ML20127C396
| ML20127C396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/15/1992 |
| From: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341G314 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR28642, RULE-PR-50 AD03-1-019, AD3-1-19, NUDOCS 9207220285 | |
| Download: ML20127C396 (7) | |
Text
%. ,,
$$ ' 14003Q -0l%
Q l :.- f :s; "J(JN 1 5;1992 s_
-MEMORANDUM-FOR:-
James M. Taylor-
, Executive: Director for Operationsg
-FROM: Edward LJ. Jordan,' Director _
Office _ for.~ Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data' -4
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED MINOR RULEMAKING;TO MODIFY OPERATING'EVENTI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS - 10_CFR 50 72 AND 50.73.
o Enclosed for your signature is the Notice for Proposed Rulemaking to modify power reactor event reporting requirements.to be published in-the Federal Reaister (Enclosure 1).
In-this revised package we have incorporated the' changes dalineated in the SRM- ,
and its attachments, dated May 22, 1992, concerning SECY-92-146. ADM has'. .
reviewed and approved this package. - We have also submitted to IRM the OMB clearance package required to be submitted prior to the publication of the:
Federal Register Notice.
~ '
You will note that in.conformance with the recent directive from President -
Bush, the public comment period has been changed from 75 to_30 days.. -
Also enclosed-are the revised Congressional letters for your concurrence and
- to be forwarded to Dennis Rathbun (Enclosure 2).
If you have any questions,'please call-me on 492-4848. . i Original Signed by '
E. L, Jordan:
Edward L. Jordan, Director _
Office for Analysis and Evaluation- .
of Operational Data
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution: See page-2
- D:DOA D ':
LSpfssard D s 6/V/92' 6/ 92-DM T AB- AC* MS C:TP : C:IRB D:AE D
- R- pathi pathi PB TNov k E s n .
6/ji/92- 6 /92 6/g/92 6/g/92- 6 /92. 6/7/92
~
p,w ,
y g~run/ /
y L,---
- - - - , . --- . . - - . ,m --_, -
/4; .$-
i ,
, . j- s DISTRIBUTION:-(w/outenclosure)
.AE00 RF DSP RF-TPAB RF E. Jordan D. Ross T. Novak L. Spessard V. Benaraya__
P. Baranowsky J. Rosenthal-J. Conran E. Weiss R.ilripathie
'M. Harper P. Bobe T. Murley, NRR C. Rossi, NRR R. Woodruff, NRR W. Russell, NRR S. Varga, NRR D. Crutchfield, NRR J. Richardson, NRR A. Thadani, NRR B. Grimes, NRR F. Congel, NRR J. Roe, NRR W. Reckley, NRR D. Brinkman, NRR S. Lor.g, NRR E. Beckjord, RES C. Heltemes, RES E. Beckjord RES M. Fleishman, RES ;
W. Morris, RES S. Treby, 0GC G. Mizuno, OGC M. Malsch, OGC M. Taylor, OEDO J.W. Bateman, OED0 R. Fraley,.ACRS P. Norry, ADM -;
M. Lesar, ADM 1
J. Lieberman, OE F. Ingram, OPA _j T. Martin, RI S. Ebneter, RII ,
A. B. Davis, RIII R. Martin, RIV J. Martin, RV m
{ ..
I;. ' ; n ,,: r u h u , u a s , a 71603-/
Annroved For Publication The Commission delegated to the EDO (10 CFR 1.31(a)(3)) the authority to develop and promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)) subject -
to the limitations in NRC Hanual Chapter 0103, Organization and Functions.
Office of the Executive Director for Operations, paragraphs 0213, 038,-039, and 0310.
The enclosed proposed rule, entitled " Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements," will amend 10 CFR Part 50 to eliminate licensee reporting of certain Engineered Safety Feature (ESF)_ actuations currently required by 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73.
This proposed rule does not constitute a significant question of po'licy, nor does it amend regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8, or 9 Subpart- C concerning matters of policy. I, therefore, find that this rule is within the scope of my rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.
i thrA1 L h k ,-
Date Jytis if. Taylogf '
xe tive Director for Operations
. A Oo3 - /
F7 FA. 2 NY.2 PDA.
g., ,
Proposed Rules r+a a+'"
Vol 67 No.124 Friday, June to,1992 TNs section of the FEDERAL REGISTER and Evaluation of OperationalData, algnals" or from international manual .
contains noticos to the pute of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, initiation. Valid signals are those signals pmposed issuance of res and Wa shington. DC 20555. Telephone (301) that are initiated in response to actual regulations. h purpose of these noh 492-4435 and (301) 492-0005, plant conditions or parameters g,g gg,=asn, malJng prior to the adoption of the faal respectively, sVPPLIMENTARY INFORMATiOlc satisfyinS the requirements for ESF initiation.
Invalid actuations are by definition rules. Background those that do not meet the criteria for The C,ommission is proposing minor being valid. %us, invalid actuations NUCLEAR REGut.ATORY amendments to the current nuclear include actuations that are not due to COMMISSION power reactor event reporting valid signals and are not intentional requirements contained in 10 CFR 50J2, manual actuations. luvalid actuations 10 CFR Part 50 "Immediate Notification Requirements include instances where inst ument RfN St50-AEt2 for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors," drift, spurious signals, human error, or and 10 CFR 5053, "lJcensee Event other invalid signals caused actuation of Minor Modifications to Nuclear Power Reporting System," as part of its ongoing the ESF (e.g., jarring a cabinet, an error Fleactor Event Reporting activities to improve its regulations. In use of jumpers or lifted leads, an error Requirements in this regard, various NRC reviews of in actuation of switches or controls, operating experience and the patterns of equipment failure or radio frequency AMNCY: Nuclear Regulatory Licensees' rep rting of operating events , interference).
