ML24173A004: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:6/20/24, 4:17 PM | {{#Wiki_filter:6/20/24, 4:17 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/885b93c0-71dc-41f4-af16-d0494215c1b1 SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 6/20/24, 4:16 PM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: June 14, 2024 ADD: Paul Laflamme, Brian PUBLIC SUBMISSIONBenney, Mary Neely Status: Pending_Post Comment (1) Tracking No. lxf-6n0e-vg8k Publication Date:4/17/2024Comments Due: June 17, 2024 Citation: 89 FR 27463 Submission Type: Web | ||
Docket: NRC-2024-0037 Event Reporting Guidelines | Docket: NRC-2024-0037 Event Reporting Guidelines | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Submitter Information | Submitter Information | ||
Email: | Email: atb@nei.org Organization: Nuclear Energy Institute | ||
General Comment | General Comment | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
06-14-24_NRC Industry Comments on NUREG-1022 Rev 3 Supplement 2 | 06-14-24_NRC Industry Comments on NUREG-1022 Rev 3 Supplement 2 | ||
blob:https://www.fdms.gov/885b93c0-71dc-41f4-af16-d0494215c1b1 | blob:https://www.fdms.gov/885b93c0-71dc-41f4-af16-d0494215c1b1 1/1 Tony Brown Phone: 202.739. 80 87 Technical Advisor, Regulatory Email: mab@nei.org Affairs | ||
J | J une 14, 2024 | ||
Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 | Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 - 0001 ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
NEI Comments on Draft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines, Docket ID NRC- | NEI Comments on Draft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines, Docket ID NRC-2024- 0037 | ||
Submitted via Regulations.gov | Submitted via Regulations.gov | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
Accouncements and Editing Staff: | Accouncements and Editing Staff: | ||
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1, on behalf of its members | The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1, on behalf of its members, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines (Docket ID NRC-2024-0037), which provides licensees updated guidance for evaluating and reporting degraded or unanalyzed conditions. | ||
In general, NEI supports the staffs proposed changes to the guidance for reporting degraded or unanalyzed conditions that signficantly degrade plant safety. Defining discovery and including considerations for structures, systems, and components (SSCs) recategorized under 10 CFR 50.69 should result in fewer | In general, NEI supports the staffs proposed changes to the guidance for reporting degraded or unanalyzed conditions that signficantly degrade plant safety. Defining discovery and including considerations for structures, systems, and components (SSCs) recategorized under 10 CFR 50.69 should result in fewer event report retractions and minimize the burden on licensees and NRC staff. | ||
However, NEI recommends | However, NEI recommends additional discussion on the use of risk insights for determining if a condition signficantly degrades plant safety. The discussion regarding R isk-Informed Safety Class (RISC)-3 and RISC-4 SSCs provides the licensee one method to use risk insights and probabilistic risk assessment | ||
1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear en | 1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear en ergy industry. | ||
Office of Administration | Office of Administration Nuclear Energy Institute June 14, 2024 Page 2 | ||
(PRA) in evaluating applicable reporting requirements. However, this approach can only be used for licensees with an approved 50.69 program, and for SSCs that have been categorized under 50.69. | (PRA) in evaluating applicable reporting requirements. However, this approach can only be used for licensees with an approved 50.69 program, and for SSCs that have been categorized under 50.69. | ||
Licensees should also be given the option to use their PRA models to provide insight regarding whether or not a condition significantly degrades plant safety. NEI recommends including additional allowances for licensees to use existing risk insights to determine if a condition signficantly degrades plant safety. | Licensees should also be given the option to use their PRA models to provide insight regarding whether or not a condition significantly degrades plant safety. NEI recommends including additional allowances for licensees to use existing risk insights to determine if a condition signficantly degrades plant safety. | ||
Additional NEI comments are in the attached table. NEI | Additional NEI comments are in the attached table. NEI appreciates the NRCs effort in developing this draft guidance and considering these comments. We encourage timely issuance of the supplement. | ||
If you have questions concerning this letter, please contact me at mab@nei.org | If you have questions concerning this letter, please contact me at mab@nei.org or 202.739.8087. | ||
Respectfully, | Respectfully, | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
NEI Comment Table on Draft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines | NEI Comment Table on Draft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines | ||
c: | c: Michael King, NRC/ NRR Lisa Regner, NRC/NRR/DRO/IOEB Paul LaF lamme, NRC/NRR/DRO/IOEB Nuclear Energy Institute 1 | ||
NEI Comments on D | NEI Comments on D raft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines | ||
Affected Section | Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation | ||
: 1. | : 1. GENERAL Recommend additional discussion be Recommend including additional allowances for licensees to included on the use of risk insights for use existing risk insights to determine if a condition determining if a condition significantly sign ificantly degrades plant safety. | ||
