ML23152A135

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
PR-050,055,073 - 59FR54843 - Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees
ML23152A135
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/02/1994
From: Taylor J
NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-050, PR-055, PR-073, 55FR54843
Download: ML23152A135 (1)
v • d • e


Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 11/02/1994 TITLE: PR-050,055,073 - 59FR54843 - REDUCTION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON NRG LICENSEES CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-050,055,073 59FR54843 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

DOCKET NO. PR-050,055,073 (59FR54843)

In the Matter of REDUCTION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON NRC LICENSEES DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 11/09/94 10/20/94 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 12/13/94 12/08/94 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY (SUSAN L. HIATT, DIRECTOR) ( 1) 12/16/94 12/16/94 COMMENT OF FLORIDA POWER l LIGHT COMPANY (W.H. BOHLKE) ( 2) 12/19/94 12/15/94 COMMENT OF BABCOCK l WILCOX COMPANY (CHARLOTTE M. CARR) ( 3) 12/19/94 12/19/94 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (THOMAS E. TIPTON) ( 4) 12/27/94 12/22/94 COMMENT OF TU ELECTRIC (J.S. MARSHALL) ( 5)

- 12/28/94 12/19/94 COMMENT OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (P.R. BEMIS) ( 6) 12/28/94 12/21/94 COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (M.L. BOWLING) ( 7) 03/06/95 03/02/95 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE 04/12/95 04/02/95 COMMENT OF MARVIN I. LEWIS ( 8)

DO1,CKETED 5 l 1!)r*

L f .,\.,.,

DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE 5b S:S-+ i 3

  • 95 APR 12 P 4 :32 (59FR-54-~a..\-B) @

fRADING DOLLARS FOR DEATHS fhis letter contains my comments on

1. Cost Beneficial Licensing Actions Program (NRC Lettter 95-02)
2. Revision of Fee Schedules (10CFR170 RIN 3150-A~07)
3. Reduction of Reporting Requirements (10CFR50 RIN 3150-AFlB>

NRC has construed these proposed rules to allow Licensees to ad e lives to save a few dollars. Probabilistic risk assessment,

  • bl ic Law 101-508 and diminution of public access have been manipulated to allow Licensees to trade upon the health and safety of the public in the name of cost savings.

Marvin I. Lewis 3133 ~airfield Street Philadelphia, PA 19136 (215)676 1291 USNRC Washington, D. C. 20555 Dear Commissioners; Several rulemakings have carried an agenda which invites licensees to endanger the public health and safety to save a few dollars. lhe Rulemaking on the Proposed Rule: Revision of Fee Schedules; 1001/4 Recovery, FY 1995 refers to PL 101-508, the Mn ibus Budget Reconciliation Act, for its authority to reduce

. s ts to Licensees. The vehicle used to reduce costs to licensees 1s the Cost Beneficial Licensing Action program. The NRC has used the CBLA program to address "requirements that have a small effect on safety and are costly to implement (NRC Ad. Letter 95-02.)"

lhis approach contains many deficiencies:

1. The ALARA principle has been turned around to mean "ALARA if the price is right." Exposures are no longer required to be as low as reasonably achievable. Exposures are now required to be as low as reasonably achievable if the price is right.

The NRC assumes incorrectly that profit making companies will "shift resources from activities that have a small effect on safety to those th a t more significantly enhance safety." Profit making organizations are in the business of making profit. ( The business of America is business. A. Lincoln.) Profit making companies by definition shift resources into profits. That is the business of profit making organizations. The NRC's assumption is not only just plain wrong but also wishful dreaming.

The NRC's wishful dreaming displays an attitude which was chastised by the "Lessons Learned from the TMI#2 Accident."

Allowing Co5t Beneficial Licensing 0.ctions points the way to another major accident like Three Mile Island thru an arrogant and inappropriate attitude toward the safety and health of the public.

'APR 1 4 1995 Acknowledged by card ......................=-::,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI01 DOCKETING & sERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stat;stics Postmark Date 4 .~ ~,.______

Coples Recs* ,,i_*--'- - - - - --

Add1 Copie~ ,;:, . -..t;"ed :::,..,,._ _ _ __

Speclal Distri"utio,i ::p:ng.\ 3\>>S.,

2. OBRA 90 does not contradict the requirements of the various laws which set up the NRC. The Acts which did away with the JCAE and established the NRC and its Charter are still in force. The protection of the "health and safety of the public" is a requirement of the NRC. The NRC Notice of March 14, 1995, fails to mention the requirement to "protect the health and safety of the public." OBRA requires the NRC to recover its costs. The NRC i ntains its requirement to protect the health and safety of the
  • b lic as spelled out nine times in the Atomic Energy Act. The NRC appears to be using OBRA's cost recovery to minimize its requirement to protect the health and safety of the public.
3. Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees will diminish the public ' s access to unsafe and inappropriate actions on the part of the licensee and the NRC. OCRE has raised this issue in 10CFR 50 RIN 3150-AFlS. I raise this issue as part of this present CBLA and 10CFR 170 rulemakings. Reducing licensee costs for any reason will diminish the public's access to information. This reduction of access to information will lead to the same prerequisites which allowed for the Three Mile Accident.

The NRC seems unable to learn from history and is trying to repeat the terrible lesson of the Three Mile Island Accident.

4. "It is a mistake to believe one is measuring something that is beyond the capability of the measuring instrument(Harold W.

~wis , ACRS letter dated Nov. 15, 1995.) 11 The NRC has looked

. o n the incorrectly assumed benefits of the actions described in these comments and has ignored or minimized the dangers. It is beyond the capability of the NRC to measure the dangers inherent in the proposed actions commented upon herein.

Wake up!

I respectfully suggest that the NRC hire me as a "devil's advocate " to challenge their incorrect and inappropriate assumptions from within. I have submitted over 500 comments, a few of which have been incorporated into NRC regulations. I have

~12urs, tried many ways to wake up the NRC to the many dangers coming over the horizon. I think that this is my best suggestion.

4-2-9~.

. copy to S~C'l* ------

- 1 ...

7590-01 C;rigina\ sent to~al ~

Oi'ic o! \he feu1:.r ~ DOCKET NUMBER tor publ'ic PROPOSED RULE PR O (5t\FR..5i.\-~i.\~

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50, 55, AND 73 RIN 3150-AFlB Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Convnission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Convnission (NRC) is amending its regulations to reduce reporting requirements currently imposed on water-cooled nuclear power reactor, research and test reactor, and nuclear material licensees.

This rule reduces the regulatory burden on NRC licensees; and partially

- implements a recent NRC initiative to revise or eliminate duplicative or unnecessary reporting requirements. The amendments will: (1) eliminate the current requirement for licensees to submit su11111ary reports of containment leakage rate tests to the NRC (10 CFR Part SO-Appendix J), but preserve the requirements in§§ 50.72 and 50.73 under which licensees currently report any instances of leakage exceeding authorized limits in the technical specifications of the license; (2) revise 10 CFR 55.25 to refer licensees to a similar reporting requirement in 10 CFR 50.74(c) and require notification of operator incapacity only in case of permanent disability or illness; and (3) eliminate the requirement for quarterly submittal of safeguards event l ogs presently contained in 10 CFR 73.7l(c)(2) and Appendix G to Part 73.