GMsion. since 1984 have indicated that reports NRCs evaluation of both the' reported Actioec Proposed rule. on some of these events are not events since January 1984, when the necessary for the NRC to perform its existing rules first became effective, and -
swMuY:%e Nuclear' Regulatory the comments received during the. Event -
ComnJssion (NRC) proposes to amend safety mission.%e reporting of certain
. types of events are no longer Reporting Workshops conducted in fall -
its regulations to make minor of 1930, identifi6d needed improvements
- rnodifications to the current nuclear c ntributing usetul information to the operating reactor events database and, . in the rules.%e NRC determined that pow r reactor event reporting invalid actuation, isolation, or '
requirements.%e proposed therefore, are no longer necessary, ne tmeedments would apply to all nuclear unnecessary reports are consuming real4nment of a limited set of ESFs or power reactor licensees and would - resources in preparation and review that their equivalent systems, subsystems, or would be better applied elsewhere, . components (l.e., an in alid actuation, delf s reporting requirements for some isolation, or realignment of only the ev:nts that have been determined to l,e Over the past several years, the NRC has increased its attention to event reaptor water clean-up (RWCU) system, of little or no safety significance. ncae the control room emergency ventilation proposed amendments would reduce the reporting lasues to ersure uniformity, consistency, and completeness in event (CREV) system, the reactor building industry's reporting burden and the - ventilation system, the fuel bu11 ding NRCs response burden in event review reporting. As a result,in September 1991, the NRCs Office for Analysis and . ventilation system, or the auxiliary and essessment.
Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) building ventilation system) are of little DATES: ne comment period expires July issued for comment a draft NUREG- or no safety significance. However, 27.1092. Comments received after this 1022, Reviclon ' " Event Reporting these events are currently reportable d:t2 will be considered if it is practical Systems 10 CFR 5052 and 10 CFR under to CFR 5052 (b)(2)(ll) and to CFR t2 do so, but the Commission is able to ' 5053-Clarification of NRC Syatems 6053 (a)(2)(lv).
casure consideration only for comments and Culdellace for Reporting." %e final rules for the current event
- received on or before this date. Following resolution of public reporting regulations,10 CFR 5052 and
. Acontssts: Mail written comments to: comments, the NUREG will contain 10 CFR 6073 (48 FR 39039; August 28.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, improved guidance for event reporting. 1983, and 48 FR 33850; July 20,1983, Wcshington,DC 20555, ATIM The NRCs continuing examination of respectively), stated that ESF systems, Docketing and Service Branch. reported events during development of including the reactor protection system Deliver comments to One White Flint this document has determined that (RpS), are provided to mitigate the North 11555 Rockville pike, Rockville- certain types of events primarily consequences of a significant event.
MD 20852. between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm involving invalid engineered safety Therefore, ESIa should (1) work on Federal workdays. feature (ESF) actuations are oflittle or properly when' called u;-n and (2)
Copies of the draft regulatory no safety significance, should not be challenged frequently or -
En11ysis, the supporting statement Valid ESF actuations are those unnecessarily ne Statements of ,
submitted to OMB and comments actuations that restilt from " valid ConsideratJon for these final rules also received may be examined at: The NRC stated that operation of an ESF as part Public Document Room,2120 L Street, i A tru sinde copy may be requested by wens of a pre-planned operational procedure NW. (Lower Level). Wash;ngton. DC no the ui iribution and Mait services section. us or test need not be reported.nc 20555. Nuclear Regulatory Commisen. Washinston. DC Commission.noted that ESF actuations, FO?: FURTHER MFOMAATIOM CONTACT: [ ,y sg,a including reactor trips, are frequently Raji Tripathi (10 CFR'5073) or Enc Room. 2120 t. Street NW. (Lower f.evel}.
associated with significant plant Weiss (10 CFR 5052). Office of Analysis washinsion, oc zom transients and are indicative of events
& 5
Fed:r:1 Register / Vol. 57. No.124 '/ Friday June 20, 1992 / Proposed Hul:s ' 28G13 that are of safety significance. At that the general public, or (3) would function has already been completed time, the Commission also required all compromise control room habitability, (e g., en invalid containment isolation ESF actuations. locluding the RpS the event / discovery continues to be signal while the containment isolation .
actuations, whether manual or reportable. valves are already closed, or an invalid cutomatic, valid or invalid-except as invalid ESF actuations that would be actuation of the RpS when all rods are noted, to be reported to the NRC by excluded by this proposed rule, but fully inserted).
telephone within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of occurrence occur as a part of a reportable event. (3) De third category excludes events followed by a written Uconsee Event would continue to be described as part when an invalid actuation, isolation, or Report (IER) within 30 days of the of the reportable event.ne proposed realignment of only the reactor water - ,
incident.nis t' quirement e on timeliness amendments are not intended to clean-up (RWCU) system, or any of the ,
of reporting remains unchanged. preclude submittal of a complete, following ventilation systems: Control
%e reported information is used by accurate, and thorough description of an room emergency ventilation (CREV)
NRC in confirmation of the ifcensing event that is otherwise reportable under systern, reactor building ventilation bases, identification of precursors to 10 CFR 5032 or 10 CFR 5053.ne system, fuel buuding ventilation system. <
severe core damage, identification of Commission la proposing to relax only auxiliary building ventilation system, or plant specific deficiencies, generic the selected event reporting their equivalent ventilation systems lessons, review of "nanagement control requirements specified in this proposed occurs. Invalid actuations that involve systems, and licensee performance rule. Ucemees are still required under other ESFs not specifically excluded, essessment. 10 CFR 50, appendix B," Quality (such as emergency core cooling system ..
Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power isolations or actuations; containment Discuss 1on Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants." to isolation valve closures that' affect Relar.ing reporting requirements for address whether corrective actions for cooling systems, main steam' flow, I certain ESP actuadons, primarily invalid events or conditions that are adverse to essential support systems, etc.:
actuations, could save resources for quality are reportable or not. In containment spray actuation; and.,
both the industry and the NRC.De addition, inlanicine ESF actuations residual heat removal system Commission emphaalzes that only (such as RWCU isofations) to reduce isolations), would continue to be specific invalid ESF actuations would be operational radiation exposures reportable.
exempt from reporting.We relaxations associated with the investigation and '
in svent reporting requirements 1.icensees would continue to be recovery from the actuations, are requird to submit LERs if a deficiency or '
contained in the proposed rule would consl. stent with ALARA requirements, condition associated with any of the cpply only to a limited set of specifically De existing provisions in to CFR defined invalid ESF actuations.ncse invalid ESF actuations of the RWCU or sv:nts are limited to lavalid actuation, 5072 (b)(2)(li) and 10 CFR 50J3(a)(2)(iv), the CREV systems (or other equivalent require the reporting of an event or ventuation systems) sansDes any g
isolation, or realignment of the RWCU condition that results in a manual or system, the CREV system, the reactor automatic actuation of an ESF, including rep rtability criteria under i 5052 and building ventilution system, the fuel -the RPS, except when the actuation l 50n .
