenters welcomed the Commission's efforts to reduce the licensee burden and to save the agency's resources in event review and processing. The utilities and the industry-supported organizations expressed their desire for a broader relaxation to include all invalid ESF actuations from reporting. Other comments from the respondents concerned the following: clarification of the definition of "invalid" actuations; examples of events being exempted from reporting; consideration of plant-specific situations; I exemption from reporting of the actuation of the standby gas treatment system following an invalid actuation of the reactor building ventilation system; and possibly extending relaxation of invalid actuations/isolations of RWCU from reporting to include those of the chemical and volume control system in a pressurized water reactor. The Statement of Considerations for this final rule addresses most of these concerns. Other issues and clarifications concerning event reportability will be addressed in NUREG-1O22, Revision 1. However, it is not practical to address a plant-specific situation unless it relates to a generic concern. The Commission stresses that only certain specific invalid ESF actuations are being exempted from reporting through the present amendments. NUREG-1022, Revision 1 will contain specific examples and additional guidance on events which are presently reportable as well as those which are being 9

exempted from reporting through these amendments. In the future, the Commission will give due consideration to other proposed relaxations from event reporting after the NRC staff has had an opportunity to reassess the data needs of the agency and performed safety assessments to justify initiating a separate general rulemaking. Until such time, all events not specifically exempted in these amendments continue to be reportable. The two respondents who opposed the proposed amendments expressed their concerns about eliminating the selected event reporting requirements. These commenters believe that the elimination of these event reporting requirements may adversely affect the NRC's information database and ultimately affect the agency's ability to carry out its mission to protect public health and safety. For many years, the NRC staff has been systematically reviewing information obtained from Licensee Event Reports. These assessments of reactor operational experience have included data on the types of events included in the three categories that the NRC is deleting from reporting. The staff's reviews and assessments of nearly 1000 reactor-years of operational experience have identified essentially no safety significance associated with the type of events included in the aforementioned three categories. The Commission has reviewed the scope of these amendments, and on the basis of the staff's assessment of the past reactor operational experience, has subsequently concluded with a reasonable confidence that relaxation from reporting of events in the three categories does not affect the agency's ability to protect public health and safety. 10

Based on the input from the utilities, these amendments will reduce the industry's reporting burden by about 15 percent. The estimated savings of the NRC's response burden in event review and assessment is about 5-10 percent. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(3)(ii) and (iii). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)., These amendments were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0104. Because the rule will relax existing reporting requirements, public reporting burden of information is expected to be reduced. It is estimated that about 150 fewer Licensee Event Reports (NRC Form 366) and a similarly reduced number of prompt event notifications, made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, will be required each year. The resulting reduction in burden is estimated to average 50 hours per licensee response, including the time required reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments 11

regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555; *and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0011 and 3150-0104), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555. Single J copies of the analysis may be obtained from: Raji Tripathi, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492-4435. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605 (8)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule affects only the event reporting requirements for operational nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 12

or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration Act in 13 CFR Part 121. Backfit Analysis As required by 10 CFR 50.109, the Commission has completed an assessment of the need for Backfit Analysis for this final rule. The proposed amendments include relaxations of certain existing requirements on reporting of information to the NRC. These changes neither impose additional reporting requirements nor require modifications to the facilities or their licenses. Accordingly, the NRC has concluded that this final rule does not constitute a backfit and, thus, a backfit analysis is not required. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1964, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the Commission is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. 13

PART 50 DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1.

The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a, and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273)~ §§50.5, 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 220l(b)); §§50.5, 50.7(a), 50.lO(a)-(c), 50.34(a) 14

and (e), 50.44(a)-(c), 50.46{a) and (b), 50.47(b), 50.48(a), (c), (d), and (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a), (i), (i){l), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v), and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), {c)-(e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a), 50.62{b), 50.64(b), 50.65, and 50.80(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 16li, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 220l(i)); and §§50.9, 50.49(d), (h), and (j), 50.54(w), (z), (bb), (cc), and (dd), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.6l(b), 50.62(b), 50.70(a), 50.7l(a)-(c) and (e), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended {42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2.

In §50.72, paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows: §50.72 Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors. (b) Non-Emergency Events. (2) Four-hour reports. (ii) 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: 15

(A) The actuation results from and is part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; (8) The actuation is invalid and: ill Occurs while the system is properly removed from service; ill Occurs after the safety function has been already completed; or ill Involves only the following specific ESFs or their equivalent systems: ill Reactor water clean-up system; 1..iil Control room emergency ventilation system; (iii) Reactor building ventilation system; ..liY.l Fuel building ventilation system; or iY.l Auxiliary building ventilation system. 16

3.

In §50.73, paragraph (a)(2)(iv) is revised to read as follows: §50.73 Licensee event report system. (a) Reportable events. (2) The licensee shall report: (iv) Any event or condition that resulted in a manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF), including the reactor protection system (RPS), except when: (A) The actuation resulted from and was part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; (B) The actuation was invalid and: ill Occurred while the system was properly removed from service; ill Occurred after the safety function had been already completed; or ill Involved only the following specific ESFs or their equivalent systems: ill Reactor water clean-up system; iiil Control room emergency ventilation system; liill Reactor building ventilation system; 17

11.Y.l Fuel building ventilation system; or lY.l Auxiliary building ventilation system. Dated at Rockville, MD, this , 1992. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. for Operations. 18

WlllJAM L. STEWAKT Senior Vice President July 29, 1992 Docketing and Service Branch i,LI\\L i Lu USNHC

• 92 AUG -4 A11 :07 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 SD Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 804-273-3551 VIRGINIA POWER Serial No.:

92-304 NL&P/RBP COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION JO 10 CFR so MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Gentlemen: In its Federal Register Notice RIN 3150-AE12 dated June 26, 1992, the NRC issued a proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations to make minor modifications to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. The proposed amendments would delete reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance. These proposed amendments would reduce the industry's reporting burden in event review and assessment. Virginia Power supports the rulemaking as well as NRC's intention to eliminate requirements marginal to safety. The attached information is submitted for consideration in this rulemaking. Very truly yours, Attachment SEP 18 Acknowledged by card 199~ ~ ................,.....,.,.,tt"'"

F C* 7/3/ I q_2-I 7 __ _ . It t,.l'JSJ P.. 12..._ __ _ /J-1 fO~+h I/ /)J£1J.J __ _

ATTACHMENT The following are specific comments on the proposed amendments to the regulations. NRC Notification after State or Local Government is Contacted The proposed rule change should be expanded to include a provision which removes NRC notification requirements when a state or local government branch is notified for an event that is not related to nuclear safety. This would reduce duplicative regulatory burden on licensees. ESF Actuations Not Required to be Reported As stated in the proposed revision, the Commission proposes to make additional relaxations to event reporting by excluding three additional categories of events. The third category listed excludes events from reporting requirements when an invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of the reactor water clean-up or designated ventilation systems occurs. Invalid ESF actuations involving other (than the designated) systems would continue to be reportable. We suggest that the third category of the proposed revision be expanded to exclude all invalid ESF actuations, isolations, or realignments with the exception of those that affect reactivity or involve starts of major safety-related components (e.g. emergency diesel generators, high head safety injection pumps, auxiliary feed pumps, etc.). Invalid Signal Definition The definition of an invalid signal should be simplified. The definition provided in the revision is lengthy and could result in an inappropriate interpretation of an invalid actuation signal. Typographical Correction The word "intentional" in the background section of the proposed rule change is incorrectly spelled as "international." This should be corrected before the rule change is finally published.

tr~ CENTERIOR ~ ENERGY Donald C. Shelton Vice President

• Nuclear Davis-Besse Docket Number 50- 346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 2074 July 28, 1992 9Ql ET NUMl:3t:H

&,.LJ rivP ED RULE

/ V----,

l S? Fit 2 f/r6L.f 2) LOlKLii..I.' U~HRC

• 92 AUG -4 AlO :34 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652-0001 (419) 249-2300

Subject:

Comments On Proposed Rule: Minor Modifications To Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements, 57 Federal Register 28642, dated June 26, 1992

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Toledo Edison, a subsidiary of Centerior Energy, is partial owner of and is responsible for operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Toledo Edison has been authorized for power operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station since April 1977. As a 10 CFR 50 licensee, Toledo Edison has a vested interest in any policies the NRC may adopt which can affect the management and operation of a commercial nuclear power plant. Toledo Edison has reviewed the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1992 (57 FR 28642), entitled "Minor Modifications To Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements" and agrees with the need to reduce unnecessary reporting requirements placed on power reactor licensees. In accordance with this position, Toledo Edison supports the comments prepared by the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Owners' Group Licensee Event Report Committee in conjunction with Nuclear Management And Resources Council (NUMARC). In addition to the comments submitted by the BWR Owners' Group, Toledo Edison recommends that the NRC considers revising the proposed 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(B)(l) and 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(iv)(B)(l) to read: 10 CFR 50.72(ii)(B)(l) Occurs while the system is properly removed from service or while the plant is in a condition when the system is not required to be operable per Technical Specifications: Operating Companies : Cleveland Electric Illuminating Toledo Edison SEP 18 lB2 - Acknowledged by card'"'""'""'""""'"...;;

u.. 1 r:!.r * - * * *

• Cf/'..

C - ' \\/

Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 2074 Page 2 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(iv)(B)(l) Occurred while the system was properly removed from service or while the plant was in a condition when the system was not required to be operable per Technical Specifications: Such a change would further reduce unnecessary reporting requirements of events having little or no safety significance without adversely affecting the ability of the NRC to perform its safety mission. Please refer any questions regarding these comments to Mr. Robert W. Schrauder at (419) 321-2366. Sincerely yours, ~ MAT/dlc cc: A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator, NRC Region III J. B. Hopkins, NRC Senior Project Manager W. Levis, DB-1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector USNRC Document Control Desk Utility Radiological Safety Board

OOC~E~ -~ ~ :~ W

• 5r;_

(57 FR 1..rb~~J PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COM*P~ ~t : NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLv'B2 AUG - 3 p 3 :s~uly 29, 1992 WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 ,-F~ ILL Lfr St C1t~ l At( I (z 1 s) 640-6000 Qi){KE11NG,\\ ~.[i*.V lr:f !;RANCh Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Philadelphia Electric Company Comments Concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rule 10 CFR SO, "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements" Gentlemen: This letter is being submitted in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) request for comments regarding the Proposed Rule 10 CFR SO, "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements," published in the Federal Register (57 FR 28642, dated June 26, 1992). Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo} appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule to make minor modifications to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. This proposed rule indicates that an isolation of the reactor building or refueling floor ventilation systems, Engineered Safety Features (ESFs), would not be reportable. However, these system isolations result in the actuation of the Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) and the Reactor Enclosure Recirculation System (RERS), also ESFs, and therefore, would still be reportable. Since the intent of this proposed rule is to reduce reporting requirements for certain ESF actuations, we recommend a clarification as to whether associated resultant ESF actuations would be reportable because of the initial ventilation system isolations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, G. J. Beck, Manager Licensing Section Nuclear Services Department SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card....................... ::::;

WPSC(414J433-1598 TELECOPIEA (4141 433-5544 ..,. -,..R 1 0 ',,,~ \\*'~ :~~': ~ § (} -- NRC-92-095 4DA\\ (i/1 FR... 2..r,'-12.J w 00(,KETEO EASYLINK 62891993 USNRC WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION 600 North Adams

• P.O. Box 19002
• Green Bay, WI 54307-90,Q.Z

':JL AUG -3. 3 :59 July 27, i992 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen: Docket 50-305 Operating License DPR-43 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Licensee's Comments on Event Reportin~ Requirements ,_, '-,,... :: ;,r sr._,,-,!-. i.,. *.

. < *,* { j I

• J ;, 1

(~ L ; ' I I Wisconsin Public Service Corporation has reviewed the Proposed Rule titled "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements" published in Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 124 dated Friday June 26, 1992. We provide the following comments for your consideration. Comment 1 Wisconsin Public Service supports your efforts to delete reporting requirements for events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance. We note, however, that the proposed rule has omitted the fourth category of events that was identified for exclusion in SECY-92-146, "Proposed Minor Rulemaking to Modify Operating Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements - 10 CFR 50. 72 and 10 CFR 50. 73". SECY-92-146 proposed the exclusion of four categories of events from reporting requirements. The fourth category specifically excluded the actuation of engineered safeguard feature (ESF) components (that have both protective (ESF) and non-protective (non-ESF) actuation circuitry) from reporting requirements if the actuation resulted from a non-ESF circuit signal. As stated in the SECY paper, staff reviews indicated these occurrences were of minimal or no safety significance.

I I I

J

,, I., \\...

Document Control Desk July 27, 1992 Page 2 SECY-92-146 essentially concluded that all ESF actuations resulting from a non-ESF signal actuation should be excluded from reporting. The proposed rule essentially requires the reporting of ESF actuations resulting from non-ESF signals with the exception of five systems. Technical justification for this significant change from that presented in the SECY paper was not provided in the support information published with the proposed rule. We concur with the staffs original position as documented in SECY-92-146; i.e. ESF actuations that result from non-ESF circuitry are not safety significant and do not merit the expenditure of either NRC or licensee resources. Comment 2 As noted above, the proposed rule waives the reporting of ESF actuations resulting from non-ESF signals for a limited number of systems; i.e. reactor water clean-up system, control room emergency ventilation system, reactor building ventilation system, fuel building ventilation system, and auxiliary building ventilation system. Wisconsin Public Service currently interprets the reactor building ventilation system (noted in the proposed rule) to include the shield building ventilation system for plants with a dual containment design. The proposed rule excludes the reporting of reactor water clean-up system actuations resulting from non-ESF signals. We would interpret the chemical volume control letdown system to be equivalent to the reactor water clean-up system specified in the rule. We believe the proposed rule should include a similar exclusion for equivalent pressurized water reactor (PWR) systems associated with the cleanup of primary.arul secondary water. For a PWR, we believe the exclusion of secondary water cleanup (i.e. steam generator blowdown) resulting from non-ESF signals would be appropriate. Comment 3 We recommend clarification be provided for the examples given in the discussion section of the proposed rule. This section considers reportable invalid actuations to include "containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems." This seems to imply that containment isolation valve closures (from non-ESF signals) that do not affect cooling systems are excluded from reporting requirements. Examples to consider would be containment isolation valves in the containment air sampling systems, the reactor coolant sampling system,s the containment vacuum breakers, etcetera. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions concerning them, please feel free to contact me or a member of my staff.