'"f)JL,.., ~\\a\\ C\ s-( ~ t=~ \ :3lo \SJ

~ ,~, \C\95" EFFECTIVE DATE: *f-36 days after puelieat;on in ~he Fede, al -Register}.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naiem S. Tanious, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415-6103.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 7, 1994, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) sent to the Commission SECY-94-003, "Plan for Implementing Regulatory Review Group Recommendations." The Commission approved these recommendations for reducing regulatory burden on its licensees. This final rule is one of several rulemakings and other regulatory actions currently being developed by the NRC staff to implement the Regulatory Review Group recommendations to eliminate 4lt duplicative or unnecessary reporting requirements. The NRC believes that this action will reduce the regulatory burden on NRC licensees without causing adverse effects on the protection of public health and safety.

On Nov~mber 2, 1994 (59 FR 54843), the NRC published the notice of proposed rulemaking that reduces reporting requirements on licensees under Parts 50, 55, and 73. Specifically, the proposed amendments were intended to:

(1) eliminate the current requirement for licensees to submit summary reports of containment leakage rate tests to the NRC (10 CFR Part SO-Appendix J), but preserve the requirements in§§ 50.72 and 50.73 under which licensees currently report any instances of leakage exceeding authorized limits in the 2

technical specifications of the license; (2) revise 10 CFR 55.25 to refer licensees to a similar reporting requirement in 10 CFR 50.74(c) and require notification of operator incapacity only in case of permanent disability or illness; and (3) eliminate the requirement for quarterly submittal of safeguards event logs presently contained in 10 CFR 73.71(c)(2) and Appendix G to Part 73. The public comment period expired December 19, 1994.

Analysis of Public Co11111ents on the Proposed Rule The NRC received seven comments: one from Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an organization that represents the nuclear power industry, five from the nuclear power industry, and one from Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. (OCRE). The conments from NEI and the nuclear power industry are supportive of the proposed rule to reduce the reporting requirements. OCRE opposes the proposed rule. However, all commenters believe that elimination of these reports will not adversely impact public health and safety. The following section addresses the public comments received and provides NRC's response to them.

Of the six conments received which favor the proposed rule, several of those endorsing the rule pointed out that the proposed changes eliminate unnecessary or redundant requirements and conserve both NRC and licensee resources. Two of the co11111enters felt that the NRC should assess additional reporting requirements to determine whether they can be eliminated or reduced in frequency. As discussed in the background section of this rulemaking, the NRC has underway several regulatory activities to implement the Regulatory Review Group's recorrmendations to eliminate duplicative or unnecessary 3

reporting requirements. This rulemaking is limited to the requirements set out in the proposed rulemaking.

Licensees do not need to assemble the summary report One collllK!nter from the nuclear power industry states that the requirement to generate but not submit a summary report for the containment leakage tests provides no additional benefit and is an unnecessary burden since the summary report contains data readily available from other sources.

The co111nenter suggests that the requirement to generate the summary report be eliminated.

The NRC disagrees. The NRC believes that the results of containment leakage tests, the licensee analysis verifying the acceptability of the results, as well as any necessary interpretations of the results, is necessary information which might not be documented absent this documentation requirement. Furthermore, the assembly of a su111nary report will provide access by NRC inspectors and auditors to this information in a more timely fashion.

Public participation in the NRC regulatory process will diminish OCRE opposes the proposed rule because it believes that adoption of the rule will diminish the public's access to information. OCRE states that the public's health and safety is not the only factor to consider when NRC proposes to eliminate some licensee reports. Access to these reports, OCRE states, is vital for effective public participation in the regulatory process.

4

To that end, OCRE has filed a petition for rulemaking with the NRC (59 FR 30308, June 13, 1994). The purpose of the petition is to establish public right-to-know provisions which would ensure public access to licensee-held information.

In each case where the NRC considers eliminating a reporting requirement, the NRC first considers the public health and safety impact of the proposed elimination. If there is no direct impact on public health and safety, the NRC also considers the reduced administrative burden on the licensee and the extent to which the proposed elimination will deprive the public of important health and safety information. OCRE's comments have raised the generic issue of the incremental and cumulative effect of this and similar rulemakings in depriving the public of access to licensee infonnation that was previously available from the NRC. In that regard, OCRE has directly presented this issue to the Commission through its petition for rulemaking referenced above and the NRC finds that this generic issue is better addressed in the context of that petition, rather than in individual rulemakings such as this one. The NRC also finds that the effect of this rulemaking will be to reduce the administrative burden on licensees and that the loss of the infonnation in this particular case will not adversely affect the public interest in access to information regarding adequate protection of the public health and safety.

Having considered all comments received and other input, the NRC has determined that the following final rule should be promulgated.

5

Written Reports This final rule would not require additional written reports. On the contrary, under this final rule, reporting will be reduced for all licensees under 10 CFR Parts 50, 55, and 73.

Criminal Penalties For purposes of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, relating to willful violations of requirements notice is hereby given that these amendments are being adopted and promulgated pursuant to Sections 161b, 16li, or 1610 of the Act.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in the categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this regulation.

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 requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0011, -0018, and -0002.

6

Because the rule will relax existing infonnation collection requirements, the annual public burden for this collection of information is expected to be reduced by approximately 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send cOD111ents regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the e Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011, -0018, -0002),

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Co11111ission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule.

The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Co11111ission. The Co11111ission requested public co11111ent on the draft regulatory analysis, but no convnents were received. Therefore, no changes to the draft regulatory analysis have been made. The draft regulatory analysis is adopted as the final regulatory analysis without change. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

7

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Cormiission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects the nuclear power reactors, research and test reactors, and some material licensees. The companies and organizations that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of *small entities" set forth in

- the Regulatory Flexibility Act of the size standards established by the NRC (56 FR 56671; November 6, 1991).

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule because these amendments do not invo-lve any provisions which would impose backfits on licensees as defined in

§ 50.109(a)(l). In addition, information collection and reporting requirements are not subject to the backfit rule.

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8

10 CFR Part 55 Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 73 Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Export, Import, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 50 continues 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 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, _106 Stat 3123, (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.

9

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.SO.BO - 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).

2. In 10 CFR 50.74, paragraph (c} is revised to read as follows:

§ 50.74 Notification of change in operator or senior operator status.

(c} Pennanent disability or illness as described in§ 55.25 of this chapter.