building ventilation system, or the results from and is part of the pre- Impact of the Proposed Amendments 41!
cuxiliary building ventilation system. planned sequence during testing or Rdaxing the cumut mqhmen@ -1 Invalid actuation / isolation / realignment reactor operation. A pre planned events in th:se systems are of little or reporung of cedain types of ESE 4 sequence implies that the procedural 3., 1 no safety significance. actuations will reduce the industry's step indicates the specific ESF or RpS Invalid actuations of all other ESFs,' actuation that will be generated and reporting burden and the NRC's except those noted above, have been control room ersonnel are aware of the re8ponse burden.Ris reduction would found to be safety significant and would specific signa generation before its be consistent with the objectives and continue to be reportable under to CFR the requirements of the Paperwork occurrence or indication in the control 50.77.(b)(2)(ll) and to CFR 5053(a)(2)(lv). room. Ilowever,if the ESF. including the Reduction Act.%e proposed Rrportable invalid actuations would RpS, actuates during the planned amendments would have no impact on include emergency core cooling system operation or test in a way that is not the NRC's ability to fulfillits mission to isolations/actuatidns, containment part of the planned procedure, such as ensure public health and safety because isolation valve closures that affect at the wrong step, the event is the reportmg requirements that the cooling systems, main steam flow, reportable, '
Commission proposes to delete have essential support systems, etc., ne Commission proposes to make little or no safety significance.
containment spray actuation, and additional relaxations to event reporting it is estimated that the proposed residual heat removal syutem isolations. by excluding three additional categories changes to the existing rules will result flowever, the Commission empbstzes of events as follows: in about 150 (or 5-10 percent) fewer th:t if an invalid ESP actuation ruv6als (1)De first category excludes events Licensee Event Reports each year, e defect in the system so that the system in which an invalid ESF or RPS Similar reductions are expected in the f:lled or would fall to perform its actuation occurs when the system is number of prompt event notifications intended function, the event continues to already properly removed from service reportable under 10 CFR 5052.
be reportable under other requirements -if all requirements of plant procedures Submittal of Comments of 10 CFR 50J2 and 10 CFR 50J3. If a for removing equipment from service condition or deficiency has (1) an have been met.Ris would include The licensees are encouraged to cdverse impact on safety.related required clearance documentation, submit their estimates on impact of the equipment and consequently on the equipment and control board tagging. proposed amendments in their cbihty to shut down the reactor and and properly positioned valves and comments on the proposed rule.
maintain it in a safe shutdown power supply breakers. Commenters are encouraged to condition. (2) has a potential for (2) The second category excludes submit, in addition to the original paper significant radiological release or events in which an invalid ESF or RPS copy, a copy of their comments in an potential exposure to plant personnel or actuation occurs after the safety electronic format on IBM PC DOS-
, t, 2GM4 Federal Register / Vol. S7. No.174 / Friday, June 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules i.
2.2 :<
compatible 3.5- or 5.25-inch, double- DC 20555. Single copies of the draft tt44. n amended (42 USC 2132.213utSt.
analysis may be obtained from: Raji 2135. 2201,2232. 22n 2:36,2230, trs2r sea sided diskettes. Data files should be 201, as amended. 202. 200, sa Stat.1247, a provided in Wordperfect 5.0, or 5.1. TripathL Office for Analysis and amended.1244,2240 (42 UAC so4tA342.
ASCll code is also acceptable, or if Evaluation of Operational Data. U.S.
formatted text is required. data files Nuclear Regulatory Commission, #8dtion s sof also issued under Pub. L es-should be submitted in IBM Revisable Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (310) cot. sec. m c2 Stat. 2951 (u uAC sast).
Format Text Document Content 492-4435. Section salo also Issued under sacs. tot,185.
Architecture (RFT/DCA) format. Da Stat. 936. 955, e s amended (42 UAC 2131, 8"IMo'I b*ditI CeruficaGM 2235); sec.102. pub. L 91-190,63 Stat. 853 (42 finding of No S1jf4 cant Envirpumeng in accordance with the Regulatory Uic 4332). Sections so.13, and as4(dd). .
Impact: Avallability Flexibility Act of 1930 (5 USC. 005 (B)). and 50.103 also issued under sec.108, os Stat.
The NRC has determined that this the Commission certifies that this rule 939, as amended (42 UAC 2138). Sections s0.23, so.3% soA5. and 50.58 sho lasued under propoced regulation is the type of action will not, if promulgated, have a dsccribed la categoricrJ exclusions to sec. tas, c4 Stat. 955 (42 UAC 2225). Sections significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. %e so a a a s CFR 51.22 (c)(3)(li) and (iii). Therefore , g, a neither an environmentalimpac) proposed rule affects only the event USC 4322). Sections 5034 and s054 also st-tement nor an environmental ,
reporting requirements for operational issued under sec. 204. 88 Stat.1245 (42 UAC casessment has been prepared for this nuclear powerplants.ne companies 5844). Sections so.sa,50.91, and so.92 also proposed regulation- that own these plants do not fall within inued under Pub. L 97-41s. 90 Stat. 2073 (42 Pcperwork Reduction Act Statement the scope of the definition of small UAC 2239). Section soJs sho issued under entitice*' set forth in the Regulatory sec.122 sa Stat. 939 (42 UAC 2152). Sections his proposed rule amends Flexibility Act or the Small Business 50.80-50.a1 also issued under sec.184. ca Stat infortnation collection requirements that Size Standards set out in regulations 954, as amended (42 UAC 2234). Appendix F tra subject to the paperwork Reduction als issued under sec 187, ca Stat. 955 (42 lasued by the Small Business Act of 1900 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). nis Administration Act in 13 CFR part 121* For the purposes of sec. 223,68 Stat. 95a, as rula has been submitted to the Office of . amended (42 UAC 2273): II ms, so 40(a)
M2nagement and Dudget for review and Dackfit Analysis and (bk and E54(c) are issued under sec.