Document Control Desk July 27, 1992 Page 3 Sincerely, C. A. Schrock Manager - Nuclear Engineering VJC/jac cc - US NRC - Region ill Mr. Patrick Castleman, US NRC LIC\\NRC\\F.SF.WP

~ SCE&G A SCAN/I Company South Carolina Electric & Gas Company P.O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 (803) 345-4040 July 27, 1992 U. s~ Nuclear *Regu*lator.y* Commissi.on , Washington, *Dc *20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

Subject:

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50/395 OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 John L. Skolds Vice President Nuclear Operations l'ulhi. i i:.O U~NRC '92 AUG - 3 A 9 : 1 5 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE FOR 10CFR50.72 and 50.73, 11 MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, 11 FEDERAL REGISTER, JUNE 26, 1992, 57FR28642 (PR 920025) South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) has reviewed the Proposed Rule and provides the following comments: It is recommended that 11 ESF actuation 11 be clarified to exclude the actuation of dual function (ESF and non-ESF) components by non-ESF logic. An example of this type event is the closure of feedwater isolation valves due to a non-ESF low flow/low temperature signal. Excluding the reporting of such events would not compromise the NRC 1s intent that 11 *** ESFs should (1) work properly when called upon and (2) should not be challenged frequently or unnecessarily. 11 The recommended clarification is as follows: Those components that provide a dual function (e.g., ESF and non-ESF) and are actuated as a result of a non-ESF actuation logic need not be reported. It is further recommended that all 11 invalid ESF actuations 11 be considered for removal from reporting. A review of past event reporting at Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) did not identify any invalid ESF actuations that were of 11 safety significance. 11 While it could be stated that in these cases ESFs are being challenged unnecessarily, the number of such events are insignificant when compared to normal surveillance testing of such components. It should be further noted that one cause of invalid ESF actuation, human error, has limited value in reporting as it is usually plant/site specific and has limited applicability to the industry in general. Examples include the operation of wrong switches, removing incorrect fuses, and inadequate procedures. SEP 18 199l_ ~edged by card_...._............................

U.S. NUC~f:.!..f-l. ::'~ L't:.TOrrt cu~~,,.Ss,_:;\\ DOC;-.. ::....,;~ f::~11.'iCE r::cT:ON 0,-- C:. ()i* -;-1 !E ~'.:GRETARY lk ~:-;[: CO',?. _$101~ Postm1r\\ D~t: _ _.._ __.__ ____ _ Copies R'.;Xi *cd __ Add'I Cur,,s~ *.tip~odt!:cd --'~---,.----,---- Spec1al :::t;"nl:tiv:1 Jf:r. tJJ. '[}n, 1 f-t/2 A.;tJ, i I J.Jc:!itJ

Summary While SCE&G recognizes the proposed rule as a significant improvement to 10CFR50.72 and 10CFR50.73 reporting requirements, the above proposed changes would further reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden with no impact on public health and safety. Please contact Mr. John Cobb at 803-345-4213 if you have any questions. JMC:JLS:nkk c: O. W. Dixon R.R. Mahan R. J. White G. F. Wunder General Managers NSRC RTS (PR 920025) File (811.02 50.014) ~JJU1/ John L. Skolds

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 868-5086 [ u(;Ki. l (() U~NilC .\\ J. D. Woodard Vice President Farley Project

• 92 JUL 31 p3 ~thern Nuclear Operating Company the southern electric system Docket Nos.

50-348 50-364 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements" (57 Federal Register 28642 of June 26, 1992)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern Nuclear) has reviewed the proposed rule, 10 CFR Part 50, "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements," published in the Federal Register on June 19, 1992. In accordance with the request for comments, Southern Nuclear is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which were provided to the NRC. In addition to the NUMARC comments, Southern Nuclear would like to add the following comment. The scope of the Engineered Safety Features (ESF) actuations which would be exempt from reporting under the proposed rule should not be limited to those specified. If an ESF actuation is truly invalid, it should not be reportable under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(iv). No "event" or "condition" exists when an invalid ESF actuation occurs. This type of ESF actuation would have little or no safety significance. Therefore, ANY invalid ESF actuation should be exempt from the reporting requirement. Should you have any questions, please advise. JDW/JMG cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. S. T. Hoffman Mr. G. F. Maxwell Respectfully submitted, SEP 18 1992-Acknowledged by card.................... """""""

MBER RULE A ( 5 7 f R ~ ~ =-

---

....U.U L1LU USHkC WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM P_.o_._B_o_x_96_B_* _3_oo_o_G_e_or_ge_W_as_h_in_gt_on_W_ay_* _R_ic_h_la_nd_,_w_a_sh_i_ng_to_n_9_9_35_2 __

'9~i-1-.... J1UL.I..II 31 P\\2 :34 July 28, 1992 GO2-92-175 Docket No. 50-397 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary to the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

WNP-2 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-21, PROPOSED RULE, MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to make minor modifications to the current power reactor event reporting requirements by deleting reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance, as described in the Federal Register of June 26, 1992. The Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System), an NRC licensee, has reviewed the subject proposed rule and supports the changes being considered, and also concurs that the proposed amendment would reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden in event review and assessment. Furthermore, the Supply System strongly encourages the NRC to pursue similar efforts pertaining to other reporting obligations where it is shown such reports are not necessary for the NRC to perform its safety mission. Very truly yours, /2Cger Regulatory Programs (Mail Drop 280) JDA/sn cc: R.R. Assa, NRC JB Martin, NRC RV NS Reynolds, W &S Document Control Desk, NRC Alex Marion, NUMARC DL Williams BPA (399) NRC Site Inspector (901A) SEP 18 1992-Acknowledged by card..................... H.. ""'""

,I Q.S. NUCLEAR P.EC:..'U\\T1.,.Y 1:0'1;,l!SSIOt-. OOCKn:NG r, '.:::::i, 11_.~ ' ::..:.:TtON OFflGE :):- T:-::.: SC:.:, iE.',"Y OF THE CU:.:t:.,;t, ~

Detroit Edison WIiiiam S. Orser Senior Vice President Fermi 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 (313) 586-5201

• 92 JUL 31 P 3 : 1 2

,_,Fr* 1 ~ ~ Jr- :; i:,_ n r,,. r< *.,

u. S. Nuclear Regulator.y)moui'ss-ibi11* "lf' f Attn:

Docketing and Service&s ~h5h Washington, DC 20555 July 27, 1992 NRC-92-0081

• 92 JUL 31 P:

Reference:

Couents on Proposed Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements (57 FR 28642, June 26, 1992)

Subject:

Couents on 57 FR 28642, June 26, 1992 On June 26, 1992, the NRC issued for public comment proposed amendments to 10CFR50.72 and 10CFR50.73 regarding nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. Detroit Edison is pleased to have this opportunity to provide the following comments. Detroit Edison commends the NRC for this effort and other related efforts to improve its reporting requirements. Detroit Edison endorses the principal goal of the reporting obligations under 10CFR50.72 and 50.73, namely, to assure that potentially safety

• significant events and conditions are reported to the NRC in a timely and complete fashion.

The proposed modifications that are the subject of this letter would delete reporting requirements for certain events that have been determined not to be of actual or potential safety significance. Therefore, these modifications do not impact the NRC's ability to fulfill its responsibilities, while satisfying the intent of the regulations and reducing the burden both on the NRC and industry. Detroit Edison concurs with the proposed rule change. Detroit Edison estimates that this change will reduce the number of LERs at Fermi 2 by 15 percent. Detroit Edison is a ember of the Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group (BWROG). The BWROG is providing couents to this Federal Register Notice. Detroit Edison endorses those comments. We appreciate your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions, please contact Hr. John Tibai, Supervisor, Compliance and Special Projects, at (313) 586-4289. cc: T. G. Colburn A. B. Davis H. P. Phillips

s.

Stasek Region III Sincerely, Acknowledged by card S£p 18 1992-. -

tF~ CENTERIOR ~ ENERGY PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 10 CENTER ROAD PERRY, OHIO 44081 (216) 259-3737 Mail Address: P.O. BOX 97 PERRY, OHIO 44081 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen: ~~~~~~~~r~~~~PR ~ - _ . ( s1 F-Yl2-H~2-) DOCKETED US NRC

• 92 JUL 31 Pl2 :34

'. t: : (': - G ~ :: [ 1.,, (-: F. T / r '-1

_,;;(. i" ;

r :* -,, ;, * *r:f

.:,.\\;*.,.. July 27, 1992 PY-CEI/NRR-1530 L Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440 Michael D. Lyster VICE PRESIDENT - NUCLEAR Comments on Proposed Rule - Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements (57 FR 28642, June 26, 1992) On June 26, 1992, the NRC issued for public comment proposed amendments to 10CFR50.72 and 10CFR50.73 regarding notification and reporting requirements for nuclear power plants. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI), operator of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule changes and the associated Statements of Consideration. Operating experience at the Perry Plant supports the conclusions stated in the subject Federal Register notice, wherein it is stated that the NRC "... has determined that certain types of events primarily involving invalid engineered safety feature (ESF) actuations are of little or no safety significance," and that "... reporting of certain types of events are no longer contributing useful information to the operating reactor events database and, therefore, are no longer necessary." Reduction of the reporting requirements will allow a more appropriate utilization of resources while internal corrective action programs required by 10CFR50, Appendix B, will continue to ensure that these minor events will be effectively addressed. Accordingly, CEI concurs in general with the proposed rule changes. The attachment to this letter provides specific comments on the content of the proposed rule changes and the associated Statements. These comments were generated through review of the proposed rules, Statements of Consideration associated with the issuance of the existing rules, a~d guidance provlded in NUREG-1022 and its Supplements. These comments are not intended to broaden the scope of the reporting requirement reductions proposed by the NRC; rather, they are intended to clarify the recommended provisions to avoid differing Operating Compon1es Cleveland Electric lllum1not1ng Toledo Edison

u.s. Nuc,_~t\\:, r.(/:.~'L1>.1-*:*-**/ ::~:*:*:':r"~;._,.~,o,., DC(< 1,: ***,:.'.;c:- 1:, ~~ -::,:,: ;: :(;;J (':-/ * ' J~:*_ -;-. ~,~ ***,... :*i:*1,~.f{( .. " t*-.... :i.. *;:.-.*.. :J:_;,~: ~

USNRC June 27, 1992 PY-CEI/NRR-153O L interpretations upon future use. In addition to the comments provided herein, CEI endorses the comments provided by the BWR Owners Group. Of specific interest to the Perry organization are those provisions of the proposed rules which address Reactor Water Cleanup System isolations. Because of certain design characteristics, the RWCU system at Perry is susceptible to isolations as a result of differential flow during routine operational maneuvers. These isolations are unpredictable and difficult to avoid, and have resulted in numerous reportable events over the last several years. Engineering evaluation has shown the system conditions which cause the isolations to have no significant negative effects on the system. Also, in each case, the isolation has occurred as designed, demonstrating a high level of reliability of the isolation system. These events, therefore, are not considered to be safety significant, and should be included in the scope of the reporting reduction. Clarification of the definition of a valid ESF actuation would eliminate potential confusion on the reportability of such actuations, and specific comments toward that objective are provided in the attachment. A list of specific LERs submitted on this issue could be provided upon request. CEI commends the NRC for this effort and others aimed at improving reporting requirements, and we appreciate your consideration of our comments. If there are any questions regarding the comments provided, please contact Mr. Henry L. Hegrat, Supervisor - Compliance, (216) 259-3737, Extension 5185. Michael D. Lyster MDL:HLH:ss Attachment cc: NRC Project Manager NRC Resident Inspector Office NRC Region III

w. A. Zarbis -

BWROG

w. A. Horin -

NUBARG SEP 1 s t99Z Acknowtedged by card........................ =::..

PY-CEI/NRR-1530 L Attachment Page 1 of 2 A copy of 57 FR 28642 through 28645 is included as part of this Attachment. The appropriate FR paragraphs have been annotated to correspond with the comments provided below.

1.

Under Background, paragraph 4, the definition of valid signals should be changed to "... those signals that are initiated in response to actual plant conditions which require initiation of the ESF to mitigate the consequences of a significant event." This definition would exclude those signals caused by unexpected or unpredictable changes in system conditions which do not require the initiation of the ESF. For example, RWCU isolations caused by system voiding during operating status changes (Startup, Shutdown, shifting of Filter/Demineralizers) are recognized operational nuisances with no safety significance. However, because such an ESF signal is caused by "..* parameters satisfying the requirements for ESF initiation," the reporting of these events would still be required through literal application of the definition provided.

2.

Under Discussion, paragraph 3, the words "... the event continues to be reportable under... " should be changed to "... the event must be evaluated under... " Likewise, at the end of the paragraph, the words "... the event/discovery continues to be reportable... " should be replaced with "... the event/discovery is potentially reportable under other provisions of 10 CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 57.73." Such events or conditions do not necessarily constitute a reportable event under the current rules. For example, loss of a single train of a safety system does not necessarily constitute a loss of a safety function, as addressed in 50.72(b)(2)(iii) and 50.73(a)(2)(v). Additionally, if the reason for the failure was introduced at or near the time of the failure, the event might not constitute operation or conditions prohibited by the Technical Specifications, reportable under 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B).

3.

Under Discussion, paragraph 4, the words "... to address whether corrective actions for events or conditions that are adverse to quality are reportable or not... " should be changed to 11 *** to address corrective actions for events or conditions that are adverse to quality whether the event is reportable or not." Appendix B does not establish reporting requirements or specifically require evaluation of corrective actions for reporting. Additionally, the rest of this paragraph seems to be directed at ensuring that licensees do not fail to fully address a condition adverse to quality just because it is not reportable.

4.

Under the proposed wording changes to 10 CFR Part 50, Sections 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(B)(3) and 50.73(a)(2)(iv)(B)(3) should be changed to read "Involves(ed) only the following specific ESFs, as applicable, or their equivalent systems."

PY-CEI/NRR-1530 L Attachment Page 2 of 2 The proposed wording could be read to imply that these systems are, by definition, ESF systems. Individual utilities may not have these specific systems defined as ESFs in the Safety Analysis Reports (SAR) for their plants. Based on guidance provided in Supplement 1 to NUREG 1022, utilities rely on the SAR to define ESFs for reporting purposes.