3. In 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J, Section III, paragraphs A.1.(a},

(b}, and (d};Section IV. paragraph A., and Section V. paragraphs A. and B.,

are revised to read as follows:

Appendix J to Part 50 - Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors III. Leakage Testing Requirem_ents*

A. Type A test-I. Pretest requirements. (a} Containment inspection in accordance with V. A. shall be perfonned as a prerequisite to the performance of Type A tests. During the period between the initiation of the containment inspection and the perfonnance of the Type A test, no repairs or adjustments 10

shall be made so that the containment can be tested in as close to the *as isR condition as practical. During the period between the completion of one Type A test and the initiation of the containment inspection for the subsequent Type A test, repairs or adjustments shall be made to components whose leakage exceeds that specified in the technical specification as soon as practical after identification. If during a Type A test, including the supplemental test specified in 111.A.3.(b), potentially excessive leakage I

paths are identified which will interfere with satisfactory completion of the test, or which result in the Type A test not meeting the acceptance criteria 111.A.4.(b) or 111.A.5.(b), the Type A test shall be terminated and the leakage through such paths shall be measured using local leakage testing methods. Repairs and/or adjustments to equipment shall be made and Type A test perfonned. The corrective action taken and the change in leakage rate determined from the tests and overall integrated leakage determined from local leak and Type A tests shall be included in the summary report required by V.B.

(b) Closure of containment isolation valves for the Type A test shall be accomplished by normal operation and without any preliminary exercising or adjustments (e.g., no tightening of valve after closure by valve motor).

Repairs of maloperating or leaking valves shall be made as necessary.

Information on ~ny valve closure malfunction or valve leakage that require corrective action before the test, shall be included in the summary report required by V.B.

(d) Those portions of the fluid systems that are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and are open directly to the containment atmosphere under post-accident conditions and become an extension of the boundary of the 11

containment shall be opened or vented to the containment atmosphere prior to and during the test. Portions of closed systems inside containment that penetrate containment and rupture as a result of a loss of coolant accident shall be vented to the containment atmosphere. All vented systems shall be drained of water or other fluids to the extent necessary to assure exposure of the system containment isolation valves to containment air test pressure and to assure they will be subjected to the post accident differential pressure.

Systems that are required to maintain the plant in a safe condition during the test shall be operable in their normal mode, and need not be vented. Systems that are nonnally filled with water and operating under post-accident conditions, such as the containment heat removal system, need not be vented.

However, the containment isolation valves in the systems defined in III.A.l.{d) shall be tested in accordance with III.C. The measured leakage rate from these tests shall be included in the sunmary report required by V.B.

IV. Special Testing Requirements A. Containment modification. Any major modification, replacement of a component which is part of the primary reactor containment boundary, or resealing a seal-welded door, performed after the preoperational leakage rate test shall be followed by either a Type A, Type B, or Type C test, as applicable for the area affected by the modification. The measured leakage from this test shall be included in the summary report required by V.B. The acceptance criteria of III.A.5.(b), III.B.3., or III.C.3., as appropriate, shall be met. Minor modifications, replacements, or resealing of seal-welded doors, perfonned directly prior to the conduct of a scheduled Type A test do not require a separate test.

12

V. Inspection and Recordkeeping of Tests A. Containment inspection. A general inspection of the accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment structures and componen~s shall be performed prior to any Type A test to uncover any evidence of structural deterioration which may affect either the containment structural integrity or leak-tightness. If there is evidence of structural deterioration, Type A tests shall not be performed until corrective action is

- taken in accordance with repair procedures, non destructive examinations, and tests as specified in the applicable code specified in§ 50.55a at the commencement of repair work. Such structural deterioration and corrective actions taken shall be included in the su11111ary report required by V.B.

B. Recordkeeping of test results. 1. The preoperational and periodic tests must be documented in a readily available summary report that will be made available for inspection, upon request, at the nuclear power plant. The summary report shall include a schematic arrangement of the leakage rate

  • measurement system, the instrumentation used, the supplemental test method, and the test program selected as applicable to the preoperational test, and all the subsequent periodic tests. The report shall contain an analysis and interpretation of the leakage rate test data for the Type A test results to the extent necessary to demonstrate the acceptability of the containment's leakage rate in meeting acceptance criteria.
2. For each periodic test, leakage test results from Type A, B, and C tests shall be included in the summary report. The summary report shall contain an analysis and interpretation of the Type A test results and a 13

summary analysis of periodic Type Band Type C tests that were performed since the last type A test. Leakage test results from type A, B, and C tests that failed to meet the acceptance criteria of III.A.5(b), III.B.3, and III.C.3, respectively, shall be included in a separate accompanying summary report that includes an analysis and interpretation of the test data, the least squares fit analysis of the test data, the instrumentation error analysis, and the structural conditions of the containment or components, if any, which contributed to the failure in meeting the acceptance criteria. Results and analyses of the supplemental verification test employed to demonstrate the validity of the leakage rate test measurements shall also be included.

PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES

4. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 55 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat. 939, 948, 953, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2232, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C.

5841, 5842).

Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also issued under sec. 306, Pub.

L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

5. 10 CFR 55.25 is revised to read as follows:

14

§ 55.25 - Incapacitation because of disability or illness.

If, during the tenn of the license, the licensee develops a permanent physical or mental condition that causes the licensee to fail to meet the requirements of§ 55.21 of this part, the facility licensee shall notify the Conunission, within 30 days of learning of the diagnosis, in accordance with

§ 50.74(c). For conditions for which a conditional license (as described in

§ 55.33(b) of this part) is requested, the facility licensee shall provide medical certification on Form NRC 396 to the Connission (as described in

§ 55.23 of this part).

PART 73 - PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS

6. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 73 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948, as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204, 88 Stat.

  • 1242, as amended, 1245 Sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5844, 2297f).

Section 73.1 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat.

2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C, 10155, 10161). Section 73.37(f) also issued under sec. 301, Pub. L.96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note). Section 73.57 is issued under sec. 606, Pub. L.99-399, 100 Stat. 876 (42 U.S.C. 2169).

15

7. Section 73.71, paragraph {c){2) is deleted, paragraph {c){l) is redesignated as paragraph {c), and paragraph {d) is revised to read as follows:

§ 73.71 Reporting of safeguards events.

{d) Each licensee shall submit to the Commission the 30-day written reports required under the provisions of.this section that are of a quality which will permit legible reproduction and processing. If the facility is subject to§ 50.73 of this chapter, the licensee shall prepare the written report on NRC Form 366. If the facility is not subject to§ 50.73 of this chapter, the licensee shall not use this form but shall prepare the wri'tten report in letter format. The report must include sufficient information for NRC analysis and evaluation.

8. In 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix 6, the title of Section II. is revised to read as follows:

Appendix G to Part 73-Reportable Safeguards Events 16

II. Events to be recorded within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery in the safeguards event log.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this~~Y of ~1995 .

. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission *

  • . ay '

cutive Director for Operations.

17

DOCKET NU, 111f R 5000 Dominion Boulevard PROPOSED RULE PR s D , s- ~ r 13 Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

(~q FR ?Lft' -'1 3)., DOCK ETED G)

3.

US .RC D

  • 94 DEC 28 P4 OF FIf.t. ~ , ~ [ T°' "pl_/(IGINIA POWER OD CK c~ , !. .