cpproval of the paperwork reduction As required by 10 CFR 50.100, the toth.es Stat.04a. as amended (42 UAC roquirements. Commission has completed an 2201(b)); II ms, so.7(a), sto(aHek 50.34(al Because the rule would relax existing assessment of the need for Backfit and (e), so.44(sHc). m4e(s) and (b). so.47(b).
reporting requirements, public reporting Analysis for the proposed rule.%e so.4a(s). (c), (d), and (e), so 49(a), sos 4(ak lik burden for the collection of information proposed amendments include (0(tk (t Hak (P), (qh (t), (yk and (y), as5(f),
.is cxpected to be reduced. It la relaxations of certain existing assa(ak (chek (gk and @k Ack cstimated that about 150 fewer Licensee requirements on reporting of information Wah ma2@k 264@k W5, andca moo (a) at V ePo oa a to the NRC.%ese changes neither ,,
I gY,, [ ). a P impose additional reportin8 Ii so.40(d), (h), and (1), so.s4(wl. (s),(bbk svent notifications, made pursuant to 10 requirements nor require modifications (ce), and (dit MSS (e), so39(bl m01(b).
CFR 50J2. will be required each year, to the facilities or their licenset. sos 2(b), so.70(e). mrt(aHe) and (e). Er2(a),
%3 resulting reduction la burden is Accordingly, the NRC has concluded soJ3(a) and (b). m74, so.7s, and soF sie estimated to average 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> per that the proposed rule does not luued under sec. toto, so Stat.sso, as response, including the time for constitute a backfit and, thus, a backfit amended (42 UAC 2201(o)).
analysis is n t required. 2. In 5 5052, paragraph (b)(2)(li)is
'u s, gath and revised to read at follows: -
mtintalning the data needed, and List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 completing and reviewing the collection Antitrust, Classified information. 650J2 immediate neuticauon of information. Send comments Criminal penalty. Fire prevention, requirements for operating nuclear power reg rding the estimated burden incorporation by reference, reactors.
reductions or any other aspect of this * * * *
- intergovernmental relations, Nuclear collection of information, includin8 power plmts and reactors, Radiation (b) Non-emergency events * * * .
suggestions for further reducin8 protection, Reactor siting criteria, (2) Four. hour reports. * *
- reporting burden, to the Information and Reporting and recordkeeping. (11) Any event or condition that results Records Management Branch (MNDB- For the reasons set out in the in a manual or automatic actuation of 7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory preamble and under the authority of the any engineered safety feature (ESF),
Commisalon, Washington, DC 20555; Atomic Energy Act of1904, as amended, including the reactor protection system cnd to the Desk OfBcer, OfEce of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, (RPS), except when: ,
Information and Regulatory Affairs, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the (A)he actuation results from and is NEOB 3019, (3150-0011 and 3150404). Commission is proposing to adopt the part of a pret annedl sequence during Office of Management and Budget. following amendments to 10 CFR part testing or reactor operation: .
Weshington, DC 20503. 50. (B)he actuation is invalid and:
- "#E#'# #"" 'I PART S0-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF he Commission has prepared a druft PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
- ""h*#* 'h regulatory analysis on this proposed rule FACILITIES '
""" * ' " I '"" "
change.The analysis examines the costs has been already completed; or nnd benefits of the alternatives 1. The authority citation for part 50 (J) Involves only the following specific considered by the Commission.he continues to read as follows- ESFs or their equivalent systems-draft analysis is available for inspection (i) Reactor water clean up system:
Authority Secs.102. to3.104. tos.10L 182.
in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 183,1M 189, e8 Stal 930. 937,938. 948. 953. (//) Control toom emergency ,'
L Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington, 954. 955. 9 %as amended, sec. 234, a3 Stat. Ventilation system; 4 4
y;
.y Federal Register / Vol. 57. Nc,124 /fdday, Junr20,1992 / Proposed ~ Rules ' -2864S (lii) Reactor building ventilation to store spent fuelin the approved casks .The Commission approved dry storage system: under a generallicense, his action is of spent nuclear fuelin publishing a (iv) Fuel building ventilation system; necessary to inform the public and NRC final rule on July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181),
or licensees of the propose additions, which established a new subpart K (v) Auxiliary building ventilation DATE: Comment period expires within to CFR part 72 entitled *Ceneral system. September 9,1992. Comments received License for Storage of Spent Fuel at after this date will be considered if it is . Power Reactor Sites."
3.In l 50.73, paragraph (a)(2) . . practical to do so, but the Commission is Section 133 of the NWPA states,in introductory text is republished and . 'able to assure consideration only for part, that "the Commission shall, by paragraph (a)(2)(lv)is revised to read as comments received on or before this rule, establish procedures for the follows: date.' .~ licensing of any technology approved by l 50.73 Ucensee event reporEsystem.
Aooncssts: Mail written comments to the Commission under section 218(a) for the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory use at the site of any civilian nuclear (n) Reportable events. * *
- Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Power reactor," nis directive was (2)The licensee shall report: * *
- AT'IN: Docketing and Service Branch. carried out on July 18,1900 (55 FR (iv) Any event or condition that liand deliver comments to One White 29181), by the publication in the Federal resulted in a manual or automatic Flint North.11555 Rockville Pike, Register of a fmal rule estr.blishing.a cctuation of any engineered safety Rockville, MD between 7:45 a.m. and new subpart L within to CFR part 72 freture (ESP),induding the reactor 4:15 pan. Federal workdays, entitled "Approva! cf Spent Fuel Storage protection system (RPS), except when: A copy of NITREG-1092, which is Casks." s ..
(A)he actuation resulted from and referenced in the environmental At the time of thia rulemaking, four.
w:s part of pre-planned sequence during assessment, may be purchased from the casks'were listed in i 72.214 of subpart treting or reactor operation: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. K as approved b' the NRC for storage of (D) he actuation was invalid and: Government Printing Office. P.O. Box . spent fuel at pc wer reactor sites under (I) Occurred while the system was 37082. Washington, DC 20013-7082. generallicenr4 by persons authorized to properly removed from service; . Copies ar also available from the possess or rperate nuclear power .
(2) Occurred after the safety function
~
Na tional Technical lnfonnation Service, reactors, o hid been already completed; or 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield VA (3) Involved only the following 22181. A copy is also available for D m.ussta ,
a specific ESPs or their equivalent inspection and/or copying at the NRC %Is 'eroposed rulemaking would add -
systems: .