28642 Proposed Rules This Ndion of the FEDERAL REGJSTER contains notices to the public of the propoaed lsluir1ce of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notlcea ta to give i1Relell1ed penions an opportunity lo pm1iopaiw In the rule maJclng pnor to the adoption of the final rules. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CfR Part 50 RIN 31~~. .. Minor Modlflcatlon* to.Nuclear-Power A Reactor Event Repc.w~tg Requirementa~. AGENCY: ~tory Qm,mjasJon;~'... ACTION:~nJle. -.-... ~-.... SUMIWIY:1'he-Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion (NRC) proposes to amend .ft, regnliitlom tt, make minor modlflcaUom to the curnmt nuclear ...... ~ event reporting ~~ The proposed einemrneni. would apply to all nuclear .~licenseea and would. -~~'requirements for some -miiis that have been determined to be

• .oflittle or DO safety algnific-ance These

.. -proposed amendments would reduce the fn.dmrtry' s reporting burden and the ~C's response burden In event review A;_:and.assessmenL Wt.,* DATES: The comment period expirea July ? *:- Zl, 1992. Comments received after this ."". date will be considered if it is practical to do so. but the Cornrnfufnn iJi able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: i f... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmluion. t Washington, DC 20555. ATIN: t-Doclceting and Service Branch. Deliver comrnents to One White Flint North. '11555 Rockville Pilce, Rockville. MD 20852. between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. Copies of the draft regulatory analysis. the supporting statement submitted to 0MB and comments received may be examined at The NRC Public Document Room..2120 L Street. NW. (Low~ Level). Washington. DC 20555. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raji Tripathl (10 CFR 50.73) or Eric Weiss {10 CFR 50.72), Office of Analysis Fedmal lleaister Vol. 57, No. 124 Friday, Jane 28. 1992 J' and E*tion of Operational Data. signala" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commlsaion. initiatl.:--i.f~~s~:..s;-:are=~=:c::::Q W111htngtoo.;:DC 20555. Telephone {301) tare initiated in response to actual 492--4435 and (301) 492-8005. plant conditiom or parameters respectively.~\\ aatisfymg the requirements for ESF SUPPLEIIBfJ'Aii.lNl'ORMATJON: initle tion. ~. actuatl0I1S.ere by definition *-* ~~ those that do not meet the criteria for,* The Commiallou,ia _proposing minor being valid. Thm, invalid actuations -. : amendrnents'to1liiciii:ient nuclear include actuations that are not due to_ power reactm. iveiit~ valid signals and ere not intentional*

• requiremeota c:ontidmd'Jn'10 CFR 50.72..

manual actuations. Invalid actuations "Immediate N~ta include instances wherimstrument for Operating N~rs." drift, spurious signals. human error. or and 10 CFR 50.13, ~ other invalid signals causea actuat!on of.- Reporting System... u~ the ESF (~ jarring a cabinet, an error activities to improve lta~. in use ofjmnpera or lifted leads, an error. In this regard. various~~ *of hi actuation of switches or controls. :. tin and ~Hems -Of equipment failure or radio frequency U::eJ ~ operatf.Iis.e;iei.dii,::.. interference). since 1984 have indicated that reports/;:~_: -:: NRC'a eyaluation of-both the reported

• on some of these eventa are not * --:-: ~~:: events since January 1984, when the necessary for the NRC to perfonn its*-=-~:- existing rules first became effective. and safety mission. The reporting of certain*-, the commeni:9 received during the Event*

. types of events are DO longer . - Reportins Worbhops conducted in Fall contributing useful information to the of 1990, identified needed improvements operating reactor events database and. In the rules. The NRC determined that therefore. ere no longer necessary. The invalid adlletion. isolation. or

• unnecessary reports are C0D5llIDing realignment of a limited set ofESFs or resources in preparation and review that their equivalent systems, subsystems, or would be better applied elsewhere.

components (Le.. an invalid actuation. Over the past several years, the NRC isolation. or realignment of only the has increased its attention to event reactor water clean-up (RWCU) system, reporting issues to ensure uniformity, the control room emergency ventilation consistency, and completeness In event (CREV) system. the reactor building reporting. As a result. In September ventilation system, the fuel building 1991. the NRC's Office for Analysis and ventilatlan system, or the auxiliary Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) building ventilation system) ere of little issued for comment a draft NUREG-or no safety significance. However, 1022. Raviaion. 1 ~vent Reporting these events are currently reportable Systems 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(li) and 10 CFR 50.73-Clarlfication ofNRC Systems 50.13 (aH2XivJ. .and Guidelines for Reporting." The final rules for the ~t event .

• Following resolution of public reporting regulations, 10 CFR 50.72 and comments. the NUREG will contain 10 CFR 50.73 (48 FR 39039: August 28.

improved guidance for event reporting. 1983. end 48 FR 33850: July 26. 1983. The NRC'a continuing examination of respectively}. stated that~ systems, reported events during development of including the reactor protection system this document has determined that. (RPS), are provided to mitigate the certain types of events primarily consequences of a significant evenL involving Invalid engineered safety Thentfore, ESFs should (1) work feature (ESF) actuatlom are of little or properly when called upon and (2) no safety significance. should not be challen8f!(i frequently or Valid ESF actuatlODB are those unnecessarily. The Statements of actuations that result from "valid Consideration for these final rules also 1 A free liaale copy may be requested by wrillns to the Diatribunon and Mail Sernca Secbon. us. N uclar Regulatory ComrnnM W aahinglon. DC 20555. A copy Is abo anilable Ear in,pecbon OC' COPYlD3 for

• fee at the NRC PllblLC Document Room. %120 L Street. NW. (Lowe-Lnel}.

Walhington. DC 20555. stated that operation of an ESF as part of a pre-plmmed operational procedure or test need not be reported. The Commission noted that ESF actuations. including reactor trips. are frequen.tly associated with significant plant transients and are indicative of events* 1

Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 124 / Friday, June 26, 1992 / Proposed Rules 28643 that are of safety aignificance. At that the general public, or (3) would time. the Commiuion also required all l =~* e control room habitabill!l, ESF actuations, including the RPS c event discovery contimies to b9 actuations, whether manual or automatic, valid or invall~cept as d ESF actuationa that would be noted, to be reported to the NRC by excluded by this proposed rule, but telephone within 4 hours of occurrence occur as a part of a reportable event. followed by a written Licemee Event would continue to be described as part Report (I.ER} within 30 days of the of the reportable event. The proposed incident. This requirement on timeliness ameIYiment.s are not intended to of reporting remains unchanged.. preclude submittal of a complete. The reported. Information la WJed by accurate. and thorough desaiption of an NRC in confirmation of the licensing event that is otherwise reportable under bases. identification of precursors to 10 CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 50.,"'3. The severe core damage. identification of Cornmiuion is propoaing to relax only plant specific deficiencies. generic the selected event reporting lessons, review of management control requirements specified in this proposed systems, and licensee performance rule. Licensees are still required under assessment. 10 CFR SO. appendix B, "Qnality OiJ!Qffl!Jion

==for Nude~ to E elaxing reportmg requirements for.3 =n*nnc,uVe or ESP.actuations, primarily invalid eventa or conditions that are adverse to ons, could save reaources for are repor!able or no both the industry and the NRC. The a t1ons Commisaion emphames that only (such as RWCU isolations) to reduce specific invalid ESF actuatilms would be operational radiation exposures exempt from reporting. The relaxations auociated with the investigation and 1n event reporting requirements recovery from the actuations, are ~tained in the proposed rnle would consistent with AI.ARA reqnirements. apply only to a limited set of specifically The existing provisiona in 10 CFR defined invalid ESF actuations. These 50.12 (b)(.Z)(il) and 10 CFR 50.73(a)(.2)(lv). aventa are limited to invalid actuation, require the reporting of an event or isolation. or realignment of the RWCU conditlon that results in a manual or syatem. the CREV system. the reactor automatic actuation of an ESF, including

iuilding ventilation system. the fuel the RPS, except when the actuation Juilding ventilation system. or the results from and la part of the pre-nodliary bnilding ventilation system.

planned sequence during testing or .nvalid actuation/iaolation/realignment reactor operation. A pre-planned .!Vents in these systems are of little or seqnence implies that the procedural ,o safety significance. step indicates the specific ESF or RPS Invalid actuations of all other ESFs. actuation thnt will be generated and ~t those noted above. have been control room personnel are aware of the Wild to be safety significant and would specific signal generation before its continue to be reportable under 10 CFR occurrence or indication in the control 'i0.72(b)(.Z)(U) and 10 CFR 50.73{a)(2){lv}. room. However, if the ESP, including the ~eportable invalid actuatiom would RPS, actuates dnring the planned nclude emergency core cooling system operation or test in a way that is not solations/ actuations, containment part of the planned procedure, such as

• solation valve closures that affect at the wrong step, the event is

ooling systems, main steam Bow, reportable.

-ssential support systems. etc.. The Cornrnisswm proposes to make -ontainment spray actuation. and additional relaxatlona to event reporting esidual heat removal system isolations. by excluding three additional categories However, the Comrnissirm empha.aizes of eventl as follows:

hat if an invalid ESF actuation reveals (1) The first category excludes events J defect in the system so that the system in which an invalid ESF or RPS ailed or would fail orm its actuation occurs when the system is

,, :1tend already properly removed from service I-.. if all reqnirementa of plant procedures 10 CFR 50.73. If a ondition or deficiency has (1) an dverae impact on safety-related quipment and consequently on the ,bility to shut down the reactor and 'llaintain it in a safe shutdown onditJon, (2) has a potential for ignificant radiological release or '0tential exposure to plant personnel or for removing equipment from service have been met. Thia would include required clearance documentation, equipment and control board tagging. and properly positioned valves and power supply breakers. - (2) The second category excludes eventa in which an invalid ESF or RPS actuation occurs after the safety function has already been completed (e.g., an invalid containment isolation signal while the containment isolation valves are already closed. or an invalid actuation of the RPS when all rods are fully inserted). (3) The third category excludes events when an invalid actuation. isolation. or realignmentofonlythereactorwarer clean-up (RWCUJ system, or any of the following ventilation systems: Control room emergency ventilation (CREV) system, reactor building ventilation system. fuel building ventilation system, auxiliary building ventilation system, or their equivalent ventilation systems occurs. Invalid actuations that involve other ESF1 not specifically excluded, (such as emergency core cooling system isolations or actuations; containment isolation valve clOSW'89 that affect cooling systems, main steam flow, essential support systems, etc.; containment spray actuation; and, residual heat removal system isolations). would continue to be reportable. Llcensees would continue to be requird to submit LERs if a deficiency or condition 89SOCi.ated with any of the invalid ESF actuations of the RWCU or the CREV systems (or other equivalent ventilation systems) satisfies any reportabillty criteria under § 50.72 and § 50.73. Impact of the Proposed Alnendrnentis Relaxing the current ~uirement for reporting of certain types of ESF actuations will reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden. This reduction would be consistent with the objectives and the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The proposed amendments would have no impact on the NRC's ability to fulfill its mission to ensure public health and safety because the reporting requiremenla that the Commiuion proposes to deJete have little or no safety significance. It is estimated that the proposed changes to the existing rules will result in about 150 (or 5-10 percent) fewer Licensee Event Reports each year. Similar reductions are expected in the number of prompt event notificationa reportable under 10 CFR 50.72. Submittal of Comments The licensees are encouraged to submit their estimates on impact of the proposed amendments in their comments on the proposed rule. Commenters are encouraged to submit. in addition to the original paper copy. a copy of their comments in an electronic format on IBM PC DOS-

28644 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 1Z4 / Friday, June 26. 1992 / Proposed Rules compatible 3..5-or 5.25-inch. double-sided diskettes. Data files should be provided In WordPerfect S.O. or S.L ASCII code ia. also acceptable, or If formatted text Is required. date files should be submitted In IBM Ravisable Format Text Document Content Architectme (RFI' /DCA) formaL Flndlng of No Slgnificant Euvlromnental Impact: Availability The NRC bas determined that thia proposed regulation la the type of action described in categorical excluaions 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(3)(ii} and (ill}. Therefore neither an environmental impact statement D0l' an environmental asseament baa been prepared for this proposed regulation. Paperwork Reductloa Act Statement

• Thi~ proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etaeq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork reduction requirements.

Because the rule would relax exi>>ting reporting requirements, public reporting burden for the collection of information 1.a expected to be reduced. n is estimated that about 150 fewer Ucensee Event Reports (NRC Form 366) and a similarly reduced number of prompt event notiflcatiODS, made pw:suant. to 10 CFR 50.72, will be required each year. The resulting reduction in burden Ia estimated to average 50 hours per response. fDcl.udJng the time for reviewing instructions. searching existing data sourcea. gathering end maintaining tf:ie data needed. and completing and reviewfDg the collection of information. Send comments regarding the. estimated burden. reductions or any other upect or this. collection of Information. inclvdfng suggestions for further reducing reporting burden. to the Information and Records Management Brailch (MNBB-771.4), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. NEOB 3019. (3150-0011 and 31S0-0104). Office of Maoegernen.t and BudgeL Washington. DC 20503. Regulatory AnalY$l"s The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed rule change. The analyais RXarninea the costs and benefits of the altematfves considered by the Cornmhsaion. The draft analysis Is available for inspection In the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street. NW., Lower Level. Washington. DC 20555. Single copies of the draft ana.lysia may be obtained from: Raji Tripathi, Office for Analysis end Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555. Telephone (310) 492-4t35. Regulatory Flexibility CertificatioD In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980 (5 us.c. 605 (BJ). the CommJssion certifiea that this rule will not. if promulgated. have a slgniftcant economic impact on a subatantial number of small entities. The proposed role affects only the event reporting requirements for operational nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of.. small entities.. set forth in the Regulatory Fie,obility Act 01' the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration Act in 13 CFR part 121. Bai:kflt Analysis As required by 10 CPR 50.109, the Commisaion has compl.eted an aueament of the need for Backfit Analysis for the proposed rule. The proposed en:umdrnentB fnclude relaxations of certain existing requirements on reporting of information to the NRC. These changes neither Impose addittonal reporting requitt!muDts nor require modiflcat:iom. to the facillties or their licenses. Acconlingly, the NRC has concluded that the proposed rule does not comtftute a baclcfit and. thus, a backfl.t analyaia la not required. List of Sabjeda In 18 CFR. Part 5D Antitrust. Omifled informa~ -. Criminal penalty, F!re prevention. .Ioco,poratton by reference,. -. lnterguvemmental relationa. Nucleu power plants and reactors, Radiation protection. Reactor siting crlterla. Reporting and recordkeeping. For the reasom set out In. the preamble and UDder the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1964. u amended. the F.aergy Reorsamzation Act of 1974. es amended.,md 5 U.S.C. 553. the 0,rnmfseion ls proposing to adopt the fullowing ameudrnAnta to 10 CFR part

50.