December 21, 1994 Bh. I

  • Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch Serial No. GL 94-063 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL&P/GSS RO Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Sir:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE REDUCTION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON NRC LICENSEES In the November 2, 1994 Federal Register, the NRC requested comments on the proposed rule to amend its regulations to reduce the reporting requirements currently imposed on licensees. This rule implements the NRC initiative to review its current regulations with the intent to revise or eliminate duplicate or unnecessary reporting requirements.

Virginia Power endorses this proposed rule to eliminate the current requirements for the submittal of the containment leak rate test summary reports, the operator incapacity notification per 10 CFR 55.25, and the quarterly safeguards event log. We encourage and strongly support the NRC's efforts to reduce the reporting requirements and regulatory burden on the licensees. It is also our belief that the elimination of these reports will not impact the overall health and safety of the public.

We appreciate the opportunity to make comments on the proposed rule. If you have any questions, please contact us.

Very truly yours, If(/_ !J4 M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Programs MAR - 1 1995~

Acknowledged by card ...............................~

1 S. NUCLF:;; , r *- ." ., *_1 *,v COMMISSION DOCr(c: 1,. ~ ::, -:£i1V1CE SECTION Oh- l~c ( lF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISS ION Docu:.1ent ... !atistics c~.. 1_ ______

cc: Mr. William Rasin Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1n6 I Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006-3708 Mr. Thomas E. Tipton Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1n6 I Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006-3708

December 19, 1994 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATIN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

COMMENTS ON "REDUCTION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON NRC LICENSEES" - PROPOSED RULE (59 FED. REG. 54843)

In a Federal Register notice of November 2, 1994 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on the proposed rule that would eliminate duplicative or unnecessary reporting requirements. The proposed amendments would: (1) eliminate the current requirement for licensees to submit summary reports of containment leakage rate tests to the NRC (10CFR50, Appendix J); (2) revise 10CFR55.25 to require notification of operator incapacity only in case of permanent disability or illness; and (3) eliminate the requirement for quarterly submittal of safeguards event logs presently contained in 10CFR73.71(c)(2) and Appendix G to Part 73.

The Supply System supports the proposed rule and offers the following comment for your consideration.

The proposed amendment would eliminate the current requirement for submitting summary reports of containment leakage rate tests to the NRC (10CFR50, Appendix J). However, the proposed rule will still require that the summary report be generated. The summary report contains data readily available from other sources, such as the surveillance test result documentation. This documentation is required to be maintained and is easily retrievable for review upon request. We feel the requirement to generate but not submit a summary report provides no additional benefit and adds an unnecessary burden. We propose that the requirement to generate the summary report also be eliminated.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Should you have any questions or desire addition information regarding this matter, please call me or Mr. Alan Carlyle at (509) 377-6104.

Sincerely, MAR '=1 19 ti)d~ rot_

P.R. Bemis, Manager Acknowledged by card .................................

Regulatory Programs (Mail Drop PE20)

S NlJ".:'. *, **. ,_; _:r,.I, lSSiON 00(.* _ , -- *, ::.,t SfCTiON OFi= (,  : r*':'. 5!:.CREi./\fW r,, ffi:: *~0(,*,vHSSlON 17---/

Co;*~,.

!l:-:11 S::1,' .

S::". * . . _ J1:Z >Qs;i P/21

_ -r~1~u_s_ _ __ _ __

DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE fO

( S'!J F f{ 5'1 <J~3)

DOCKETED Log # TXX-94338 US , 1RC File # 883

  • 94 OEC 27 P 4 :40 fS'

~

1UELECTRIC C. Lance Terry Gro11p Vi<< Prendent U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

DOCKET NOS 50-445 AND 50-446 COMMENTS ON REDUCTION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON NRC LICENSEES Gentlemen:

TU Electric welcomes the opportunity to provide comments to the proposed "REDUCTION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON NRC LICENSEES" published in 59 FR 54843.

TU Electric firmly agrees with the efforts of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission in reducing the duplicate reporting requirements of Appendix J and§§ 50.72 50.73 of 10CFR50 concerning containment leakage, the duplicate requirements of 10CFR55 .25 and 10CFR50.74(c) concerning licensed operator incapacity, and the duplicate requirements of 10CFR73.7l(c)(2) and Appendix G to part 73 concerning quarterly submittal of safeguards events logs . The NRC efforts to reduce the regulatory burden by reducing redundant reporting requirements conserve both NRC and Licensee resources and TU Electric encourages NRC to continue in its efforts.

Notwithstanding, TU Electric's endorsement of the NRC efforts in reducing duplicate reporting requirements. the discussion in the federal register mentions the existing 10 CFR 50 .72(b)(l)(ii) and 50.73(a)(2)(ii) requi rements to report events which are unanalyzed or outside the pl ant's design bas i s. A reasonable interpretation of the§§ 50 .72(b)(l)(ii) and 50 .73(a)(2)(ii) reporting threshold.

based on "the unanalyzed and outside of design basis", would be a leakage rate in excess of La . The threshold for preparation. but not submittal. of a summary report. as required by§ V.B. of Appendix J. is the failure to meet the acceptance criteria of Appendix J III.A.5.(b) which is a leakage rate in excess of .75La .

These differing values could be a source of confusion in interpreting the "in excess of authorized l imits as listed in t he plant Technical Specifi cations" prerequisites for reporting . TU Electric recommends clarification in a subsequent revis ion to either Appendix J or NUREG 1022.

MAR -1 1995 Acknowledged by card .......................... ""'~

400 N. Olive LB. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201

U.S. NUCL,~ . . . *-I/ ,_:(l, 1./,liSSION DOC -<;:* * .. *,f.:. l ./!CE SECTION o;:.F ,L:.. tF T~*E SECRf:TARY OF THE CC;\;M:SSION

TXX-94338 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions please contact Mr . Jose D. Rodriguez at (214) 812-8674 .

Sincerely, C.~A By~~

J. S. Marshall Generic Licensing Manager

I .

oocr:~1ro I

. . *r*

NUCLEAR ENE RGY INSTITUTE

  • 94 ff 19 P2. X?

VICE PRESIDENT OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING 0

000 r December 19, 1994 Mr. J ohn C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ATI'N: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Proposed Rule on Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees

Dear Mr. Hoyle:

1 These comments are submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in response to the Federal Register notice concerning the proposed rulemaking on the reduction of reporting requirements imposed by 10 CFR Parts 50, 55, and 73 (FR 54843, November 2, 1994).

NEI supports the NRC's efforts to reduce the regulatory burden and reduce the impact of inconsequential reporting requirements on licensees. These three specific amendments are part of the implementation of the NRC staff Regulatory Review Group recommendations contained in their final report dated August 1993, and delineated further in SECY-94-003, "Plan for Implementing Regulatory Review Group Recommendations." These recommendations are the result of extensive internal NRC review of power reactor regulations and reporting requirements as well as specific comments provided by NUMARC in response to an earlier NRC staff request for input on regulatory burden reduction. Consequently, there is broad licensee support for these proposed changes and our comments.