degrades plant safety. The discussion regarding Risk-Informed Safety Class (RISC)-3 and RISC-4 SSCs provides the licensee one method to use PRA and | degrades plant safety. The discussion regarding Risk-Informed Safety Class (RISC)-3 and RISC-4 SSCs provides the licensee one method to use PRA and risk insights in evaluating applicable reporting requirements. However, this approach can only be used for licensees with an approved 50.69 program, and for SSCs that have been categorized under 50.69. Licensees should also be given the option to use their detailed PRA models to provide insight regarding whether or not a condition significantly degrades plant safety. | ||
: 2. | : 2. Section 2.1, Clarify that the moment of discovery occurs Proposed language: | ||
second bullet of | second bullet of when the evaluation is completed. | ||
2nd paragraph | 2nd paragraph | ||
* if the existence of a seriously degraded principal safety barrier or unanalyzed condition that significantly degrades | * if the existence of a seriously degraded principal safety barrier or unanalyzed condition that significantly degrades plant safety cannot be readily determined when it occurs or when it is found to have occurred, and additional evaluation is needed, then the moment when the evaluation that supports the existence of such a condition is completed. | ||
Nuclear Energy Institute | Nuclear Energy Institute 2 | ||
Affected Section | Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation | ||
: 3. | : 3. Section 2.2.A, The paragraph is specifically associated Proposed language: | ||
last paragraph | last paragraph with Example #3 and should be moved to the example to ensure consistent 3. degradation of steam generator tubes that is deemed application. serious if the tubes fail to meet the performance criteria outlined in the plant-specific technical specifications (TS) for steam generator tube integrity. When one or more steam generator tubes meet the tube repair criteria and have not been plugged or repaired in accordance with the steam generator program, they are not considered to be severely degraded as long as structural integrity and the accident-induced leakage performance criteria in the plant - | ||
specific TSs are met. | specific TSs are met. | ||
: 4. | : 4. Section 2.2.B, Recommend clarifying that functionally Proposed language: | ||
Example #5 | Example #5 related components implies components from different systems. Also recommend 5. Multiple functionally related safety -related components (i.e. | ||
replacing could with would to avoid any | replacing could with would to avoid any components in different systems) out of service that would confusion or ambiguity when evaluating if a prevent the fulfillment of a safety function. | ||
condition significantly degrades plant safety. | condition significantly degrades plant safety. | ||
: 5. | : 5. Section 2.2.1, Recommend providing an example of a Proposed language: | ||
Example #4 | Example #4 condition that is normal and expected wear or degradation. (4) Additional Clarification for Events Not Required to Be Reported | ||
Licensees are not required to report an event pursuant to this criterion if the event results from a shared dependency among trains or channels that is a natural or expected consequence of the approved plant design, or normal and expected wear or degradation. For example, run to failure components would be considered normal and expected wear or degradation.}} | Licensees are not required to report an event pursuant to this criterion if the event results from a shared dependency among trains or channels that is a natural or expected consequence of the approved plant design, or normal and expected wear or degradation. For example, run to failure components would be considered normal and expected wear or degradation.}} | ||
Revision as of 13:06, 4 October 2024
| ML24173A004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Issue date: | 06/14/2024 |
| From: | Nuclear Energy Institute |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2024-0037, 89FR27463 00001 | |
| Download: ML24173A004 (1) | |
Text
6/20/24, 4:17 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/885b93c0-71dc-41f4-af16-d0494215c1b1 SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 6/20/24, 4:16 PM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: June 14, 2024 ADD: Paul Laflamme, Brian PUBLIC SUBMISSIONBenney, Mary Neely Status: Pending_Post Comment (1) Tracking No. lxf-6n0e-vg8k Publication Date:4/17/2024Comments Due: June 17, 2024 Citation: 89 FR 27463 Submission Type: Web
Docket: NRC-2024-0037 Event Reporting Guidelines
Comment On: NRC-2024-0037-0001 Draft NUREG: Event Report Guidelines
Document: NRC-2024-0037-DRAFT-0002 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-08179
Submitter Information
Email: atb@nei.org Organization: Nuclear Energy Institute
General Comment
See attached file(s)
Attachments
06-14-24_NRC Industry Comments on NUREG-1022 Rev 3 Supplement 2
blob:https://www.fdms.gov/885b93c0-71dc-41f4-af16-d0494215c1b1 1/1 Tony Brown Phone: 202.739. 80 87 Technical Advisor, Regulatory Email: mab@nei.org Affairs
J une 14, 2024
Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 - 0001 ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff
Subject:
NEI Comments on Draft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines, Docket ID NRC-2024- 0037
Submitted via Regulations.gov
Project Number: 689
Dear Program Management,
Accouncements and Editing Staff:
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1, on behalf of its members, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines (Docket ID NRC-2024-0037), which provides licensees updated guidance for evaluating and reporting degraded or unanalyzed conditions.