PART 50-00IIESTIC UCENStNG OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACJLITlES

1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to reed as follows:

Audaority: Secs. 1oz. 103. 104. 105.161. 18Z. 18S. 186. 189. 611 Stat. 938, 937, 938. 948.. 953. 954. ~ 956. a amended. sec. %34. 83 Stat. Uff. as amended (42 U.S.C. Z132. 2133. 2134. %135. Z%Ot. %%32. 2233. 2238. %239. Z28Z): secs. 201. as ameaded. 202. 208. 88 Stat. 1242. H amended. 1244. U46 (4Z U.S.C. 5841. 5812. 5846). Sectioll 50.7 also Issued under Pub. L 95-601..sec.10. 9Z Stat. 2951 (4% u.s.c. 5861). Sectlon 50.10 alao inued under MCL 10L 185. 68 Stat. 93IS, 955, 81 amended (4Z u.s.c. %131. 2235): sec. lOZ. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Slat. 853 (4% U.S.C. 4332). Sectiom 50.13.. and 50.54{dd}, aod S0.103 also !stued lllUler sec. 108. 68 Stat. 939. as amended (~ U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.:3, 50.35. 5rulS. and 50.58 mo fnued aader !111C. 185. 68 Stat. 955 ( 4Z U.S.C. 2235). Secdom 50.33a. 50.5Sa.and Appendix Q abo iuued under AC. 102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (4Z u.s.c. ~ Sectionl 50.3& md 50.M alao lasued uaderaec.20-l. 88SW. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58. 50.91. and 50.92 also iNued under Pub. L 97-41S. 911 Stat. ::073 ( 4Z u.s.c. :z:?39). Section 50.78 also lsaed undet' sec.122. 68 Stat. 939 (4Z u.s.c. Zl.52.}. Secticna 5D.B0--50.81 also issued tmder sec. 184. 68 Stat. 954. 89 amended (4% u.s.c. 2234). Appendix P alao luued aader sec. 187, 611 Stat. 955 {4% U.S.C.22:37). For the prpoees of sec. ZZ3. 68 Stat. 958. as amended {42 U.S.C. l273): II 50.5. 50.46{11} and {b). and 50.54( c) are iaued under-sec. lGlb, 68 Stat.~ u amended (4Z U.S.C. Z201{b )): H 50.5. 50.7(a}. SlllO{aHc}. 50.34{ a) md (el, 50.44(aHc). 50.46(a} and (b). 51J.47(b). 50.48( a). (c). (cl). and ( e). 50.49(11). 50.54{ a). {l). (l){ll, (lHnl, {p). (q}. (t). M, and (y), soa(f), 50.558{ a}. (cH e). (s). and (b). 50.59(<<:), 50.80( II}. so.az{b). 50M(bJ. 50.85, and 50.80(a) and (bJ an ilued under NC. 1S1l. 88 Stat. 948... ~ (4Z u.s.c..zmt{i)); and H 60A9(dJ. (h). and U). 50.54(w). (z). (bb).. (cc). and ( dd}. SQ.55{ e), 50.Sll(b)..50.81{b), 5ll.82(b). Sll.10( a), 50.7t(*H c) and (e). 50.72( al 50.73{a) aui (b}. 50.74. 50.78. and SOSO ans IAued under aec. 1610. 89 Stat. 9l50. u amended {42 U.S.C. 2201{ol).

2. ID § 50.72. pmagtaph {b)(Z)(il) ~

l'8Yised to read as foilowc §50.12 lm1M-lele"01Nkat1M1- ~ foropa.allngnadeerpower rNCt0rS. (b) Noo-em<<gency events * *.. (2) Four-hour reports. * * * (li) Azry event or condition that resultl' in a manual or automatic actnation of any engineer~ safety feature (ESF). including the reactor protection syatem (RPS). except when: (A) The acblation resulta from and is part of a pre-p!anned aeqaence during testing or reactor operation: (B) The actuation la imalld and: (1) Occurs while the system la properly removed from senice;' (21 Occurs after the safety function bas beea already or 4 3} the specif ESFs or their equivalent systems: (1 water e1e11UMm system: (ill Comrol room emergency ventilation system:

l l j I i I 1 1 1 I, Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 124 / Friday, June 26. 1992 / Proposed Rules 28645 (iil) Reactor building ventilation _ system: (iv) Fuel building ventilation system: or (v) Awdlia.cy building ventilation system.

3. In I 50.73. paragraph (a)(2)

Introductory text ia republlahed and paragraph (a)(2}(1v} i. revised to read u follows: § 50.73 tJc:enMe event report system. -. (a) Reportable events.* * * (2) The licensee shall report * *

• _

(iv) Any event or condition that resulted in a manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF), including the reactor protection system (RPS). except when: (A) The actuation resulted from and was part of pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; (BJ The actuation was invalfd and: (1) Occurred while the system was properly removed from service; (2) Occurred after the safety function ha alre leted: or 4 (3) ve only the o o specific ESFs or their equivalent stems:.* 1 eactor water clean-up system: (ill Control room emergency ventilation system; (ih) Reactor building ventilation system: (iv) Fuel building ventilation system; or M Auxiliary building ventilation system. Dated at Rockville, MD, tfiia 19th day of Juna.1992. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiaion. _ James M. Taylor. -. _.. : Execuuve Director forO~doM. (FR Doc. 92-15067 :rued 6-Z5-Q2; 8:46 am] IIUJNO C00C 7&IO-G1-II to store spent fuel In the approved caab under a general 1icenae. Thia action ia necessary to ln!orm the public and NRC licensees of the propose additions. DATE Comment period expirea September 9, 1992. Comments received* after this date will be considered tf It la practical to do so, but the Cornrnlaaion la able to amue consideration only for. comments received on or before thia.

• dat1t.

AD0RUSEI: Mail written cormneuts tlJ

• the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Waahfngton, DC 20555.

A TIN: Dockettng and Service Branch. Hand deliver comments to One White Flint North. 11555 Rodcville Pike. Roclcvil.Ie, MD between 7:45 a.m. and 4."15 p.m. Federal workdays. A copy ofNUREG-1092. which is referenced In the envlrornxh!Dtal assessment, may be purchased from the Superintendent ofDocmnents, U.S. Government Printing Office. P.O. Box

• 37082, W aahington. DC 20013-7082.

Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 528S Port Royal Road. Sprfngflekl. VA 22161. A copy is also available for The Commission approved. dry storage - of spent nuclear fuel in publlahlng a final rule on July 18. 1990 (55 FR 29181), which atabilshed. a new subpart K within 10 CFR part 72 entitled. '"General Liceme for Storage of Spent Fuel at Powt!r Reactor Sites.,. Section 133 of the NWPA states, in

• part, that "the Cnrnrni-ton shall. by
• rule, establiah pn.,cedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218(aJ for-use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor." This directive was carried out on Jnly 18. 1990 (55 FR 29181}. by the publication In the Federal Regiats of a final rule establishing a new subpart L within 10 CFR part 72 entitled.. Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Caska."

At the time of this ndemaking, four casks were llated In § 72.214 of subpart K a11 approved by the NRC for storage of

• spent fuel at power reactor sites under general license by persona authorized to.

possess or operate nuclear power reactors. Jllacussion inspection and/or copying at the NRC This proposed rulernaking would add Local Public Document Room, 2120 L two spent fuel storage caaka to the list of Street, NW. (Lower Level), Waahington. approved caaka in § n.214. Following -, - DC. the procedures In § 72.230 of subpart 4 Copies of the environmeotal Transnuclear. Ina.. submitted a Topical asaessment and ftndfng of no significant Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) entitled environmental impact. and any "TN-24 Dry Storage Culc Topical comments received on this proposed Report" In July 1988. In July 1989. the rule are available for Inspection and NRC issued a Safety Evaluation Report. copying for a fee at the NRC Public (SER] approving the TSAR with Documant Room at the above address. Instructions to Tt"Srumnclear to revise FOR FURTHD INFORMATION CONTACT: the TSAR prior to docketing. Pacific 'Mr. Gordon E. Gundersen. Office of. Sierra Nuclear Associates (PSNA). Nuclear Regulatory Reeeerch. U.S. submitted a "Topical Report on the _ * :.._ Nuclear Regulatory Cornromion, . Ventilated Storage Cult System for -_;') . Waahington. DC 20555. ~e (301}. Irradiated Fuel" for their VSC-24 caak.ilL ~;;_. 492-3803,..or Mr. James.F. Schneider,. Februa.ry*1989. ThaNRClssued its SER"t~-=--'* Office of Nuclear Material Safety and in April 1991. Also.following the -~ -: - Safeguards. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory* procedures.of 117.230. PSNA submitted- --commisaion. Washington. DC 20555, a "Safety.Analysis Report for the telephone (301) 504-2692. Ventilated Storage Cask System" in 10 CfR Part 72 RIN 3150-AE15 Ust of Approved Spent Fuel Storage casks: Additions AODCY: Nuclear Regulatory Cornrnission. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to approve two additional spent fuel storage caaka (TN-24 and VSG-24). These casks would be added to the "List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks." Holders of power reactor operating licenses are permitted SUPPLEMENTARY INFOIIIIA1101C Background.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear W aate Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) Includes the following directive: '°The Secratary [ of DOE] shall eatabliah II dernomtmtion program in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the (Nuclear Regulatory) Comm.iaaion may, by rule. approve for use at the site& of civilian nuclear power reactors without. lo the marimum extent practicable, the need for iwditfonal site-specific approvals by the Commission." November 1991. The NRC issued its SER. In April 1992. The TSARs for the Trananuclea.r TN-. 24 and the Pacific Siemr Nuclear Associates VSC-24 cub have been approved for storage of spent fuel under the cond.itlom specified in their Certificates of Compliance. These casks. when used according to the conditions specified in their Certificates of Compliance. will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72 and. thus, adequate protection of the public health and safety would be ensured. These caaks are being proposed for listing under § i7.214, "Ust of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Ca.aka." Holden of power reader operating licenses are permitted

O -l'ET N, B ~ W - r - .. ~_ '. --J RULi:-

J

~ ~ --- °PP.O. Box 029100, Miami, FL, 33102-9100 ( 5"1 Fl'- 2-'r-6~1-.] L,vCt\\i.. i i.. L! USNHC

• 92 JUL 31 Pl2 :35

,,F! 1 '.; Ji SERf 1/,1. t1ul,'K(11HG \\': f- ;,'"lr:I GR tiL 1* U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Request for Comments on Proposed Rule; JUL 2 7 1992 L-92-221 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements (57 FR 28642, June 26, 1992) On June 26, 1992, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a proposed rule requesting comments concerning the event reporting requirements applicable to engineered safety feature (ESF) actuations. These comments are submitted on behalf of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 in Dade County, Florida. In general, we support the proposed changes and encourage the NRC to pursue similar efforts with respect to other reporting obligations. The BWR Owners' Group Licensee Event Report Committee, through its working group on ESF actuations and in conjunction with NUMARC, has prepared comments on the proposed amendments. We endorse the comments of the BWR Owners' Group. In addition, the following is provided for your consideration. The Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-92-14 6, "Proposed Minor Rulemaking to Modify Operating Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements -- 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73," requested that a discussion of the term "invalid actuations" be included in the Statement of Considerations. It is requested that an interpretation be provided in the final rule discussing the determination of reportability for an event involving a non-ESF signal actuating an ESF component. Examples include: (1) the automatic start of a Component Cooling Water pump (an ESF component) from a low-pressure signal (a non-ESF signal), and (2) the automatic start of an Intake Cooling Water pump (an ESF component) due to a false overcurrent trip signal (an invalid non-ESF signal) on an adjacent Intake Cooling Water pump. p _ 8 IJ l' Acknowledged by card.................................. an FPL Group company

L-92-221 Page 2 The Federal Register notice also requested licensees to submit their estimates of impact of the proposed amendments. A review of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted since January,

1984, indicates that Turkey Point would have submitted between 29 and 33 fewer LERs had the proposed rule been in effect, and that an additional 7 LERs would have been obviated if non-ESF actuations of ESF components were not reportable.

These 7 LERs have been reviewed and do not appear to have safety significance beyond a "count" of uses of ESF components. A reduction of approximately 38 event reports represents approximately 15 % of the reports Turkey Point has submitted since the implementation of the LER rule (10 CFR 50.73). We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments. Very truly yours, T. F. Plunkett Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear TFP/CLM/cm cc: Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC R.C. Butcher, Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, Turkey Point Plant

~ ENTERGY July 22, 1992 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission

• 92 JUL 31 P 3 :13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Entergy Operations, Inc. PO Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Tel 6019849740 John R. McGaha Vice President Operations Support

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50, "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting" CNRO - 92/00059

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Entergy Operations, Inc. has reviewed the proposed revision to 1 O CFR 50 as published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1992 (57 FR 28642 - 28645). These proposed changes would modify existing requirements to eliminate the reporting of certain events with little or no safety significance, primarily those involving invalid engineered safety feature actuations, and are intended to reduce the burden on both licensees and the NRC. Entergy Operations considers these changes to be beneficial to both the NRC and licensees and feels that they are of no appreciable safety significance. This type of improvement in regulations should have a long-term positive effect on the nuclear power industry by allowing NRC and licensee resources to be focused on more important areas. We therefore endorse the proposed changes. We welcome this effort by the NRC for the reasons stated above, and also encourage additional reductions or changes in regulations which have little or no safety benefit. In regard to other reporting requirements, the pending draft revision to NUREG-1022 "Event Reporting Systems 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 - Clarification of NRC Systems and Guidelines for Reporting" provides an excellent opportunity for further improvement. The industry including Entergy Operations has

U.2. f\\*',,. :, *._*. L'*

• i, *.,*.