Specifically with respect to the first two proposed changes (10 CFR 50 Appendix J, and

§ 50. 74 and § 55.25) we recognize that the Federal Register notice contains a concise summary of our previous comments. These points provide compelling rationale for implementing the proposed changes and we believe it is important to state that they 1

NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEI's members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy issue. NEI is the successor organization to the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC). MAR - 1 1995 Acknowledged by card ..................................

1776 I STREET , NW SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, DC 20006-3708 PHONE 202 739 8107 FAX 202 785 1 898

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO' DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Slati. tics Postmark Date ~~~

Copies Received----'-\_ _ _ _ __

Add'I Copies Re,, ;;Jt.", ct ..;;:

'o==--- - - -

S~ial Dist~ibution ~

Mr. John C. Hoyle December 19, 1994 Page 2 remain valid. Therefore, we offer only summary remarks. However, regarding § 73. 71, the proposed change does not go far enough, as we delineate below.

Under the proposed change to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, licensees would not be required to submit summary reports of containment leakage rate testing to the NRC. Rather, licensees will continue to be required to prepare the summary report, but only make it available for review and inspection on site. Eliminating the requirement to submit the report will not adversely affect public health and safety. Any instances of leakage in excess of authorized limits will still require timely reporting to the NRC staff in accordance with

§ 50. 72 and § 50. 73. Therefore, the NRC staff will be alerted and able to discharge its responsibilities regarding public health and safety, if required. Additionally, such an approach is consistent with the other changes being considered to structure the Appendix J

- requirements in a more performance-based manner.

The intent of the proposed changes to § 50. 74 and § 55.25 is to address the redundant reporting requirements in those two regulations regarding the reporting of a permanent or potentially permanent illness or disability of a licensed operator. Clarification of the intent of the NRC and consolidation of the requirement to one location avoids ambiguity and potential conflict. We concur with the recommendation that the overlapping requirements be consolidated in § 50. 74.

The proposed change to § 73. 71 eliminates the unnecessary requirement for each licensee to submit the Safeguards Event Log to the NRC. This change is a positive first step in ameliorating the industry-expressed burden of reporting and logging safeguards event details. But, the proposed rule change does not adequately address more significant open issues relative to Appendix G of Part 73. Guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 5.62, NUREG-1304, and Generic Letter 91-03, all titled Reporting of Safeguards Events, while intended to "clarify" the regulatory requirements of Appendix G, in fact create an unnecessary recording burden. In Enclosure 6 to NUMARC letter to the NRC (Mr. David Meyer) of September 30, 1992, NUMARC provided recommendations and suggested text to better identify safeguards incidents that would need to be reported within one hour (the current subject threshold is too low) and provided simplified "Guidelines for Recording Safeguards Events."

Additionally, in SECY-94-003, the NRC's Regulatory Review Group concluded (Topic Area 15 - 2.3.18 Security) that this issue is a manifestation ... of treating security in a philosophically different manner than other regulated activities. We agree. In order for this issue to come to closure, this separation of security from the regulatory mainstream must be overcome. Allowing each licensee to tailor its existing mechanisms or processes, rather than a stand alone Safeguards Event Log, for tracking and trending performance of security personnel and equipment, will be just as effective.

In conclusion, we recommend that the requirement to maintain the log, redesignated paragraph 73.71(c), be eliminated, and Regulatory Guide 5.62, NUREG-1304, and Generic Letter 91-03 be canceled. Such an approach better serves the objectives of the NRC staff and industry stated in the proposed rule, which is to reduce burden while maintaining

Mr. John C. Hoyle December 19, 1994 Page 3 information available at the plant site sufficient for normal record review and usage. It is our strong belief that none of our recommendations will adversely affect public health and safety.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue and encourage the NRC staff to continue its attempts to identify and promulgate other burden reduction opportunities. If there are any questions regarding these comments, please direct them to either Rich Enkeboll or Dave Modeen of the NEI staff.

Sincerely, ecJf~w r.J Thomas E. Tipton JHE/rs

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR So 55 ....,.'1 ~

(59R5~+=>) OOCKE E1J Babcock & Wilcox 11c- ' r r, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division a McDermott company P. 0. Box 785 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505-0785

  • 94 oEr. 19 P&3q-3~2-sooo December 15, 1994 Secretary, U . s . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Sirs:

The Babcock & Wilcox Company, Naval Nuclear Fuel Di vision concurs with the proposed amendments to the Federal Register, as stated in the November 2, 1994, publication.

S

  • ncerel ~ j ~

cff:fZf&~!IJ._1f&,

Safeguards & Security Manager, MAR - 1 1995

  • Acknowledged by card ...............~........., ,unll_

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKf TING & SERVICE SECTION OFF1CE: OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Doc **ie* t ..-tatisticl Postmar1< D... _ ~\.i_bt3._+...___ __

Copies Rer.e\~_ , __ \_

Add'I Cop1e!: R or- ...

  • u ....::,J.._ _ __

Special Distribution

.  ::J>ne,.~ &-,D~ ,,

QQSs.r~:;!o,;da Powe, & Ugh! Compaoy, P.O. Bo, 141100, J,oo Boaeh, FL 3340B-0421l

'94 GE~ ~9 :SO DEC 1 6 ~ @

L-94-3 1 5 u DOCKET NUMBER p

. PROPOSED RULE 5' o 5 5' J- 73

(;q Ffl.. S'-13-'-/3)

Mr. John C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary DOCKETED U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 DEC 16 1.,94 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees 59 Fed. Reg. 54843, November 2, 1994 Request for Comments On November 2, 1994 (59 FR 54843), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a proposed rule for public comment.

These comments are submitted on behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), a licensed operator of two nuclear power plant units in Dade County, Florida and two units in St. Lucie County, Florida.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is offering comments on the proposed rule. FPL endorses the NEI comments and recommendations.

FPL is extremely supportive of the efforts to reduce unnecessary reporting requirements. It is imperative that the NRC assess additional reporting requirements (e.g., Special Nuclear Material Status Reports, 10 CFR 74. 13) to determine whether they can be eliminated or reduced in frequency. SECY-94-003, "Plan for Implementing Regulatory Review Group Recommendations," provides a schedule for this assessment (Reporting Requirements, Topic Area 59: to begin in December 1995). FPL requests that the NRC make every effort to meet or improve on the target schedule.

FPL appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

Very truly yours, W. H. Bo Ike Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Licensing WHB/spt MAR - 1 1995.