Local Public Document Room 2120 L two sp mi fuel storage casks to the list of .
_(/) Reacter water clean up system: Street.NW,(Lower Level) Washington, approyd casks in i 71214.Followidg *
(li) Control room emergency
~
DC. - . -
. .. the procedures in 6 72.230 of subpartIc .
ventilation system; Copies of the environmental Transnuclear, Inc., submitted a Topical - .
(li/) Reactor bt.ilding ventilation assessment and finding of no sipificant Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) entitled '
system: environmentalimpact, end any "TN-24 Dry Storage Cask Topical .
(iv) Fuel building ventilation system; comments received on this proposed Report" in July 1988. In July 1989, the -
or rule are avullable for inspection and NRC issued a Safety Evaluation Report -
- ~ (v) Auxiliary building ventilation copying for a fee at the NRC Public (SER) approving the TSAR with, Document Ruom at the above address, instructions to Transnuclear to revise system. '* ~
FOR FURTHER INFORMAT ON CONTACT: the 'ISAR prior to docketing; Pacific D:ted at Rockville.'MD, this 19th day of Mr. Gordon E. Gundersen, Office of Sierra Nuclear Associates (PSNA)
Juns19'n. Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. submitted a " Topical Report on the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Ventilated Storage Cask System for -
James M. Taylor, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) Irradiated Fuel" for their VSC-24 cask in Lecutive Din ctorforOperations. 4924803, or Mr. James F. Schneider, February 1989.The NRClasued its SER Office of Nuclear Material Safety and in April 1991. Also following the
[FR Doc. s:-15cc7 Imed a45-e2: a:45 am) o coe, ,m Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory procedures of I 72.230, PSNA submitted -
Commission Washington, DC 20555, a " Safety Analysis Report for the
-telephone (301) 5044802. Ventilated Storage Cask System"in 10 CFR Part 72 SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATIO6c November 1991,%e NRC issued ita SER in April 1992.
RIN 3150-AE15 Background The TSARS for the Transnuclear TN-Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste 24 and the Pacific Sierra Nuclear -
L!st of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Policy Act of19al(NWPA) includes the Associates VSC-24 casks have been Caska: Additions following directive: ~rhe Secretary [of approved for storage of spent fuel under Air.NCv: Nuclear Regulatory DOE) shall establish a demonstration the conditions specified in their Commission. - program in cooperation with the private Certificates of Compliance.%ese casks, AcnON: Proposed rule' sector, for the dry storage of spent when used according to the conditions nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power specified in their Certificates of
SUMMARY
- %e Nuclear Regulatory reactor sites,with the objective of Compliance, will meet the requirements Commission (NRC)is proposing to establishing one or more technologies of 10 CFR part 72 and, thus, adequate amend its regulations to approve two that the (Nuclear Regulatory) protection of the public health and additional spent fuel storage casks (TN- Commission may, by rule, approve for safety would be ensured.nese casks 24 and VSC-24).These casks would be use at the sites of civilian nuclear power are being proposed for listing under added to the " List of Approved Spent reactors without. to the maximum extent i 72.214. " List of Approved Spent Fuel Fuel Storage Casks."lloiders of' power practicable, the need for additional site- Storage Casks." IIolders of power remctor operating licenses are permitted specific approvals by the Commission." reactor operating licennes are permitted
- .. . - _ . . . _ _ - _- - _ m.. . ~ . - _ _ . . .. ..
i/Jg
. . . ;^
i3 .
/)Do3f E "oIo?
I,P)[
t ;
[7590-01)l
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50
- RIN 3150-AE12 Minor Modifications' to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule. ,
-) -
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes-to amend its' regulations to make minor modifications to the current. nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. -The proposed amendments would apply to:all.. _
nuclear power reactor licensees and would delete reporting requirements.for.
some events that have been determined to be of. little or no safety significance. These-proposed _ amendments would reduce the industry's reporting _
~
_ burden and the NRC's response burden in' event review and assessment.-
5
- DATE: .The comment period expires 4(30 days following. publication in.the Federal Register). -Comments received after this'date will be considered if ft is.
practical to.do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only; _
for comments' received on or before'this date.
-- ADDRESSES: Mail written comments.to: . U.S. Nuclear-' Regulatory Commission,.
Washington, DC 20555,-ATTN: bocketing and Service' Branch.
1-
_.(M .
a.
4 ,
Deliver comments to One White Flir.t North,11555 Rockville Pike, 9
Rockville, MD 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
s Copies of the draft regulatory analysis, the supporting statement submitted to OMB, and comments received may be examined at: The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower Level), Washington DC 20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raji Tripathi (10 CFR 50.73) or Eric Weiss (10 CFR 50.72), Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492-4435 and (301) 492-9005, respectively. -4 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Commission is proposing minor amendments to the current nuclear
,nower reactor event reporting requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors,"
and 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event Reporting System," as part of its ongoing activities to improve its regulations.
In this regard, various NRC reviews of operating experience and the patterns of licensees' reporting of operating events since 1984 have indicated that reports on some of these events are not necessary for the NRC to perform its safety mission. The reporting of certain types of events are no longer contributing useful information to the operating reactor events database and,-
2
,c .
therefore, are no longer necessary. The unnecessary reports are consuming resources in preparation and review that would be better applied elsewhere.
Over the past several years, the NRC has increased its attention to event reporting issues to ensure uniformity, consistency, and completeness-in event reporting. As a result, in September 1991, the NRC's 0ffice for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00) issued for comment a draft NUREG-1022, Revision 1,' " Event Reporting Systems 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 -- Clarification of HRC Systems and Guidelines For Reporting."
Following resolution of public comments, the NUREG will contain improved guidance for event reporting. The NRCs/ continuing examination of reported events during development of this document has determined that certain types-of events primarily involving invalid engineered safety feature (ESF) actuations are of little or no safety significance.
Valid ESF actuations are those actuations that result from " valid signals" or from intentional manual initiation. Valid signals are those signals that are initiated in response to actual plant conditions or partmeters satisfying the requirements for ESF initiation.
Invalid actuations are by definition those that do not meet the criterio for being valid. Thus, invalid actuations include actuations that are not due to valid signals and are not intentional manual actuations. Invalid
' A free single copy may be requested by writing to the Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. A copy is also available for inspection or copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.