.:,,]

Comments on Proposed Revision to 1 O CFR 50, "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting" July 22, 1992 CNRO-92/00059 Page 2 of 2 provided input to the NRG on the draft NUREG in order to assist in reducing requirements without impacting safety. The issuance of a revised NUREG-1022 incorporating industry's comments would be an additional positive change in reporting requirements. Entergy Operations has provided input to NUMARC and NUBARG on this subject and endorses their comments. We appreciate this opportunity to express our views on this matter. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please contact this office. Sincerely, ' ~~ JRM/hek cc: Mr. T. W. Alexion Mr. R. P. Barkhurst Mr. N. S. Carns Mr. W. T. Cottle Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. D. C. Hintz Mr. R. D. Martin Mr. J. L. Mathis Mr. P. W. O'Connor Ms. S. R. Peterson Mr. N. S. Reynolds Ms. L. J. Smith Mr. W. F. Smith Mr. D. L. Wigginton Central File (GGNS) DCC (ANO) Records Center (W-3) Corporate File [3] Acknowredged by card SEP 1 B 199z

Georgia Power Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 877-7122 DOCKl:T NU.~BER PR S O PROPOSED RULE.!..!:.: __ [51 Ffl :LJ-641-) OOCt< 1-_ i U; USNRC C. K. McCoy Vice President, Nuclear Vogtle Project (j) ~

• 92 JUL 29 P 4 :40 Georgia Power the southern e1ecmc system Docket Nos.

50-321 50-366 50-424 50-425 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Convnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements" (57 Federal Register 28642 of June 26, 1992)

Dear Mr. Chil k:

HL-2339 ELV-03918 Georgia Power Company has reviewed the proposed rule, 10 CFR Part 50, "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements," published in the Federal Register on June 19, 1992. In accordance with the request for comments, Georgia Power Company is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which were provided to the NRC. In addition to the NUMARC comments, Georgia Power Company would like to add the following comment. The scope of the Engineered Safety Features (ESF) actuations which would be exempt from reporting under the proposed rule should not be limited to those specified. If an ESF actuation is truly invalid, it should not be reportable under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(iv). No "event" or "condition" exists when an invalid ESF actuation occurs. This type of ESF actuation would have little or no safety significance. Therefore, ANY invalid ESF actuation should be exempt from the reporting requirement. Should you have any questions, please advise. Respectfully submitted, c.~(?1 CKM/JMG SEP 18 1992 , c1--rcwl "'ge J *."f om:f..............,..

s. j I' t'** l"

\\._, f" I t E'U,. : -* : C - '* I'.,, l V - j VI 1", *:.*~ \\,..*~I *..,..... ~* ~ 'J 4

Georgia Power, \\ Mr. Samuel J. Chilk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 cc: Georgia Power Company Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Vice President, Plant Hatch Mr. W. B. Shipman, General Manager - Plant Vogtle Mr. H. L. Sumner, Jr., General Manager - Plant Hatch NORMS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC Mr. K. N. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch Mr. D. S. Hood, Licensing Project Manager - Vogtle U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. L. D. Wert, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch Mr. B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY Telephone (508) 779-6711 TWX 710-380-7619 580 Main Street, Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555 Attention: Docketing & Service Branch '\\,,> ~ r DOCKETED ~{ J U L 2 f, 1c92 -~, DOCKETING & i::;. \\ SERVICE BR,'\\NCH SECY-NRC /,,,l* .* I

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule: "Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements" (57FR28642)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee) appreciates the opportunity to offer comments concerning the proposed rule changes to modifying event reporting requirements for nuclear licensees. Yankee owns the nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast; including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook. The purpose of this letter is to provide Yankee's endorsement of the subject proposed rule deleting reporting requirements for specific "invalid" Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) actuations that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance. We view the subject proposed rule efforts to reduce the regulatory burden compromising public health and safety. issuance in final form. SMC/dhm C76\\ 237 as supportive of the NRC's continued for power reactor licensees without Accordingly, we encourage the prompt Very truly yours. /)JJ~ D. W. Edwards Director, Industry Affairs

lJ.S. lt-l.t'G'_fi *. _, 'r0',~,,\\:.._,,!1'~' COMMISSIO~ DCY. ~ **:.:: _ 3'.::::l CE SECTION P,r~;,r"

• • '. _ _21._~?- _F~i.i ~j 01"- 1 )q/ 'f2_

('_./ *., : - * *:. l I \\. ~ ~ ~ - ~ . f2T, OJ:; PX) r[~ ~ i r-1 po -t"'-, *.J- ~ 1,1.1.

WINSTON& DOCKET NUMBER PR ' ,' --1-.. P08ED RULE ~ Cs 1 FR 2-H:,L-/ 1-J ST~ AJ~l.N'"o __.____,_~tM:'i ~IJ USNRC FREDERICK H. WINSTON (1853-1886) SILAS H. STRAWN (1891-1946) 1400 L STREET, N W. WASH INGTON, D.C. 20005-3 ~ JUL 28 p 2 :58 (202) 371-5 700 WRITER' S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (202) 371-5717 July 27, 1992 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch CHICAGO OFFICE 3 5 WEST WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601 (312) 558-5600 NEW YORK OFFICE 175 WATER STREET NEW YORK. NY 10038-4981 (212) 269-2500 Re: Solicitation of Public Comments on Proposed Rule Regarding Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements, 57 Fed. Reg. 28.642 (June 26. 1992)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group ("NUBARG"),-1 in response to NRC's proposed amendment to the event reporting requirements applicable to engineered safety feature ( "ESF") actuations in 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.72(b) (2) (ii) and 50.73(a) (2) (iv). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this NRC initiative and fully support the proposed amendment. In

sum, the amendment would reduce the reporting obligations related to ESF actuations in three areas:

( 1) any invalid actuation occurring when the system is already properly removed from service would not be reportable; ( 2) any invalid signal which occurs after the safety function has already been completed would not be reportable; and (3) certain invalid actuations of specific systems would not be reportable. NUBARG fully supports these changes and concurs with the underlying NRC philosophy to eliminate reporting requirements, such as these, that are of minimal safety significance or have no actual or potential safety significance. NUBARG urges the NRC to promptly implement !/ NUBARG consists of 22 nuclear utilities (listed in Attachment A hereto), each of which owns or operates a power reactor licensed by the NRC.

U.S. NUCL~ '-18 1'.EG:.1;__;, r ~--r-;-1 COrv**~;SSIQt-.c DOC~~ :*!~.:1 '\\ '"::::,*/ 1~~ ;::\\.i!f-~JN OF-11* --: * *.,:-: r **. ~*.. ;f :,**1::T~r~'.' C-f -~i !:_ C :*\\:IJ *:~:;.J1*J

WINSTON & S TRAWN Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 27, 1992 Page 2 these modifications in order to provide immediate relief \\? licensees from these safety insignificant reporting obligations.- Finally, while supporting these proposed changes and their prompt implementation, NUBARG believes that additional modifications may be appropriate with regard to ESF reporting. Accordingly, NUBARG is currently evaluating additional recommendations in this area in conjunction with a separate gener17 NRC rulemaking initiative concerning reporting requirements. - Additional comments concerning ESF reporting, as well as other reporting obligations, will be filed in accordance with the schedule for that general initiative. Respectfully submitted, W!t-O+t~ Nicholas s. Reynolds Daniel F. Stenger William A. Hori n COUNSEL TO THE NUCLEAR UTILITY BACKFITTING AND REFORM GROUP Attachment 11 NUBARG also encourages the NRC to diligently pursue similar efforts with respect to other reporting requirements.

See,

~, 57 Fed. Reg. 27,187 (June 18, 1992) ( changes to the frequency of reports required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.36{a) (2), 50.59{b) (2), and 50.7l{e) (4)). NUBARG filed comments on these proposed changes by letter dated July 20, 1992. See 57 Fed. Reg. 27,394, "Review of Reactor Licensee Reporting Requirements" (June 19, 1992). Acknowledged by card-~~:.... ~.~... '.~~:........

ATTACHMENT A NUBARG MEMBERS Carolina Power & Light Company Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Commonwealth Edison Company Entergy Operations, Inc. (representing Arkansas Power System Energy Resources, Louisiana Power & Light) Florida Power & Light Company Florida Power Corporation Nebraska Public Power District New York Power Authority Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Northeast Utilities Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Philadelphia Electric Company Portland General Electric Company Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation Texas Utilities Toledo Edison Company Washington Public Power Supply system

Light, Inc.,

and Yankee Atomic Electric Company (representing also Public Service Company of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, and Vermont Nuclear Power Corporation)

UVt..:Kt I NUMBER PR PR ? SED RULE S- 0

• BWA 5 7 FR :L b S-/2..

OWNERS' GROUP Cvnthia L Tullv. Chairperson (205) 877-7357 c/o Southern Nuclear Operating Companv

• P.O. Box 1295, Bin 8052
• Birmingham, AL 35201 BWROG-92062 July 27, 1992 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (57 FR 28642, JUNE 26, 1992) On June 26, 1992, the NRC issued for public comment proposed amendments to 10CFR50.72 and 10CFR50.73 regarding nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. The BWR Owners' Group (BWROG) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments. The BWROG commends the NRC for this effort and other related efforts to improve its reporting requirements. The BWROG endorses the principal goal of the reporting obligations under 10CFR50.72 and 50.73, namely, to assure that potentially safety significant events and conditions are reported to the NRC in a timely and complete fashion. The proposed modifications that are the subject of this letter would delete reporting requirements for certain events that have been determined not to be of actual or potential safety signifi-cance. These modifications therefore do not impact the NRC's ability to fulfill its responsibilities, while satisfying the intent of the regulations and reducing the burden both on the NRC and industry. In general, the BWROG concurs with the proposed rule change. Specific com-ments on the Federal Register notice are attached. The comments are primarily on the Statement of Considerations accompanying the rule changes. The Statement of Considerations provide guidance for applying the rule changes, and the BWROG comments are intended to provide additional clarification. We appreciate your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the undersigned. SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card..................................

~! :) .._~: **. I ~-, J :*,-) /.'u_:_;._.*.::** *.-. , ;*);_~jQ r:*:** :.)*:i: *-f - **

• _

_.. <~ ', :_\\,U.. i,~~ !"'\\Q f\\!...1J..;::-.f.Y(_::.....:.,~*,:,J \\_ !fi',.~::, J\\/~i1on1 *S

NRC Docketing & Service Branch BWROG-92062 July 27, 1992 Page 2 The comments/positions provided in this letter have been endorsed by a substantial number of the members of the BWROG; however, it should not be interpreted as a commitment by any individual member to a specific course of action. Each member must formally endorse the BWROG position for that position to become that member's position. Very truly yours, C. L. Tully, Chairperson BWR Owners' Group Attachment EXECST/CLT/WAZ/rt cc: LA England, BWROG Vice Chairman GJ Beck, RRG Chairman WT Russe 11, NRC NRC Document Control Branch BWROG Primary Representatives BWROG LER Committee WJ Hall, NUMARC SJ Stark, GE WA Zarbis, GE

ATTACHMENT BWR OWNERS' GROUP COMMENTS ON "MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS", 57 FR 28642, JUNE 26, 1992 A copy of the subject Federal Register notice is attached. The comments below are cross-referenced to the appropriate portion of the notice.

1.

The definition of valid signal should be changed to "... those signals that are initiated in response to actual plant conditions which require initiation of the ESF to mitigate the consequences of a significant event." This definition would exclude those signals caused by unexpected or unpredictable changes in system conditions which do not require the initiation of the ESF. For example, RWCU isolations caused by system voiding or operating status changes (Startup, Shutdown, shifting of Filter/Demineralizers) are recognized operational nuisances with no safety significance. However, because such an ESF signal is caused by "parameters satisfying the requirements of ESF initiation," the reporting of these events would still be required through literal interpretation of the definition provided in the notice.

2.

The word "i nternat i ona l" should be changed to "intentional". The word "required" is spelled incorrectly.

3.

The first sentence should be deleted and replaced with "Invalid actuations of other ESFs, except those noted above, would continue to be reportable under IOCFR5O.72(b)(2)(ii) and IOCFR50.73(a)(2)(iv), so that these actuations can be analyzed for their potential significance". As written, the sentence makes the conclusion that all invalid ESF actuations are safety significant. The reporting rules provide that certain events be reported by licensees without cons i de ration by the licensee of the event's safety significance. The reporting rules are intended to capture safety significant events, but experience has demonstrated that events that are not safety significant are sometimes captured as well.

4.

The word "would" should be changed to "could". Use of the word "would" implies that the list that follows should be applied to all plants. As the NRC recognizes, ESF systems vary from plant to plant based on specific accident mitigation needs. EXECST/92O62

5.

The words "the event continues to be reportable under" should be changed to "the event must be evaluated under". Likewise, the words "the event/discovery continues to be reportable" should be replaced with "the event/discovery is potentially reportable under other provisions of 10CFR0.72 or 10CFR0.73." The types of events discussed do not necessarily constitute a reportable event under the current rules.

6.

The words "to address whether corrective actions for events or conditions that are adverse to quality are reportable or not" should be changed to "to address corrective actions for events or conditions that are adverse to quality whether the event is reportable or not." Appendix B does not establish reporting requirements or specifically require evaluation of corrective actions for reporting. In addition, the suggested change makes the sentence consistent with the rest of the paragraph, which seems to be directed at ensuring that licensees do not fail to fully address a condition adverse to quality just because it is not reportable.

7.

Sections 50.72(b)(2)(ii)(B)(3) and 50.73(a)(2)(iv)(B)(3) should be changed to read "Involves(ed) only the following specific ESFs, as applicable, or their equivalent systems... ". As the NRC recognizes, ESF systems vary from plant to plant based on specific accident mitigation needs. EXECST/92062

Proposed Rules This sectJon of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of nules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to part1c1pate in the nule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AE12 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations to make minor modifications to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. The proposed amendments would apply to all nuclear power reactor licensees and would delete reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance. These proposed amendments would reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden in event review A

and assessment. WDATES: The comment period expires July 27, 1992. Comments received after this date will be considered if ii is practical

• to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver comments to One White Flint North. 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. Copies of the draft regulatory analysis, the supporting statement submitted to 0MB and comments received may be examined at: The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raji Tripathi (10 CFR 50.73) or Eric Weiss (10 CFR 50.72), Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492-4435 and (301) 492-9005, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background - The Commission is proposing minor amendments to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate Notification Requirements. - for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors," and 10 CFR 50.73, "Licensee Event Reporting System." as part of its ongoing activities to improve its regulations. In this regard, various NRC reviews of operating experience and the patterns of licensees' reporting of operating events since 1984 have indicated that reports

• on some of these events are not necessary for the NRC to perform its safety mission. The reporting or certain types of events are no longer contributing useful information to the operating reactor events database and, therefore, are rio longer necessary. The unnecessary reports are consuming resources in preparation and review that would be better applied elsewhere.