Acknowledged by card ...............................-0 an FPL Group company

.S r,\.. ~,_._ - , . , , , , \ C0iv1M 2SiON DCC , _-~ ./J ~~ f \t Ct S~CTION CFF ;(..r- J.- Tl L ~t Cht TARY Of* l ;*E GOM\i,SSION DC>CUf"'"1 r:~ istics J....-J_

Cc Ad.. I 1~.-, J~ ,, * , ' _ _j

_ -,_-=-

Sp-. I .;, .,  : _/Z-i;._a; r!JJ/4

_ --:CA-1'1

_ G,__ ~ , Za.o. I;). lj{, It'-/

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR ~ 0~ J- 73 (j)

December 8, 1994 DOCKETED (5q FR '5 lf a-'-/3) US~RC 1 1

~~~~~:!~ g~ P~~~os~~ ~u~i: ~~:~uc~~~N ~~s~~~~~~i:G *j ~~liM ~ ~4 IMPOSED ON NRC LICENSEES," 59 FED. REG. 54842 (NOVEMBER 2, 1994)

Off ICE OF ECRET RY DOC KE TING & SERVIC E This proposed rule would: (1) eliminate the c urrent BR ' t<<ire-ment for licensees to submit summary reports of containment leakage rate tests to the NRC (10 CFR Part 50-Appendix J), but preserve the requirements in 88 50.72 and 50.73 under which licensees currently report any instances of leakage exceeding authorized limits in the technical specifications of the license; (2) revise 10 CFR 55.25 to refer licensees to a similar reporting requirement in 10 CFR 50.74(c) and require notification of opera-tor incapacity only in case of permanent disability or illness; and (3) eliminate the requirement for quarterly submittal of safeguards event logs presently contained in 10 CFR 73.71(c)(2) and Appendix G to Part 73.

OCRE opposes this proposed rule because it will diminish the public's access to this information. As discussed in OCRE's petition for rulemaking on this subject, PRM-9-2, 59 Fed. Reg.

30308, (June 13, 1994), when the NRC eliminates a reporting requirement the subject information, while still available to NRC inspectors, will never be available to the public. Material that is not submitted to the NRC never gets into the Public Document Room and is not even available under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the Federal Register notice the NRC requested comments on whether the public health and safety will be adversely affected by these changes. But the public health and safety is not the only factor to consider here. Access to information is vital for effective public participation in the NRC's regulatory process.

Public participants simply cannot participate on an equal footing with the NRC staff and the industry without access to the same information possessed by the NRC and industry.

If the NRC decides to adopt this proposed rule, then it should grant PRM-9-2, which would compensate for the loss of public access created by this rulemaking. PRM-9-2 would not create any additional reporting requirements, but would provide a means by which members of the public could request documents directly from licensees.

OCRE would urge the NRC to consider alternatives which would reduce burdens on licensees while also retaining public access to information. One way to do this would be to reduce reporting frequencies, e.g., from quarterly to annually, as was suggested by a commenter regarding the safeguards event logs. Another alternative would be to establish electronic transmittal of reports. This would eliminate costs associated with postage, MAR - 1 1995 1

Acknowledged by eard ..............................-:,

S. NUCLt=f,f-1 ;:,;:_: .,L.MORYCOMMISSION OOCKET!NG u SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date J., ?-.J °t / "I. 'f Co~esRece\-ed. _ _ --=L=--- - - -

Add'I Copies Rep qJ1xed -=3 '---~---

Special Dis!~1bu_':O,l l2.tV2~, Pbof

printing and photocopying. However, it is essential that public access to information submitted electronically be maintained and that such access is affordable.

Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt Director, OCRE 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158 2

DOCKET NUMBER 7]

.,s~c-.- PROPOSED RULE-::- P-:-=:-R--'w-Pfflfr TEO

, . -.a\ c:P.f\ ~c' ,e 0 11

  • fedet I ne"is et

~ ["\ ~

Cs" q FR SL./ 8-/J. PC om~.~t:on to(~---

~ J

,. \\~

~J~~i,1'~ [7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PARTS 50, 55, AND 73 RIN 3150-AFIS Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to reduce reporting requirements currently imposed on water-cooled nuclear power reactor, research and test reactor, and nuclear materi al licensees. This action would reduce the regulatory burden on NRC licensees.

The proposed rule would implement an NRC in itiative to review its current regulations with the intent to revise or eliminate duplicative or unnecessary reporting requirements. The proposed amendments would: (1) eliminate the current requirement for licensees to submit sunvnary reports of containment leakage rate tests to the NRC (10 CFR Part SO-Appendix J), but preserve the requirements in§§ 50.72 and 50.73 under which licensees currently report any instances of leakage exceeding authorized l imits in the technical specifications of the license; (2) revise 10 CFR 55.25 to refer licensees to a similar reporting requirement in 10 CFR 50.74{c) and require notification of operator incapacity only in case of permanent disability or illness; and

(3) eliminate the requirement for quarterly submittal of safeguards event logs presently contained in 10 CFR 73.7l(c)(2) and Appendix G to Part 73.

I :J- ~ rc,/cf'1 \

DATE: The convnent period expires----- (45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register). Co11111ents received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Co11111ission is able to assure consideration only for convnents received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention* Docketing and Service Branch. Convnents may be delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Copies of the draft regulatory analysis, the finding of no significant impact, the supporting statement submitted to 0MB, and co11111ents received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naiem S. Tanious, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co111nission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415-6103.

2

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 7, 1994, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) sent to the Conmission SECY-94-003, "Plan for Implementing Regulatory Review Group Reconvnendations." The Commission approved these reconmendations for reducing regulatory burden on its licensees. This proposed rule is one of several rulemaking and other regulatory actions that the NRC staff is developing to implement those recommendations.

During the NRC staff review of the regulations, Federal Register notices were published on February 24, 1992 (57 FR 6299) and June 19, 1992 (57 FR 27394) that solicited the views of the public, the nuclear power industry, and

\

other interested parties regarding reduction of the regulatory burden and reporting requirements. Conments were received in response to those notices.

A sunnnary of the comments received that are pe~tinent to this action is included in this document.

Discussion These proposed amendments would: (1) elimin~te the current requirement for licensees to submit sunmary reports of containment leakage rate tests to the NRC (10 CFR Part SO-Appendix J), but preserve the requirements in§§ 50.72 and 50.73 under which licensees currently report any instances of leakage exceeding authorized limits in the technical specifications of the license; (2) revise 10 CFR 55.25 to refer licensees to a similar reporting requirement 3

in 10 CFR 50.74(c) and require notification of operator incapacity only in case of permanent disability or illness; and (3) eliminate the requirement for quarterly submittal of safeguards event logs presently contained in 10 CFR 73.71(c)(2) and Appendix G to Part 73.

Although these proposed reduction in reporting requirements were discussed in Federal Register notices published on February 24, 1992 (57 FR 6299) and June 19, 1992 (57 FR 27394), the public is again invited to submit corrments. Specifically, the NRC requests comments and supporting rationale on the appropriateness of eliminating or consolidating these reporting requirements and whether the public health and safety will be adversely affected by these changes.

Elimination of Reporting Req~irements from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, currently requires all water-cooled nuclear power reactor licensees to conduct conta~nment leakage testing. The containment leakage tests demonstrate that the containment system meets all the leakage criteria specified in the technical specifications of the licenses. Currently,Section V.B. of Appendix J requires licensees to submit a summary report of the results of all leak rate tests and any associated corrective actions. Under this proposed rulemaking, licensees of water-cooled nuclear power reactors will continue to conduct containment leakage testing and to prepare the summary report. However, they would not be required to submit the summary report to the NRC. They would still be required to report to the NRC instances of leakage in excess of authorized limits, via a written 4

licensee event report, 1 as now required by§ 50.73{a){2){ii). If such a leakage condition is found during operation, an irrmediate notification by telephone is required by§ 50.72{b){l){ii). If the leakage condition is found during shutdown the telephone notification is required by§ 50.72{b){2){i).