3
- *4 actuations -include . instances where instrument ' drift, spurious = signals, human ,
error, or other invalid signals caused actuation of the ESF (e.g.,' jarring a cabinet, an error in use of jumpers or lifted leads, an error in actuatign of
- switches or' controls,- equipment failure or radio- frequency interference). a NRC's evaluation _of both the reported events since January _1984, when the existing rules first became effective, and the comments received ~during the Event Reporting Workshops conducted in Fall of 1990, identified needed-improvements ,in the rules. The NRC determined that invalid actuation, isola-tion, or realignment of a limited set- of ,ESFs or _their1 equivalent systems, subsys+ ems, or components _(i.e., an invalid actuation, _ isolation, or re-alignment of only the reactor water clean-up (RWCU) system, the control room emergency ventilation (CREV) system, the reactor building' ventilation system, the fuel building ventilation system, or the auxiliary building. ventilation system) are of little or no safety significance. However, these events are currently reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR.50.73 (a)(2)(iv).
The final rules for the current event _ reporting regulations,-10.CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73-(48 FR'39039; August: 29, .1983, and 48 FR 33850; -July _
26, 1983, respectively), stated that ESF systems, including the reactor protection- system (RPS), are provided to mitigate the consequences of ai significant event. Therefore, ESFs should (1) work properly .when called upon and (2) should not be challenged frequently.or unnecessarily. -The Statements of Consideration for these final rules also stated that operation of an ESF as part of'a pre-planned operational procedure or test need not be reported. The 4
f ., . .
Commission noted that ESF actuations, including reactor trips, are frequently-associated with significant plant transients and are indicative of events that are of safety significance. At that time, the Commission also required all ESF actuations, including the RPS actuations, whether manual or automatic, valid or invalid -- except as noted, to be reported to the NRC by telephone within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of occurrence followed by a written Licensee Event Report (LER) within 30 days of the incident. This requirement on timeliness of reporting remains unchanged.
The reported information is used by the NRC in confirmation of the licensing bases, identification of precursors to severe core damage, identification of plant specific deficiencies, generic lessons, review of management control systems, and licensee performance assessment.
Discussion
/
. Relaxing reporting requirements for certain ESF actuations, primarily invalid actuations, could save resources for both the industry and the NRC.
The Commission emphasizes that only specific invalid ESF actuations would be exempt from reporting. The relaxations in- event reporting requirements contained in the proposed rule would apply only to a limited set of specifi-cally defined invalid ESF actuations. These events are limited to invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of the RWCU system, the CREV system, the reactor building ventilation system, the fuel building ventilation system, or the auxiliary building ventilation system. Invalid actuation / isolation /
realignment events in these systems are of little or no safety significance.
5
Invalid actuations of all o'ther ESFs, except those noted above, have 9
been found to be safety significant and would continue to be repor' table under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv). Reportable invalid ,
actuations would include emergency core cooling system isolations/actuations, containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems,- main steam flow, essential support systercs, etc., containment spray actuation, and residual heat removal system isolations.
liowever, the Commission emphasizes that if an invalid ESF actuation reveals a defect in the system so that the system failed or would fall to perform its intended function, the evente continues to be reportable under other requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. If a condition'or deficiency has (1) an adverse impact on safety-related equipment and conse-quently on the ability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, (2) has a potential for significant radiological release or potential exposure to plant personnel or the general public, or (3) would compromise control room habitability, the event / discovery continues to be reportable, Invalid ESF actuations that would be excluded by this proposed rule, but occur as a part of a reportable event, would continue to be described as part of the reportable event. The proposed amendments are not. intended to preclude l
submittal of a complete, accurate, and thorough description of an event that is otherwise reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 50.73. The Commission is l
proposing to relax only the-selected event reporting requirements specified in l this proposed rule. Licensees are still required under 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, 6
W., $ s
~
su-4.*
"QualityL Assurance Criteria for Nuclear: Power Plants and-Fuel: Reprocessing: ,
.. ~
~
- Plants," to address _whetherzcorrective actions for events or conditions that-are adverse to quality are. reportable or not.- In addition, minimizing ESF actuations (such as RWCU isolations) to reduce operational' radiation exposures? -
'q
-associated with thel investigation and recovery from the actuations, are consistent with ALARA requirements.
The existing provisions in 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) ar.d 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv), require the reporting of an event or condition that results in a manual or automatic actuation of an ESF, including the RPS, except.when'thez actuation results from and is part of thd pre-planned sequence during' testing .
=or reactor operation. A pre-planned sequence implies. that the procedural step-indicates the specific ESF or RPS actuation that will be generated and control room personnel are aware of the specific signal generation _before 'its occurrence or indication in the control room, tiowever, if the ESF, including- m the RPS, actuates during the planned operation or test in a way3that.is not-part of the planned procedure, such as at -the wrong- step,Ethe event is -
reportable.
The Commission ~ proposes to make additional relaxations to event reporting by excluding three additional categories of events as follows:-
(1) The.first categoryLexcludes events in which an -invalid ESF or RPS actuation occurs when the ; system is already properly _ removed from-service if all requirements of plant procedures for removing.
- equipment-from service have been met.- .This would include required-7 <
g v 'rvv
s *e s
9 clearance documentation, equipment and control board tagging, and properly positioned valves and power supply breakers.
(2) The second category excludes events in which an invalid ESF or RPS-actuation occurs after the safety function has already been completed (e.g., an invalid containment-isolation signal while the containment isolation valves are aircady closed, or an invalid actuation of the RPS when all rods are fully inserted).
(3) The third category excludes events when an invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of ebnly the reactor water clean-up (RWCU) system, or any of the following ventilation systems:
control room emergency ventilation (CREV) system, reactor building ventilation system, fuel building ventilation system, auxiliary building ventilation system, or their equivalent ventilation systems occurs. Invalid actuations that involve other ESFs not specifically excluded, (such as emergency core cooling system isolations or actuations; containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems, main steam flow, essential support systems, etc.; containment spray actuation; and, residual heat removal system isolations), would continue to be reportable.
Licensees would continue to be required to submit LERs if a deficiency or condition associated with any of the invalid ESF actuations of the RWCU or the CREV systems (or other equivalent ventilation systems) satisfies any reportability criteria under 950.72 and 550.73.