Over the past several years, the NRC has increased its attention to event reporting issues to ensure uniformity, consistency, and completeness in event reporting. As a result. in September 1991, the NRC's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) issued for'comment a draft NUREG-1022. Revision. 1 "Event Reporting Systems 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73-Clarification of NRC Systems and Guidelines for Reporting." Following resolution of'public comments, the NUREG will contain improved guidance for event reporting. The NRC's continuing examination of reported events during development of this document has determined that certain types of events primarily involving invalid engineered safety feature (ESF) actuations are of little or no safety significance. Valid ESF actuations are those actuations that result from "valid

• 1 A free single copy may be requested by writing to the Distribution and Mail Services Section. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555. A copy is also available for inspection or copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L SlreeL NW. (Lower Level). Washington. DC 20555. Federal Register Vol 57. No. 124 . I Friday, June 26, 1992 signals" or from international manual ~ initiation. Valid signals are those signals t that are initiated in response to actual plant conditions or parameters satisfying the requirements for ESF ~ initiation. Invalid actuations are by definition

• those that do not meet the criteria for being valid. Thus, invalid actuations include actuations that are not due to valid signals and are not intentional manual actuations. Invalid actuations include instances where instrument drift, spurious signals, human error, or other invalid signals caused actuation of the ESF (e.g., jarring a cabinet, an error in use of jumpers or lifted leads, an error in actuation of switches or controls, equipment failure or radio frequency interference).

NRC's evaluation of both the reported events since January 11384, when the. existing rules first became effective, and the comments received during the Event Reporting Workshops conducted in Fall of 1990, identified needed improvements in the rules. The NRC determined that invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of a limit_ed set of ESFs or their equivalent systems, subsystems, or components (i.e., an invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of only the reactor water clean-up (RWCU) system, the control room emergency ventilation (CREV) system, the reactor building ventilation system, the fuel building ventilation system, or the auxiliary building ventilation system) are of little or no safety significance. However, these events are currently reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv). The final rules for the current event reporting regulations, 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 (48 FR 39039: August 28, 1983, and 48 FR 33850; July 26, 1983, respectively), stated that ESF systems, including the reactor protection system (RPS), are provided to mitigate the consequences of a significant event. Therefore, ESFs should (1) work properly when called upon and (2) should not be challenged frequently or unnecessarily. The Statem,ents of Consideration for these final rules also stated that operation of an ESF as part of a pre-planned operational procedure or test need not be reported. The Commission noted that ESF actuations, including reactor trips, are frequently associated with significant plant transients and are indicative of events r I

..... l"'.................... ~ ~........... that are of safety sigr.ificance. At that the gener;:il pub lic, er (3) would functio n has already been cor::p leted time. the Commi_ssion also required a~ - compromise control room habita bility, (e.g., an invalid conta inment isolation ESF actuations, including the RPS J.-... e event/ discovery continues to be signal while the contai nment isolation actuations, whether manual or J eportable. valves are already closed. or an invalid automatic, valid or invalid-except as Invalid ESF actuations that would be actuation of the RPS when all rods a,e noted, to be reported to the NRC by excluded by this proposed rnle. but fully inserted). telephone within 4 hours of occurrence occur as a part of a reportable event, (3) The third category excludes eve:its followed by a written Licensee Event would continue to be described as part when an invalid actuation. iso!J tion. or Report (LERJ within 30 days of the of the reportable event. The proposed realignment of only the reactor water incident. This requirement on timeliness amendments are not intended to clean-up (RWCU) system. or a:iy of the of reporting remains unchanged. preclude submittal of a complete. following ventilation systems: Control The repor!ed information is used by accurate. and thorough description of an room emergency ventilation (CREV) NRC in confirmation of the licensing event that is otherwise reportable under system, reactor building ventilation bases. identification of precursors to 10 CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 50.73. The f 1 system. ue building ventilation system. severe core damage, identification of Commi~sion is proposing to relax only auxiliary building ventilation system. or plant specific deficiencies. generic the selected event reporting their equivalent ventilation systems lessons, review of management control requirements specified in this proposed occurs. Invalid actuations that involve systems, and licensee performance rule. Licensees are still required under other ESFs not specifically excluded. assessment. 10 CFR 5o, appendix B, "Quality (such as emergency core cooling system Discussion Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power isolations or actuations; containment Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants," to isolation valve closures that affect Relaxing reporting requirements for address whether corrective actions for 1 1 d cooling systems, main steam flow, certain ESF actuations, primari y inva i events or conditions that are adverse to t' 1 t actuations, could save resources for uality are reportable or not. In essen_ ia suppor systems: et~., both the industry and the NRC. The b ddition, minimizing ESI: actuations co~tamment spray actuation. and. Commission emphasizes that only [such as RWCU isolations) to reduce

es1d~al heat removal system specific invalid ESF actuations would be t

1 d' t* isolations), would continue to be opera 1ona ra 1a 10n exposures eportable exempt from reporting. The relaxations associated with the investigation an ~ in event reporting requirements recovery from the actuations, are ~ Li~ensees would cont~nue to be contained in the proposed rule would consistent with ALARA requirements. requ1_r~ to subm)t LERs _if a deficiency or apply only to a limited set of specifically The existing provisions in 10 CFR ?ond1_tion assoc1at7d with any of the defined invalid ESF actuations. These 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(iv), mvahd ESF actuations of the RWCU or events are limited to invalid actuation, require the reporting of an event or the CREV systems (or o!her equivalent isolation, or realignment of the RWCU condition that results in a manual or ventllatl~~ syst_em~) satisfies any syste~, the C_REY system, the reactor automatic actuation of an ESF, including reportab1hty critena under § 50.72 and building ventilation system, the fuel the RPS, except when the actuation § 50*73* building ventilation system, or the results from and is part of the pre-Impact of the Proposed Amendments auxiliary building ventilation system. planned sequence during testing or

• • 1 1

Invalid actuation/isolation/realignment reactor operation. A pre-plaMed -f~*. events in these systems are of little or sequence implies that the procedural no safety significance. step indicates the specific ESF or RPS Invalid actuations of all other ESFs. actuation that will be generated and except those noted above, have been control room personnel are aware of the _ :~ -~ faun? to be safety significant and would specific signal generation before its J~ :,* continue to be reportable under 10 CFR occurrence or indication in 1he control a (, © 50.72(b)(2)(i!) an~ 10 CFR.so.73(a)(2)(iv). room. However, if the ESF, Including the , l Reportable mvahd actuations would RPS, actuates during the planned include emergency core cooling system operation or test in a way that is not

• ?;:~ t.:;,

isolations/actuations, containment part of the planned procedure, such as isolation valve closures that affect at the wrong step, the event is . ;-r "'~ cooling systems, main steam flow, reportable.

• • : -~ -

essential support systems, etc.; The Commission proposes to make ,.:i'.- containment spray actuation, and additional relaxations to event reporting

...-,.. t_-:~:_

residual heat removal system isolations. by excluding three additional categories However, the Commission emphasizes of events as follows: that if an invalid ESF actuation reveals (1) The first category excludes events

• ..:;i

. a defect in the system so that the system in which an invalid ESF or RPS . \\, : :,-©- ailed or would fail te> perform its :

• actuation occurs when the system is t:.::1: *:/, '::>

ntended function, the event co~tinues to ~!ready P':°perly removed from service . -~: e reportable under other requirements 1f all requirements of plant procedures . */ JL-of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. If a for removing equipment from service -~>:- condition or deficiency has (1) an have been met. This would include -i. !k'- adverse impact on safety-related required clearance documentation, equipment and consequently on the equipment and control board tagging, ability to shut down the reactor and and properly positioned valves and maintain it in a safe shutdown power supply breakers. *. condition, (2) has a potential for (2) The second category excludes significant radiological release or events in which an invalid ESF or RPS potential exposure to plant personnel or actuation occurs after the safety Relaxing the current requirement for reporting of certain types of ESF actuations will reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden. This reduction would be consistent with the objectives and the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The proposed amendments would have no impact on the NRC's ability to fulfill its mission to ensure public health and safety because the reporting requirements that the Commission proposes to delete _have little or no safety significance. It is estimated that the proposed changes to the existing rules will result in about 150 (or 5-10 percent) fewer Licensee Event Reports each year. Similar reductions are expected in the number of prompt event notifications reportable under 10 CFR 50.72. Submittal of Comments The licensees are encouraged to submit their estimates on impact of the proposed amendments in their comments on the proposed rule. Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of their comments in an electronic format on IBM PC DOS-

. --*. - *- - ---- ------ -**J -

• -....!~

_..._ -.1.,+

e:Et,,-..... C > sttl:d**

Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 124 / Friday, June 26, 1992 / Proposed Rules compa tible 3.5-or 5.25-inch. double-- sided diskettes. Data files should be provided in Word.Perfect 5.0, or 5.1. ASCII code is also acceptable, or if formatted text is required, data files should be su bmitted in IBM Revisable Format Text Document Content Architecture (RYI'/DCA) format Finding of No Significant Environment.al Impact Availability The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 {c)(J){ii) and (iii). Therefore neither an environment.al impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement A This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork reduction requirements. Because the rule would relax existing reporting requirements, public reporting burden for the collection of information Is expected to be reduced. It is estimated that about 150 fewer Licensee Event Reports (NRC Form 366) and a similarly reduced number of prompt event notifications, made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, will be required each year. The resulting reduction in burden is estimated to average 50 hours per

• response, including the time for A

reviewing instructions, searching W existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the estimated burden reductions or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for further reducing reporting burden. to the Information and Records Management Branch [MNBB-7714 ), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB 3019, (3150--0011 and 315Q--0104), Office of Management and Budget. Washington, DC 20503. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed rule change. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555. Single cupies of the draft 1244. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132. 2133. 2134. analysis may be obtained from: Raji 2135. 2201. 2232. 2233. 2236. 2239. 2282}: secs. Tripathi. Office for Analysis and 201. as amended. 202. 200. 88 Stat. 1242. as Evaluation of Operational Data. U.S. amended. 1244. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841. 5842. 5o46). Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. I... 9>- Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (310) 601. sec. 10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 u.s.c. 5851). 492--4435. Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101. 185, Regulatory flexibility Certification 68 Stat. 936. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131. 2:!35): sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 In accordance with the Regulatory U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13. and 50.54(ddJ. Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605 (BJ), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108. 68 Stat. the Commission certifies that this rule 939. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections will not, if promulgated, have a 50.23. 50.35. 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under significant economic impact on a sec. 185. 68 Stat 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections substantial number of small entities. The 50.J3a. 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102. Pub. I... 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 proposed rule affects only the event U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also reporting requirements for operational issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat 1245 (42 U.S.C. nuclear power plants. The companies 5844). Sections 50.58. 50.91. and 50.92 also* that own these plants do not fall within issued under Pub. L 97--415. 96 Stat. 2073 (42 the scope of the definition of "small U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under entities" set forth in the Regulatory sec. 122. 68 Stat 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections Flexibility Act or the Small Business 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184. 68 Stat. Size Standards set out in regulations 954. 88 amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F issued by the Small Business also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 {42 d A I CFR u.s.c. 2237]. A ministration ct n 13 part 121. For the pl.Ul)Ose of sec:. %23. 68 Stal 958. as Backfit Analysis

• amended (42 U.S.C. 2273): U 50.5, 50.46{a) and (b), and 50.54(c) are issued under sec.

As required by 10 CFR 50.109, the 1e1b, 68 Stal 948. u amended (42 U.S.C.. Commission has completed an 220t(bl): U 50.5, 50.7(a}. 50.lO{a)-(c). S0..34(a) assessment of the need for Backfit and (e). 50.44(aHcJ, 50.46(a) and (b), S0.47(b). Analysis for the proposed rule. The 50.48(a), (c), (d), and (e). S0.49(a), 50.54(a), {i), proposed amendments Include (il(l}. {1Hn). (pJ, (q). (t), (v), and (y). 50.55(!). relaxations of certain existing 50.55a(a), (cHe), (g), and (h). S0.59(c). ts 1* f

• f t*
• 50.00(a), 50.62(b), 50.64(b). 50.65. and 50.BO{a) requ1remen on repor tng O m onna ion and (b) are issued under aec. 151i. 68 Stat.

to the NRC. These changes neither 949, as amended (42 u.s.c. Z201(i)): and impose additional reporting §I 50.49(d), (h), and (j), 50.54(w), (z), (bb), requirements nor require modifications (ccJ, and (dd). 50.55{e), 50.59(bJ, 50.61(b), to the facilities or their licenses. 50.62(b), 50.70{a), S0.71(aHc) and (e). 50.72(a). Accordingly, the NRC has concluded 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78. and 50.90 are that the proposed rule does not issued under sec. 1610. 69 Stal 950. as constitute a backfit and, thus, a backfit amended (42 U.S.C. 22oi(o)J. analysis is not required.

z. In§ 50.72. paragraph (b)(2)(ii} is Li.at of Subjects iD 10 CFR Part 50 revised to read as follows:

Antitrust. Classified information. § 50.72 Immediate notification Criminal penalty, Fire prevention, requirements for operating nuclear power Incorporation by reference, reactorL Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection. Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1964, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the Commission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part

50.

PART SO-OOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTIUZA TION. FACILITIES (b) Non-emergency events* * * (2) Four-hour reports. * * * (ii) Any event or condition that results in a manual or automatic actuatiun of any engineered safety feature (ESF); including the reactor protection system (RPS), except when: (A) The actuation results from and is part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; (BJ The actuation is invalid and: (1) Occurs while the system is properly removed from service; (2) Occurs after the safety function has been already completed: or

1. The authority citation for part continues to read as follows:

-, (3) Involves only the following specific SFs or their equivalent systems: Authority: Secs. 102. 103, 104, 105. 161. 182. 183, 186. 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948. 953, 954, 955. 956. a amended. ec:. 234, 83 Stat. (11 Reactor water clean-up system; (i11 Control room emergency ventilation system;

85, ) 1, ,icr on s [42

c.

12

ins ta t.

-c: F . as (a) ,b ), (i), I), a) (a), ,r - Its n ific (i/11 Reactor bu.ilding ventilation system; (iv) Fuel bu.ilding ventilation system: or (v) Auxiliary building ventilation system.