The NRC believes that the elimination of the requirement to submit the su1TD11ary report to the NRC of leakage tests when these results are within acceptance limits would have no impact on the overall health and safety of the public. Because these tests have been performed and evaluated frequently by the nuclear power industry, any misinterpretation of testing requirements is highly unlikely. Moreover, licensees would still be required to prepare the summary reports and make those reports available for review and inspection at the respective plant sites. Having these reports available at the plant sites should be sufficient for normal record reviews, and for any necessary in-depth reviews. Therefore, the NRC proposes to eliminate the requirement to report results of tests within specified limits.

Consolidation of 10 CFR 50.74 and 10 CFR 55.25 Reporting Requirements.

If an operator licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 55, becomes ill or disabled to the point that he or she no longer can safely perform their duties, the reactor licensee is required to report the occurrence of disability under both 10 CFR 50.74{c) and 10 CFR 55.25. The NRC is proposing to require only a 1

These reports would be required when total containment as-found, minimum pathway leak rate exceeds the limiting condition for operation {LCO) in the facility's technical specification.

5

single report by eliminating the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 55.25 and modifying 10 CFR 55.25 to refer facility licensees to 10 CFR 50.74(c).

In addition, when 10 CFR Part 55 was promulgated, the intent of

§ 55.25 was to receive reports only of permanent or potentially permanent illness or disability of licensed operators that would prevent them from safely carrying out their responsibilities. However, this intent, is not explicitly stated in either§ 55.25 or§ 50.74(c). To remove this ambiguity, the word "permanent" is added in both§§ 50.74{c) and 55.25. (A more detailed discussion on "permanent" versus "temporary," illness, or disabiltty can be found in the NRC publication NUREG-1262, 2 "Answers to Questions at Public Meetings Regarding Implementation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55 on Operators' Licenses," November 1987, page 21, question 91).

Public CoOlllents.

Only two coD1T1ents were received concerning the reporting requirements for power reactor licensees. Neither suggested elimination of any power reactor reporting requirement. However, both suggested that the redundant requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 55 addressing illness or disability of licensed operator be consolidated in 10 CFR 50.74.

2 Copies of NUREG-1262 may be purchased from the Superintendents of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. {Lower level), Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6

Elimination of Reporting Requirements in 10 CFR Part 73.71(c)(2).

10 CFR Part 73.71(c)(l) requires that licensees maintain a current log for recording safeguards events. An event that must be recorded in the log is defined in Appendix G, Part 73 as "Any failure, degradation, or discovered vulnerability in a safeguard system .... 3 " 10 CFR 73.71(c)(2) requires that a copy of the log be submitted quarterly to the NRC.

The NRC proposes to eliminate the requirement that licensees submit copies of the safeguard event logs. Until recently, the NRC staff published an annual report which contained trending analysis of log events. However, the NRC now believes that the greatest benefits of dissemination of these statistics on safeguards equipment performance and lessons learned about the causes and prevention of safeguards equipment malfunctions have been realized, and that continuing to publish that report is no longer cost effective.

However, licensees will still be required to enter events in the logs, and make those logs available for review and inspe:tion at the respective plant sites. Having the logs available at the plant site should be sufficient for normal record reviews, and any necessary in-depth reviews. Therefore, the NRC believes that public health and safety will not be adversely affected if the logs are no longer submitted to the NRC.

3 The full definition in 10 CFR Part 73 Appendix G, Section II is:

(a) Any failure, degradation, or discovered vulnerability in a safeguards system that could have allowed unauthorized or undetected access to a protected area, material access area, controlled access area, vital area, or transport had compensatory measures not been established.

(b) Any other threatened, attempted, or committed act not previously defined in Appendix G with the potential for reducing the effectiveness of the safeguards system below that co11111itted to in a licensed physical security or contingency plan or the actual condition of such reduction in effectiveness.

7

Public Comments.

The former Nuclear Management and Resources Council, now known as the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), convnented that power reactor licensees should be deleted from the list of licensees subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 73.7l(c). According to NEI, comparisons among plants using the data provided in the logs are not meaningful because the number of events reported by each site is dramatically influenced by a number of site-specific variables such as the number and design of system components and unique physical arrangements. NEI stated that co1T111ents received from industry were almost unanimous in advising that licensees receive insignificant information from the NRC's quarterly "Safeguards Events Analysis Report." NEI further convnented that the real benefit in recording safeguards events lies in its usefulness as a management tool to measure a plant's specific performance, independent of other facilities.

One licensee commented that if the requirement to submit a log to the

  • NRC were not deleted, the frequency of submittal should be reduced from 4 times each year to 2 times each year as required for submittal of fitness-for-duty performance data in 10 CFR 26.7l(d). The licensee noted that timeliness would not be adversely impacted in a significant way by annual or semiannual rather than quarterly reporting. The licensee also suggested that evaluation of trends is more meaningful when based on events over 6 months or a year rather than only 3 months.

The NRC believes that, in the early years of this program, there was considerable benefit from comparisons of the performance of a site's security equipment with the performance of the rest of the industry, notwithstanding 8

differences in site-specific variables. However, the NRC now believes that the greatest benefits have been realized and that continuing the program as a regulatory tool has a diminishing cost-benefit. As such, the NRC agrees with the comments that the primary benefit in logging events is the usefulness of the log as a means for the licensees to track and trend the performance of the safeguards systems at their own plants. In fact, the NRC has already discontinued publication of "Safeguards Event Analysis Report." Although the NRC is proposing to eliminate the requirement that licensees submit their safeguards event logs, licensees would still be required to enter events into their logs and maintain those logs on site for review by the NRC inspectors.

Written Reports This proposed rule would not require additional written reports. On the contrary, under this proposed rule, reporting will be reduced for all licensees under 10 CFR Parts 50, 55, and 73 .

  • Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in the categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this r~gulation.

9

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed r*u1 e 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 requirements.

Because the rule will relax existing information collection requirements, the public burden for this collection of information is expected to be reduced by approximately 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send corrments 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 (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011, 3150-0018, 3150-0002), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. 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. Single copies of the draft analysis may be obtained from Naiem S.

Tanious, telephone (301) 415-6lp3. The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule affects the nuclear power reactors, research and test reactors, and some material licensees. The companies and organizations that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of the size standards established by the NRC (56 FR 56671; November 6, 1991).

Backfit Analysi$

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits on licensees as defined in

§ 50.109(a)(l). Information collection and reporting requirements are not subject to the backfit rule; moreover, the changes proposed in this rulemaking relax existing requirements.

11

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal Penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 55 Criminal Penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 73 Criminal Penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Export, Import, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amend~d; and 5 U.S.C.

553; the CoD111ission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50, 55, and 73.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for 10 CFR 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 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat 3123, (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).

2. In 10 CFR 50.74, par~graph (c) is revised to read as follows:

§ 50.74 Notification of change in operator or senior operator status.

(c) Permanent disability or illness as described in§ 55.25 of this chapter.

13

3. in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J, Section Ill, paragraphs A.1.(a),