In general, NEI supports the staffs proposed changes to the guidance for reporting degraded or unanalyzed conditions that signficantly degrade plant safety. Defining discovery and including considerations for structures, systems, and components (SSCs) recategorized under 10 CFR 50.69 should result in fewer event report retractions and minimize the burden on licensees and NRC staff.
However, NEI recommends additional discussion on the use of risk insights for determining if a condition signficantly degrades plant safety. The discussion regarding R isk-Informed Safety Class (RISC)-3 and RISC-4 SSCs provides the licensee one method to use risk insights and probabilistic risk assessment
1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear en ergy industry.
Office of Administration Nuclear Energy Institute June 14, 2024 Page 2
(PRA) in evaluating applicable reporting requirements. However, this approach can only be used for licensees with an approved 50.69 program, and for SSCs that have been categorized under 50.69.
Licensees should also be given the option to use their PRA models to provide insight regarding whether or not a condition significantly degrades plant safety. NEI recommends including additional allowances for licensees to use existing risk insights to determine if a condition signficantly degrades plant safety.
Additional NEI comments are in the attached table. NEI appreciates the NRCs effort in developing this draft guidance and considering these comments. We encourage timely issuance of the supplement.
If you have questions concerning this letter, please contact me at mab@nei.org or 202.739.8087.
Respectfully,
Tony Brown Technical Advisor, Regulatory Affairs
Attachment:
NEI Comment Table on Draft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines
c: Michael King, NRC/ NRR Lisa Regner, NRC/NRR/DRO/IOEB Paul LaF lamme, NRC/NRR/DRO/IOEB Nuclear Energy Institute 1
NEI Comments on D raft NUREG-1022, Revision 3, Supplement 2, Event Report Guidelines
Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation
- 1. GENERAL Recommend additional discussion be Recommend including additional allowances for licensees to included on the use of risk insights for use existing risk insights to determine if a condition determining if a condition significantly sign ificantly degrades plant safety.
degrades plant safety. The discussion regarding Risk-Informed Safety Class (RISC)-3 and RISC-4 SSCs provides the licensee one method to use PRA and risk insights in evaluating applicable reporting requirements. However, this approach can only be used for licensees with an approved 50.69 program, and for SSCs that have been categorized under 50.69. Licensees should also be given the option to use their detailed PRA models to provide insight regarding whether or not a condition significantly degrades plant safety.
- 2. Section 2.1, Clarify that the moment of discovery occurs Proposed language:
second bullet of when the evaluation is completed.
2nd paragraph
- if the existence of a seriously degraded principal safety barrier or unanalyzed condition that significantly degrades plant safety cannot be readily determined when it occurs or when it is found to have occurred, and additional evaluation is needed, then the moment when the evaluation that supports the existence of such a condition is completed.
Nuclear Energy Institute 2
Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation
- 3. Section 2.2.A, The paragraph is specifically associated Proposed language:
last paragraph with Example #3 and should be moved to the example to ensure consistent 3. degradation of steam generator tubes that is deemed application. serious if the tubes fail to meet the performance criteria outlined in the plant-specific technical specifications (TS) for steam generator tube integrity. When one or more steam generator tubes meet the tube repair criteria and have not been plugged or repaired in accordance with the steam generator program, they are not considered to be severely degraded as long as structural integrity and the accident-induced leakage performance criteria in the plant -
specific TSs are met.
- 4. Section 2.2.B, Recommend clarifying that functionally Proposed language:
Example #5 related components implies components from different systems. Also recommend 5. Multiple functionally related safety -related components (i.e.
replacing could with would to avoid any components in different systems) out of service that would confusion or ambiguity when evaluating if a prevent the fulfillment of a safety function.
condition significantly degrades plant safety.
- 5. Section 2.2.1, Recommend providing an example of a Proposed language:
Example #4 condition that is normal and expected wear or degradation. (4) Additional Clarification for Events Not Required to Be Reported
Licensees are not required to report an event pursuant to this criterion if the event results from a shared dependency among trains or channels that is a natural or expected consequence of the approved plant design, or normal and expected wear or degradation. For example, run to failure components would be considered normal and expected wear or degradation.