3. ln § 50.73, paragraph (e)(2) introductory text is republished and paragraph (a)(2)(iv) is revised to read as follows:

§ 50.73 Licensee event report system. (a) Reportable events.* * * (2) The licensee shall report: * * * (iv} Any event or condition that resulted in a manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF), including the reactor protection system (RPS), except when: (A) The actuation resulted from and was part of pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation: (BJ The actuation was invalid and: (1) Occurred while the system was properly removed from service; (2) Occurred after the safety function had been already completed; or (J) Involved only the following pecific ESFs or their equ.ivalent systems: (11 Reactor water clean-up system: (i11 Control room emergency ventilation system: (ii11 Reactor building ventilation system: (iv) Fuel bu.ilding ventilation system: or (v] Auxiliary building ventilation system. Dated at Roclcville, MD, this 19th day of June, 1992. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion. James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operation& to store spent fuel in the approved casks under a general license. This action is necessary to inform the public and NRC licensees of the propose additions. DATt: Comment period expires September 9, 1992. 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 written comments to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. A TIN: Docketing and Service Branch. Hand deliver comments to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. A copy of NVREG-1092, which is referenced in the environmental assessment. may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. The Comm~sion approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel ln publishing a final rule on July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181). which established a new subpart K within 10 CFR part 72 entitled, "General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites." Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that "the Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor." Th.is directive was carried out on July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), by the publication in the Federal Register of a final rule establishing a new subpart L within 10 CFR part 72 entitled "Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks." At the time of this rulemaking, four casks were listed in § 72.214 of subpart I< as approved by the NRC for storage of spent fuel at power reactor sites under general license by persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear power reactors. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington. DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available *from the National Technical Information Service. 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for Discussion inspection and/or copying at the NRC This proposed rulemaking would add Local Public Document Room, 2120 L two ap1;nt fuel storage casks to the list of Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington. approved casks in§ 72.214. Following DC. the procedures in § 72.230 of subpart L. Copies of the environmental Transnuclear, Inc., submitted a Topical assessment and finding of no significant Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) entitled environmental impact, and any TN-24 Dry Storage Cask Topical comments received on this proposed ** Report" in July 1988. ln July 1989, the rule are available for inspection and NRC issued a Safety Evaluation Report copying for a fee at the NRC !>ublic (SER] approving the TSAR with Document Room at the above address. instructiona to Transnuclear to revise FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the TSAR prior to docketing. Pacific Mr. Gordon E. Gundersen, Office of

• Sierra Nuclear Associates (PSNA)

Nuclear Regulatory Research. U.S. submitted a "Topical Report on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ventilated Storage Cask System for Washington. DC 20555, telephone (301) Irradiated Fuel for their VSC-24 cask In 492-3803, or Mr. James F. Schneider, February 1989. The NRC issued its SER [FR Doc. 92-15067 Filed~~ 8:45 am} BIWNG CODE 75to-OMI ~ Office of Nuclear Material Safety and.. *

• in April 1991. Also following the t~*

10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AE15 ,*, Ust of Approved Spent Fuel Storage . -::,.. Casks: AddltlORI -~ ' ~ t~t ~ J_:_~ - r;*~ -~* ' ... *r:,_: .,_.f:.

• .!~--->

......... t_~ -- . ?-:;~-. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. *. * * * *. **.* * * *

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory

• Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to approve two '

additional spent fuel storage caska (TN-

• 24 and VSC-24). These caska would be added to the "List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks. Holders of power reactor operating licenses are permitted :

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory procedurea of I 72.230, PSNA submitted Commission, Washington. DC 20555.,.., a "Safety Analysis Report for the telephone (301) 504-2692.

• *:*,,, Ventilated Storage Cask System" in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

, : *,.:. November 1991. The NRC iHued its SER in April 1992. **

Background

• The TSARa for the Transnuclear TN-Section 218( a) of the Nuclear Waste *. **. 24 and the Pacific Sierra Nuclear Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) includes the Associates VSC-24 casks have been-following directive: "The Secretary [of
• approved for storage of spent fuel under
• DOE] shall establish a demonstration the conditions specified in their program in cooperation with the private
• Certificates of Compliance. These casks, sector, for the.dry storage of spent when used according to the conditions nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power..

specified in their Certificates of reactor sites, with the objective of *.. Compliance, will meet the requirements

• establishing one or more technologies..

of 10 CFR part 72 arid, thus, adequate that the (Nuclear Regulatory) protection of the public health and Commission may, by rule, approve for

• safety would be ensured. These casks use at the sites of civilian nuclear power
• are being proposed for listing under reactors without, to the maximum extent

§ 72.214, "List of Approved Spent Fuel practicable, the need for additional site,.* Storage Casks:* Holdert of power specific approvals by the Commi&1ion.'*.. reactor operating licenses are permitted

1901 Chouteau Avenue Post Office Box 149 St. Lows, M!ssoun 63166 314-554-2650 July 23, 1992 DOCVET NUMBER Pt :_FJSED RULE PR 5 *0 ( S 1 F /( 2.J-l, LJ 2-)

• 92 JUL 28 P 2 :59 Donald F. Schnell Senior Vice President Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C.

20555 ULNRC-2671 Gentlemen: SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE - 10 CFR PART 50 "MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS"

Reference:

Federal Register Volume 57, Number 124 dated June 26, 1992 The subject proposed rule would delete reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance. Union Electric supports this proposed rule as presented in the referenced document. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours, Donald F. Schnell WEK/dls SEP 18 1992 db~ card............... t,,s;PiO'N\\erjQ, e

u.s r":._i..~tt-:.:..- :.-*~._111\\-;, -:-t\\c.;:I. *1!~2iC~-.1 G(J!_I* --. *; ~.~.r:/,. :_ ~-.,..:(.T:o:,~ F.):,.*.. -._ ~. c,. r*,,.._ T.

cc: T. A. Baxter, Esq. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Dr. J. 0. Cermak CFA, Inc. 18225-A Flower Hill Way Gaithersburg, MD 20879-5334 R. C. Knop Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Bruce Bartlett Callaway Resident Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR#l Steedman, Missouri 65077 L. R. Wharton (2) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint, North, Mail Stop 13E21 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102

"OCr-EiEO L, ustmc (i) 'f/2. JL 21 P3 :OS Marvin I. Lewis 7801 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 62 Phila., PA 19152 (215)624-1574 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dear Mr. Secretary; Please accept the following letter as my comments on 10CFR30&35 Departures from Mfg's Instruction: Elimination of cordkeeping Requirements: Proposed Rule. CFR50 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements: Proposed Rule. 10CFR20&50 Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees: Proposed Rule. 10CFR Chapter I Review of Reactor Licensee Reporting Requirements: Request for Public Comments. Relatedness of above Federal Register Notices: I request that this letter be incorporated into the dockets associated with the above four (4) Federal Notices. All four notices are related strongly in that all four notices reduce or eliminate paperwork requirements for NRC licensees. The reduction or elimination of paperwork for licensees does not provide any protection of the health and safety of the public. Protection of the Health and Safety of the Public: A The Atomic Energy Act as amended and the Charter of the NRC To th require the NRC to act to "protect the health and safety of the public." The above four Federal Notices are actions by the NRC which concern reducing or eliminating regulatory burdens withbut an increase in the protection of the health and safety of the public. While reduction of regulatory burden may be a worthy goal, the NRC ignores its legislative mandate to protect the health and safety of the public. Reduction of the regulatory burden is an admitted goal of the present administration. The protection of the health and safety of the public is an NRC goal which is legislated in the Atomic Energy Act as amended.

• The will of Congress in the Atomic Energy Act as amended must take \\ precedence over an administrative goal.

SEP lB l99l.._ rd..... "'"""'""

U.S NIJCLl:~9 REGULATCRY COMMISS!m, DQi.,"'i:'iif*J-'.'3 r-. ~,EP.*,lCE St.CTIOM C\\ *:!Cr: c!-:: ~'.f. ~*::cf::: TAR'{ OF- -r:-ic t..0~/.N:!SS:c:~ . \\

• Elimination of Regulatory Burden Invites Harm:

The TMI#2 accident is over a decade in the past. Many studies resulted from the TMI#2 accident. These studies concluded that the regulatory climate was responsible for an attitude or climate which invited disaster. These "modifications" in the four proposed rules present, invite and promote the same kind of attitude or climate which resulted in the TMI#2 accident. Specifically, many of the lessons learned from the TMI#2 accident concerned departures from instructions and elimination of reporting requirements. One departure from

• structions in the specifications concerned the leakage limits r

the reactor coolant. After the TMI#2 accident, the NRC found hat the reactor was operating outside of specification because the reactor coolant was leaking out at a rate greater than allowed in its specifications. This leakage information was not widely available due to elimination of certain recordkeeping requirements. The reactor had been allowed to operate because of elimination of recordkeeping requirements and departures from manufacturers specifications. Partially, the accident was occurred because of elimination of recordkeeping requirements and departures from manufacturers' specifications. The Proposed

Rule, 10CFR30 S. 35, is entitled, "Departures From Manufacturers' Instructions: Elimination of Recordkeeping Requirements."

The title of this Proposed

Rule, "Departures From Manufacturers' Instructions:

Elimination of Recordkeeping Requirements," presents the same attitude which lead to the TMI#2 cident. Although the attitude is the same, the attitude or ~ limate is only part of the problem. This attitude must present a danger to the health and safety of the public for the NRC to prohibit the modifications in the Proposed Rule; "Departures From Manufacturers' Instructions: Elimination of Recordkeeping Requirements." The NRC justifies the elimination of recordkeeping requirements on the ground, "that the major trends in departures are already clear and that collection of additional data would not reveal any significant new information." This "conclusion" by the NRC and FDA staffs directly contradicts a statement in the Federal Register Notice dated 6-22-92 for a workshop on 10CFR 30 and 35 to which the Proposed Rule is addressed: "It is a matter of record that some medical use licensees have administered byproduct material to patients of childbearing potential who were pregnant or breast feeding without knowing the patient's pregnancy or breast feeding status. The consequences were that unintended radiation exposures were delivered to an embryo, fetus, or breast-fed infant."

The contradiction is very clear. On one

hand, the NRC proposes a rule to eliminate recordkeeping requirements and allow departures from manufacturer's instructions in 10 CFR 30 and 35 in the Federal register Notice of 6-26-92.

On the other

hand, the NRC admits that departures from instructions and elimination

""1 recordkeeping have led to unintended radiation exposures to

bryo, fetus and breast fed infants in a Notice of a meeting on 10CFR 30 and 35 in the Federal Register of 6-22-92.

The actions arising from these contradictions are very clear. Historically, these actions have lead to the TMI#2 accident. Presently, these actions have lead to unintended radiation exposures of fetus, embryo and breqst fed infa_nt. These actions in the Pr'.oposed

Rule, "Deparh:;~es From Manufacturers' Instructions:

• Elimination of Rec:ordkeeping Requirements,"

contradict the mandate of the Atomic Energy Act as amended to protect the health and safety for the public. I, respectfully, request that the Proposed

Rule, "Departures From Manufacturers' Instructions:

Elimination of Recordkeeping Requirements," be taken back and vacated. "reduce the burden" and "delete requirements." The Proposed Rules, 10CFR50 Minor Modifications to Nuclear wer Reactor Event Reporting Requirements and 10CFR20&50 educing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees, attempt to delete reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance and reduce the burden of government regulation without reducing the protection of the public health and safety. These proposed rules suffer from the same attitudes which lead to the TMI#2 accident and which were described above for the Proposed Rule on 10 CFR 30' & 35. The Proposed Rules on 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 20 50 also suffer from additional inadequacies. The NRC states, "The reporting of certain types of events are no longer contributing useful information to the operating reactor events database and, therefore, are no longer necessary." ~ questi~ned ~(,y _ this reporting was~ l'?nger co:1tributing useful 1 nformat ion. I wondered whether.

• e 1 nforma t 1 on was no 1 anger J,;

usefut or whether the data was being ~ctsefully evaluated. I sent a short letter to Chairman Se l in with my questions on 5 92. Mr. Edward L. Jordan answered my letter on 6-26-92. His answer strongly suggests that preconceptions flavor the usefulness of reported i nformation.

Li "We would not expect violations to be correlated with plant

age, geographic

location, or other physical characteristics of the plant..*

There may be some correlation with capacity factor,<sic} however, this is not a parameter that we monitor as a measure of safety." Several questions immediately spring to mind. "We would not expect violations to be correlated *** "

1. One reason to develop a database is to discover unexpected correlations.

Not expecting to find a correlation is a very counterproductive attitude to use in the assessment of data bases. "There may be some correlation with capacity factor,Csic) however, this is not a parameter that we monitor as a measure of safety." .,,llllli.* If you expect a correlation, you should monitor that expected W!Jlrrelation for safety and other factors. This seems an obvious inadequacy. The reason that the NRC has stated that the deletion of reporting requirements would have little or no safety significance and that the regulatory burdens can be reduced without in any way reducing the protection for the public health and safety is that the NRC has performed inadequately. The NRC has admitted that the database has not been used to investigate unexpected correlations and has not monitored expected correlations for safety and other factors. (See above.> Ignoring unexpected correlations and not monitoring expected correlations will lead to almost any conclusion. The problem is that the conclusion is merely conclusory and inadequate.

Again, let's not have the climate and attitude which lead to the TMI#2 accident. I, respectfully, suggest and request that these two Proposed Rules, A)CFR50 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event eporting Requirements: Proposed Rule.

10CFR20&50 Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees: Proposed Rule, be taken back and eliminated from consideration. Reactor Licensee Reporting Requirements(10CFR Chapter I>.

Everyday, more and more inadequacies surface. In June, there were six information notices about events and deficiencies which were dangerous. So far in 1992, there are 52 information notices about the dangers surfacing in nuclear power plants.

Considering the many changes, such as plant life extension, low level waste storage on plant sites, higher density spent fuel

pools, more reporting and regulation is required to maintain safety; not less.

I, respectfully, request reactor licensee reporting safety rather than sink back fostered the TMI#2 accident. that the NRC decide to increase to maintain the present modicum of to the attitudes and climate which Re~7~, 7-23-92

July 15. 1992

• 92 JUL 17 P4 :04
• JFF!cr DF SCCi<f-iA y COCK[i!NG 1* r; i,'/JCf i:f<, NCH COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC.