(b), and {d);Section IV. paragraph A., and Section V. paragraphs A. and B.,

are revised to read as follows:

Appendix J to Part 50 - Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.

III. Leakage Testing Requirements.

A. Type A test-I. Pretest requirements. {a) Containment inspection in

. accordance with V. A. shall be performed as a prerequisite to the performance of Type A tests. During the period between the initiation of the containment inspection and the performance of the Type A test, no repairs or adjustments shall be made so that the containment can be tested in as close to the Ras is" condition as practical. During the period between the completion of one Type A test and the initiation of the containment inspection for the subsequent Type A test, repairs or adjustments shall be made to components whose leakage exceeds that specified in the technical specification as soon as practical after identification. If during a Type A test, including the supplemental test specified in III.A.3.(b), potentially excessive leakage paths are identified which will interfere with satisfactory completion of the test, or which result in the Type A test not meeting the acceptance criteria III.A.4.{b) or III.A.5.(b), the Type A test shall be terminated and the leakage through such paths shall be measured using local leakage testing methods. Repairs and/or adjustments to equipment shall be made and Type A test performed. The corrective action taken and the change in leakage rate 14

determined from the tests and overall integrated leakage determined from local leak and Type A tests shall be included in the sunvnary report required by V.B.

(b) Closure of containment isolation valves for the Type A test shall be accomplished by normal operation and without any preliminary exercising or adjustments (e.g., no tightening of valve after closure by valve motor).

Repairs of maloperating or leaking valves shall be made as necessary.

Information on any valve closure malfunction or valve leakage that require corrective action before the test, shall be included in the sunvnary report required by V.B.

(d) Those portions of the fluid systems that are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and are open directly to the containment atmosphere under post-accident conditions and become an extension an extension of the boundary of the containment shall be opened or vented to the containment atmosphere prior to and during the test. Portions of closed systems inside containment that penetrate containment and rupture as a result of a loss of coolant accident shall be vented to the containment atmosphere. All vented systems shall be drained of water or other fluids to the extent necessary to assure exposure of the system containment isolation valves to containment air test pressure and to assure they will be subjected to the post accident differential pressure. Systems that are required to maintain the plant in a safe condition during the test shall be operable in their normal mode, and need not be vented. Systems that are normally filled with water and operating under post-accident conditions, such as the containment heat removal system, need not be vented. However, the containment isolation valves in the systems defined in III.A.l.(d) shall be tested in accordance with III.C. The measured 15

leakage rate from these tests shall be included in the summary required by V.B.

IV. Special Testing Requirements.

A. Containment modification. ~ny major modification, replacement of a component which is part of the primary reactor containment boundary, or resealing a seal-welded door, performed after the preoperational leakage rate test shall be followed by either a Type A, Type B, or Type C test, as applicable for* the area affected by the modification. The measured leakage from this test shall be included in the su1T111ary report required by V.B. The acceptance criteria of III.A.5.(b), III.B.3., or III.C.3., as appropriate, shall be met. Minor modifications, replacements, or resealing of seal-welded doors, performed directly prior to the conduct of a scheduled Type A test do not require a separate test.

V. Inspection and Reporting of Tests.

A. Containment inspection. A general inspection of the accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment structures and components shall be perfonned prior to any Type A test to uncover any evidence of structural deterioration which may affect either the containment structural

(

i~tegrity or leak-tightness. If there is evidence of structural deterioration, Type A tests shall not be performed until corrective action is taken in accordance with repair procedures, non destructive examinations, and tests as specified in the applicable code specified in§ 50.55a at the commencement of repair work. Such structural deterioration and corrective actions taken shall be included in the summary test report required by V.B.

16

B. Report of Test Results. I. The preoperational and periodic tests must be documented in a readily available su1T111ary report that will be made available for inspection, upon request, at the nuclear power plant. The summary report shall include a schematic arrangement of the leakage rate measurement system, the instrumentation used, the supplemental test method, and the test program selected as applicable to the preoperational test, and all the subsequent periodic tests. The report shall contain an analysis and interpretation of the leakage rate test data for the Type A test results to the extent necessary to demonstrate the acceptability of the containment's leakage rate in meeting acceptance criteria.

2. For each periodic test, leakage test results from Type A, B, and C tests shall be included in the su1T111ary report. The sunvnary report shall contain an analysis and interpretation of the Type A test results and a summary analysis of periodic Type Band Type C tests that were performed since the last type A test. Leakage test results from type A, B, and C tests that failed to meet the acceptance criteria of III.A.S(b), III.B.3, and III.C.3, respectively, shall be included in a separate accompanying summary report that includes an analysis and interpretation of the test data, the least squares fit analysis of the test data, the instrumentation error analysis, and the structural conditions of the containment or components, if any, which contributed to the failure in meeting the acceptance criteria. Results and analyses of the supplemental verification test employed to demonstrate the validity of the leakage rate test measurements shall also be included.

17

PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES

4. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 55 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat. 939, 948, 953 , as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2232, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C.

5841, 5842).

Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also issued under sec. 306, Pub.

L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

5. 10 CFR 55.25 is revised to read ~s follows:

§ 55.25 - Incapacitation because of disability or illness.

If, during the term of the license, the licensee develops a permanent physical or mental condition that causes the licensee to fail to meet the requirements of§ 55.21 of this part, the facility licensee shall notify the Conmission, within 30 days of learning of the diagnosis, in accordance with

§ 50.74(c). For conditions for which a conditional license (as describing in

§ 55.33(b) of this part) is requested, the facility licensee shall provide medical certification on Form NRC 396 to the Corrmission (as described in

§ 55.23 of this part).

18

PART 73 - PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS

6. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 73 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948, as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204, 88 Stat.

1242, as amended, 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5844).

Section 73.l also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat.

  • 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C, 10155, 10161). Section 73.37(f) also issued under sec
  • 301, Pub. L.96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note). Section 73.57 is issued under sec. 606, Pub. L.99-399, 100 Stat. 876 (42 U.S.C. 2169).
7. Section 73.71, paragraph (c)(2) is deleted, paragraph (c)(l) is redesignated as paragraph (c), and paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:

§ 73.71 Reporting of safeguards events.

(d) Each licensee shall submit to the Commission the 30-day written reports required under the provisions of this section that are of a quality which will pennit legible reproduction and processing. If the facility is subject to§ 50.73 of this chapter, the licensee shall prepare the written report of NRC Fonn 366. If the facility is not subject to§ 50.73 of this chapter, the licensee shall not use this form but shall prepare the written report in letter format. The report must include sufficient informati,on for NRC analysis and evaluation.

19

8. In 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix G, the title of Section II. is revised to read as follows:

Appendix G to Part 73-Reportable Safeguards Events.

II. Events to be recorded withi"n 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery in the safeguards event log.

~

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this c2/)_ day o f ~ 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

for Operations.

20

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23152A135&oldid=3570054"