8 l
l
Impact of the Proposed Amendments Relaxing the current requirement for reporting of certain types of ESF actuations will reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response; burden. This reduction would be consistent with the objectives and the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The proposed amendments would have no impact on the NRC's ability to fulfil its mission to ensure public health and safety because the reporting requirements that the Commission proposes to delete have little or no safety significance.
It is estimated that the proposed changes to the existing rules will result in about 150 (or 5-10 percent) fewer Licensee Event Reports each year.
Similar reductions are expected in the number of prompt event notifications reportable under 10 CFR 50.72.
Submittal of Comments The licensees are encouraged to submit their estimates on impact of the proposed amendments in their comments on the proposed rule.
Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of their comments in an electronic format on IBM PC DOS-compati-ble 3.5- or 5.25-inch, double-sided diskettes. Data files should be provided in Wordperfect 5.0, or 5.I. ASCII code is also acceptable, or if formatted text is_ required, data files should be submitted in IBM Revisable. Format Text Document Content Architecture (RFT/DCA) format.
9
i, Finding of No Significant Environmental-Impact: Availability i
The NRC has determined that this proposed regulattun is the type of action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(3)(ii) and (iii).
Therefore neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement '
This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act bt 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork reduction requirements.
Because the rule would relax existing reporting requirements, public reporting burden for the collection of information is expected-to be reduced.
It is estimated that about 150 fewer Licensee Event Reports (NRC Form 366) and a similarly reduced number of prompt event notifications, made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, will be required each year. The resulting reduction in burden is estimated to average 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of-information. Send comments regarding the estimated burden reductions or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for further reducing reporting burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; 10 L-
and to the_ Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0011 and 3150-0104), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. ,
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a dratt regulatory analysis on this proposed '
rule change. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L S,treet, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555. Single copics of the draft andlysis may be obtained from: Raji Tripathi,_ Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data,- U.S. Nuclear 4 Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301)-492-4435.
Regulatory Flexibility certification In accoriance 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. The-proposed rule affects only the event reporting requirements for operational i
nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility. Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration Act in 13 CFR Part 121.
11
< -- l
y '. .
Backfit Analysis As required by 10 CFR 50.109, the Commission has completed an assessment of the need for Backfit Analysis for the proposed rule. The proposed amend-ments include relaxations of certain existing requirements on reporting of information to the NRC. These changes neither inipose additional reporting requirements nor require modifications to the facilities or their licenses.
Accordingly, the NRC has concluded that the proposed rule does not constitute a backfit and, thus, a backfit analysis is not required.
-l List of Subjects _in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear _ power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting a.d recordkeeping.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1964, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the Commission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50 DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
12
AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161. 182,_183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938,-948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244,-
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,. 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, ,
2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended,_1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.-
936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, and 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issudd undr, c. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2225). 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 F also issued under sec.187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);-
s 50.5, 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. '
-948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); S550.5, 50.7(a), 50.13(a)-(c), 50.34(a) and (e), 50.44(a)-(c), 50.46(a) and (b), 50.47(b), 50.48(a), (c), (d), and' (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a), (i), (i)(1), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v), and '(y),
50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-(e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c), 5).60(a),-50.62(b),
50.64(b), 50.65, and 50.80(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 1511, 68 Stat.
13
.{ ' ' . ,
949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and GS50.49(d), (h), and (j), 50.54(w),
(z), (bb), (cc), and (dd), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.61(b), 50.62(b), 50.70(a),
50.71(a)-(c) and (c), S0.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90, are issued under sec. 1610, 69 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 2. In 950.72, paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
550.72 Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors.
-)
(b) Non-Emergency Events.
(2) Four-hour reports. * *
(ii) Any event or condition that results in a manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF), including the reactor protection system (RPS), except when:
(A) The actuation results from and is part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; (B) The actuation is invalid and:
l l
I ill Occurs while the system is properly removed from service; 14 i
f
111 Occurs after the safety function has been already completed; or
.s
_131 Involves only the following specific'ESFs or their equivalent systems:
(i) Reactor water clean-up system; (ii) Control room emergency ventilation system; (iii) Reactor building ventilation system; (iv) Fuel building ventilation system;- or (v) Auxiliary building ventilation system.
- J
- 3. In 550.73, paragraph (a)(2)(iv) is revised:
4 550.73 Licensco Event Report System.
(a) Reportable events.
(2) The licensee shall report: * * *
(iv) Any event or condition that resulted in a manual or automatic -
actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF),-including the reactor protection-system (RPS), except when:
15
e,' , ' 4 ,
(A) The actuation resulted from and was part of a pre-planned sequence-during. testing or reactor operation; (B) The actuation was invalid and:
111 Occurred while the system was properly removed from service; 121 Occurred after the safety function had been already completed; or D1 Involved only the following specific ESFs or their equivalent systems: _
(i) Reactor water c16an-up system; (ii) Control room emergency ventilation system; (iii) Reactor building ventilation system; (iv) Fuel building ventilation system; or (v) Auxiliary building ventilation system.
t Dated at Rockville, MD, this // day of ,'1992.
For the Nuclear egulatory Commission.
/
a s M. Taylor W
Jpxe tive Direc or or Operations 16
i (A) The actuation resulted from and was part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; j (B) The actuation was invalid and:
ill Occurred while the system was properly removed from service; )
R1 Occurred after the safety function had been already completed'; or DJ Involved only the following specific ESfs or their equivalent systems: ,
(1) Reactor water cl6an-up eystem; (ii) Control room emergency ventilation system; (iii) Reactor building ventilation system; (iv) fuel building ventilation system; or (v) Auxiliary building ventilation system.
. . a *
- Dated at Rockville, MD, this // day of s , 1992.
for the Nuclear egulatory Commission.
/
a M.
aylor
.S e tive Direc or or Operations 16
.- . ._- - _ - = - . - .-. .. . . . _ . _-_ .
- ) .. .
l (7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CfR Part 50 ,
RIN 3150 AE12 l I
Hlnor Hodifications to Nuclear Power Reactor Event Reporting Requirements t
AGENCY: Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission. -
i ACTION: proposed rule. ,
.)
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations to make minor modifications to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements. The proposed amendments would apply to all nuclear power reactor licensees and would delete reporting requirements for some events that have been determined to be of little or no safety significance. These proposed amendments would reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden in event review and assessment.