("OCRE") ON PROPOSED RULE, "MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS," 57 FED. REG. 28642 (JUNE 28, 1992) In this proposed rule the NRC intends to relax event reporting requirements by eliminating the need to report invalid actua-tions of engineered safety features (ESFs) under three circum-stances: the system was properly removed from service; the sys-tem's safety function has already been completed; or the actua-tion involves only the reactor water cleanup system (or equiva-lent) or certain plant ventilation systems. OCRE agrees that the immediate (4-hour) notification requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 can be eliminated for such events.

However, the requirement to submit an LER (10 CFR 50.73) should be retained.

Completely eliminating all reporting requirements for such

events, as the proposed rule would do, would remove from the NRC's database important information on the reliability and failure mechanisms of ESFs.

As the Federal Register notice indicates, the NRC uses the infor-mation reported under these provisions "in confirmation of the licensing bases, identification of precursors to severe core

damage, identification of plant specific deficiencies, generic

lessons, review of management control systems, and licensee performance assessment."

The notice also affirms that ESFs should work properly when called upon and should not be chal-lenged frequently or unnecessarily. The notice also defines invalid actuations as "instances where instrument drift, spurious

signals, human error, or other invalid signals caused actuation of the ESF (e.g., jarring a cabinet, an error in use of jumpers or lifted leads, an error in actuation of switches or controls, equipment failure or radio frequency interference)."

It would appear that information on e.g., instrument drift, spurious signals, human error, or radio frequency interference, would provide valuable information to the NRC for use in confirm-ing the licensing basis, identifying accident precursors, generic

lessons, plant specific deficiencies, review of management con-trols, and licensee performance assessment.

Tracking invalid ESF actuations would likewise provide data on the degree to which ESFs are challenged unnecessarily. While the NRC emphasizes that invalid ESF actuations will still 1 SEP 18 *1~~L ~c~,now\\edged by card.................................

U.S. NUCLE~\\R REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERI/ICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Doanlnt Statl8tlct Postmart Dall 2 / / 5 /'7.l-- Coples Aecelved _ _.__-,--__ _ Add'I Copies Reproduced -~---,,---

have to be reported if the event reveals a defect such that the event is still reportable under other provisions of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, the NRC is now relying upon the licensees' judgement and ability to correctly characterize the significance of events. Retaining the requirement that licensees must submit an LER for all ESF actuations would eliminate the potential for failing to report significant information due to errors in licensees' judge-ment or analyses. OCRE therefore urges the NRC to retain the LER reporting require-ment for all ESF actuations. Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt Director, OCRE 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158 2 EP 18 1992 Acknowledged by ca.rd........................................

oocKnEO USHHC [7590-01] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• 92 JUN 29

~:if) :39 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AE12 Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations to make minor modifications to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. The proposed amendments would apply to all nuclear power reactor licensees and would delete reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance. These proposed amendments would reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden in event review and assessment. 7/:2-1/9':2-- DATE: The comment period expires (30 days following publication in the Federal Register). 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 written comments to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch. 1

Deliver comments to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. Copies of the draft regulatory analysis, the supporting statement submitted to 0MB, and comments received may be examined at: The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower Level}, Washington DC 20555. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raji Tripathi {10 CFR 50.73} or Eric Weiss (10 CFR 50.72), Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U,.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. Telephone (301} 492-4435 and (301) 492-9005, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Commission is proposing minor amendments to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements contained in IO CFR 50.72,

• immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors,"

and 10 CFR 50.73, "Licensee Event Reporting System," as part of its ongoing activities to improve its regulations. In this regard, various NRC reviews of operating experience and the patterns of licensees' reporting of operating events since 1984 have indicated that reports on some of these events are not necessary for the NRC to perform its safety mission. The reporting of certain types of events are no longer contributing useful information to the operating reactor events database and, 2

therefore, are no longer necessary. The unnecessary reports are consuming resources in preparation and review that would be better applied elsewhere. Over the past several years, the NRC has increased its attention to event reporting issues to ensure uniformity, consistency, and completeness in event reporting. As a result, in September 1991, the NRC's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) issued for comment a draft NUREG-1022, Revision 1, 1 nEvent Reporting Systems 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 -- Clarification of NRC Systems and Guidelines For Reporting." Following resolution of public' comments, the NUREG will contain improved guidance for event reporting. The NRC's continuing examination of reported events during development of this document has determined that certain types of events primarily involving invalid engineered safety feature (ESF) actuations are of little or no safety significance. Valid ESF actuations are those actuations that result from "valid signals" or from intentional manual initiation. Valid signals are those signals that are initiated in response to actual plant conditions or parameters satisfying the requirements for ESF initiation. Invalid actuations are by definition those that do not meet the criteria for being valid. Thus, invalid actuations include actuations that are not due to valid signals and are not intentional manual actuations. Invalid A free single copy may be requested by writing to the Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. A copy is also available for inspection or copying for a fee at the NRC Public DocumeAt Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555. 3

actuations include instances where instrument drift, spurious signals, human error, or other invalid signals caused actuation of the ESF (e.g., jarring a cabinet, an error in use of jumpers or lifted leads, an error in actuation of switches or controls, equipment failure or radio frequency interference}. NRC's evaluation of both the reported events since January 1984, when the existing rules first became effective, and the colllllents received during the Event Reporting Workshops conducted in Fall of 1990, identified needed improvements in the rules. The NRC determined that invalid actuation, isola-tion, or realignment of a limited set of ESFs or their equivalent systems, subsystems, or components (i.e., an invalid actuation, isolation, or re-alignment of only the reactor water clean-up (RWCU} system, the control room emergency ventilation (CREV} system, the reactor building ventilation system, the fuel building ventilation system, or the auxiliary building ventilation system} are of little or no safety significance. However, these events are currently reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a}(2)(iv). The final rules for the current event reporting regulations, 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 (48 FR 39039; August 29, 1983, and 48 FR 33850; July 26, 1983, respectively), stated that ESF systems, including the reactor protection system (RPS), are provided to mitigate the consequences of a significant event. Therefore, ESFs should (1) work properly when called upon and (2} should not be challenged frequently or unnecessarily. The Statements of Consideration for these final rules also stated that operation of an ESF as part of a pre-planned operational procedure or test need not be reported. The 4

Commission noted that ESF actuations, including reactor trips, are frequently associated with significant plant transients and are indicative of events that are of safety significance. At that time, the Commission also required all ESF actuations, including the RPS actuations, whether manual or automatic, valid or invalid -- except as noted, to be reported to the NRC by telephone within 4 hours of occurrence followed by a written Licensee Event Report (LER) within 30 days of the incident. This requirement on timeliness of reporting remains unchanged. The reported information is used by the NRC in confirmation of the licensing bases, identification of precursors to severe core damage, identification of plant specific deficiencies, generic lessons, review of management control systems, and licensee performance assessment. Discussion Relaxing reporting requirements for certain ESF actuations, primarily invalid actuations, could save resources for both the industry and the NRC. The Commission emphasizes that only specific invalid ESF actuations would be exempt from reporting. The relaxations in event reporting requirements contained in the proposed rule would apply only to a limited set of specifi-cally defined invalid ESF actuations. These events are limited to invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of the RWCU system, the CREV system, the reactor building ventilation system, the fuel building ventilation system, or the auxiliary building ventilation system. Invalid actuation/isolation/ realignment events in these systems are of little or no safety significance. 5

Invalid actuations of all other ESFs, except those noted above, have been found to be safety significant and would continue to be reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv). Reportable invalid actuations would include emergency core cooling system isolations/actuations, containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems, main steam flow, essential support systems, etc., containment spray actuation, and residual heat removal system isolations. However, the Commission emphasizes that if an invalid ESF actuation reveals a defect in the system so that the system failed or would fail to perform its intended function, the event continues to be reportable under other requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. If a condition or deficiency has (1) an adverse impact on safety-related equipment and conse-quently on the ability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, (2) has a potential for significant radiological release or potential exposure to plant personnel or the general public, or (3) would compromise control room habitability, the event/discovery continues to be reportable. Invalid ESF actuations that would be excluded by this proposed rule, but occur as a part of a reportable event, would continue to be described as part of the reportable event. The proposed amendments are not intended to preclude submittal of a complete, accurate, and thorough description of an event that is otherwise reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 50.73. The Commission is proposing to relax only the selected event reporting requirements specified in this proposed rule. Licensees are still required under 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, 6

"Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,* to address whether corrective actions for events or conditions that are adverse to quality are reportable or not. In addition, minimizing ESF actuations (such as RWCU isolations) to reduce operational radiation exposures associated with the investigation and recovery from the actuations, are consistent with ALARA requirements. The existing provisions in 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv), require the reporting of an event or condition that results in a manual or automatic actuation of an ESF, including the RPS, except when the actuation results from and is part of the pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation. A pre-planned sequence implies that the procedural step indicates the specific ESF or RPS actuation that will be generated and control room personnel are aware of the specific signal generation before its occurrence or indication in the control room. However, if the ESF, including the RPS, actuates during the planned operation or test in a way that is not part of the planned procedure, such as at the wrong step, the event is reportable. The Commission proposes to make additional relaxations to event reporting by excluding three additional categories of events as follows: (1) The first category excludes events in which an invalid ESF or RPS actuation occurs when the system is already properly removed from service if all requirements of plant procedures for removing equipment from service have been met. This would include required 7

clearance documentation, equipment and control board tagging, and properly positioned valves and power supply breakers. (2) The second category excludes events in which an invalid ESF or RPS actuation occurs after the safety function has already been completed (e.g., an invalid containment isolation signal while the containment isolation valves are already closed, or an invalid actuation of the RPS when all rods are fully inserted). (3) The third category excludes events when an invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of only the reactor water clean-up (RWCU) system, or any of the following ventilation systems: control room emergency ventilation (CREV) system, reactor building ventilation system, fuel building ventilation system, auxiliary building ventilation system, or their equivalent ventilation systems occurs. Invalid actuations that involve other ESFs not specifically excluded, (such as emergency core cooling system isolations or actuations; containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems, main steam flow, essential support systems, etc.; containment spray actuation; and, residual heat removal system isolations), would continue to be reportable. Licensees would continue to be required to submit LERs if a deficiency or condition associated with any of the invalid ESF actuations of the RWCU or the CREV systems (or other equivalent ventilation systems) 'satisfies any reportability criteria under §50.72 and §50.73. 8

Impact of the Proposed Amendments Relaxing the current requirement for reporting of certain types of ESF actuations will reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden. This reduction would be consistent with the objectives and the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The proposed amendments would have no impact on the NRC's ability to fulfil its mission to ensure public health and safety because the reporting requirements that the Co11111ission proposes to delete have little or no safety significance. It is estimated that the proposed changes to the existing rules will result in about 150 (or 5-10 percent) fewer Licensee Event Reports each year. Similar reductions are expected in the number of prompt event notifications reportable under 10 CFR 50.72. Submittal of C01T111ents The licensees are encouraged to submit their estimates on impact of the proposed amendments in their comments on the proposed rule. Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of their co11111ents in an electronic fonnat on IBM PC DOS-compati-ble 3.5-or 5.25-inch, double-sided diskettes. Data files should be provided in WordPerfect 5.0, or 5.1. ASCII code is also acceptable, or if formatted text is required, data files should be submitted in IBM Revisable Format Text Document Content Architecture (RFT/DCA) format. 9

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(3)(ii) and (iii). Therefore neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of'Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork reduction requirements. Because the rule would relax existing reporting requirements, public reporting burden for the collection of information is expected to be reduced. It is estimated that about 150 fewer Licensee Event Reports (NRC Form 366) and a similarly reduced number of prompt event notifications, made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, will be required each year. The resulting reduction in burden is estimated to average 50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of infonnation. Send comments regarding the estimated burden reductions or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for further reducing reporting burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555;

and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0011 and 3150-0104), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed rule change. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555. Single copies of the draft analysis may be obtained from: Raji Tripathi, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492-4435. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605 (8)), the Connnission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule affects only the event reporting requirements for operational nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration Act in 13 CFR Part 121. 11

Backfit Analysis As required by 10 CFR 50.109, the Commission has completed an assessment of the need for Backfit Analysis for the proposed rule. The proposed amend-ments include relaxations of certain existing requirements on reporting of information to the NRC. These changes neither impose additional reporting requirements nor require modifications to the facilities or their licenses. Accordingly, the NRC has concluded that the proposed rule does not constitute a backfit and, thus, a backfit analysis is not required. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire p~evention, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1964, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the Commission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. PART 50 DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES I. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows: 12

AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended {42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 {42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, and 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); §§50.5, 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); §§50.5, 50.7(a), 50.lO(a)-(c), 50.34(a) and (e), 50.44(a)-(c), 50.46(a) and (b), 50.47(b), 50.48{a), (c), {d), and {e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a), (i), {i){l), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v), and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-{e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a), 50.62(b), 50.64(b), 50.65, and 50.80(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 1511, 68 Stat. 13

949, as amended {42 U.S.C. 220l{i)); and §§50.49{d), {h), and {j), 50.54{w), {z), {bb), {cc), and (dd), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.61(b), 50.62(b), 50.70(a), 50.71(a)-(c) and (e), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 1610, 69 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2.

In §50.72, paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows: §50.72 Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors. (b) Non-Emergency Events. . (2) Four-hour reports. (ii) 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: (A) The actuation results from and is part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; (8) The actuation is invalid and: ill Occurs while the system is properly removed from service; 14

ill Occurs after the safety function has been already completed; or ill Involves only the following specific ESFs or their equivalent systems: (i) Reactor water clean-up system; (ii) Control room emergency ventilation system; (iii) Reactor building ventilation system; (iv) Fuel building ventilation system; or (v) Auxiliary building ventilation system.

3.

In §50.73, paragraph (a)(2)(iv) is revised: §50.73 Licensee Event Report System. (a) Report~ble events. (2) The licensee shall report: (iv) Any event or condition that resulted in a manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF), including the reactor protection system (RPS), except when: 15

(A) The actuation resulted from and was part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; (B) The actuation was invalid and: ill Occurred while the system was properly removed from service; ill Occurred after the safety function had been already completed; or ill Involved only the following specific ESFs or their equivalent systems: (i) Reactor water clean-up system; (ii) Control room emergency ventilation system; (iii) Reactor building ventilation system; (iv) Fuel building ventilation system; or (v) Auxiliary building ventilation system. Dated at Rockville, MD, this -r;( /f day of r , 1992. For the Nuclearfe{ulatory Commission. perati 16}}