DATE: The comment period expires (30 days following pubitcation in the Federal Register). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is abic to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTH: Docketing and Service Branch.
1 hu b
- y .
- . .
Deliver connents to One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
Copics of the draft regulatory analysis, the supporting stateuent submitted to OMB, and comments received may be examined att The NRC Public DocumentRoom,2120LStreet,NW.,(LowerLevel),WashingtonDC20555.
FOR FURTilER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raji Tripathi (10 CFR CO.73) or Eric Weiss (10 CFR 50.72), Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S.
Huelcar Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492 4435 and (301) 492-9005, respectively. /
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dackground
- The Commission is proposing minor amendments to the current nuclear power reactor event reporting requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.72, "Innediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors,"
and 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event Reporting System," as part nf its ongoing activities to improve its regulations.
In this regard, various NRC reviews of operating experience and the patterns of licensees' reporting of operating events since 1984 have indicated that reports on some of these events are not necessary for the NRC to perform its safety mission. The reporting of certain types of events are no longer contributing useful information to the operating reactor events database and, 2
F . ' /, .
i l
therefore, are no longer necessary. The unnecessary reports are consuming ;
resources in preparation and review that would be better applied elsewhere.
i Over the past several years, the NRC has increased its attention no event reporting issues to ensure uniformity, consistency, and completeness in event reporting. As a result, in September 1991, the NRC's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00) issued for comment a draft NUREG 1022. Revision 1,' " Event Reporting Systems 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 - Clarification of NRC Systems and Guidelines for Reporting."
Following resolution of pubite comments, the NUREG will contain improved guidance for event reporting. The NRCs/ continuing examination of reported events during development of this document has determined that certain types of events primarily involving invalid engineered safety feature (ESF) actuations are of little or no safety significance.
Valid ESF actuations are those actuations that result from " valid signals" or from intentional manual initiation. Valid signals are those signals that are initiated in response to actual plant conditions or parameters satisfying the requirements for ESF initiation.
Invalid actuations are by definition those that do not meet the criteria for being valid. Thus, invalid actuations include actuations that are not due to valid signals and are not intentional manual actuations. Invalid
' A free singic copy may be requested by writing to the Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. A copy is also available for inspection or copying for a fee at the NRC Public Docume'.t Room, 2120 l. Street, NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.
3-
4 N , ,
actuations include instances where instrument drift, spurious signals, human error, or other invalid signals caused actuation of the ESF (e.g., jarring a cabinet, an error in use of Jumpers or lifted leads, an error in actuation of switches or controls, equipment failure or radio frequency interference).
lIRC's evaluation of both the reported events since January 1984, when the existing rules first became effective, and the comments received during the Event Reporting Workshops conducted in Fall of 1990, identified needed improvements in the rules. The 11RC determined that invalid actuation, isola- i tion, or realignment of a limited set of ,ESFs or their equivalent systems, subsystems, or components (i.e., an invalid actuation, isolation, or re-alignment of only the reactor water clean up (RWCU) system, the control room emergency ventilation (CREV) system, the reactor building ventilation system, the fuel building ventilation system, or the auxiliary building ventilation system) are of 11ttic or no safety significance. Ilowever, those events are currently reportabic under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv).
The final rules for the current event reporting regulations,10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 (48 TR 39039; August 29,1983, and 48 FR 33850; July 26, 1983, _ respectively), stated that ESF systems, including the reactor protection system (RPS), are provided to mitigate the consequences of a significant event. Therefore, ESfs should (1) work properly when called upon and (2) should not be challenged frequently or unnecessarily. The Statements
- of Consideration for these final rules also stated that operation of an ESF as part of a pre-planned operational procedure or test need not be reported. The 4
} : . .
l l
Conrnission noted that ESF actuations, including reactor trips, are frequently associated with significant plant transients and are indicative of events that are of safety significance. At that time, the Commission also required all ESF actuations, including the RPS actuations, whether manual or automatic, ]
valid or invalid -- except as noted, to be reported to the itRC by telephone l
within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of occurrence followed by a written Licensee Event Report (LER) l within 30 days of the incident. This requirement on timoliness of reporting t
remains unchanged.
The reported inforr.iation is used by the 11RC in confirmation of the licensing bases, identification of precursors to severe co,e damage, identification of plant specific deficiencies, generic lessons, review of management control systems, and licensee performance assessment.
Discussion Relaxing reporting requirements for certain ESF actuations, primarily invalid actuations, could save resources for both the industry and the 11RC.
The Commission emphasizes that only specific invalid ESF actuations would be exempt from reporting. The relaxations in event reporting requirements contained in the proposed ruin would apply only to a limited set of specifi-cally defined invalid ESF actuations. These events are 11 ted to invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of the RWCU system, i e CREV system, the-reactor building ventilation system, the fuel building ve.,tilation system, or the auxiliary building ventilation system.- Invalidactuation/ isolation /
realignment events in these systems are of littic or no safety significance.
l 5
l i
9 Invalid actuations of all o'ther ESFs, except those noted above, have been found to be safety significant and would continue to be reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv). Reportable invalid .
actuations would include emergency core cooling system isolations/actuattuns, containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems, main steam flow, essential support systems, etc., containment spray actuation, and residual heat removal system isolations.
Ilowever, on Commission emphasizes that if an invalid ESF actuation reveals a defect in the system so that the system failed or would fail to pqrform its intended function, the event / continues to be reportable under other requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CfR 50.73. If a condition or deficiency has (1) an adverse impact on safety-related equipment and conse-quently on the ability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, (2) has a potential for significant radiological release or potential exposure to plant personnel or the general public, or (3) would compromise control room habitability, the event / discovery continues to be reportabic, invalid ESF actuations that would be excluded by this proposed rule, but occur as a part of a reportable event, would continue to be described as part of the reportable event. The proposed amendments are not intended to preclude submittal of a complete, accurate, and thorough description of an event that is otherwise reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 50.73. The Commission is proposing to relax only the selected event reporting requirements specified in this proposed rule. Licensees are still required _under 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,.
6
$,_- - . - _ ._ - _m. . ._
~',
' Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and fuel Reprocessing Plants," to address whether corrective actions for events or conditions that are adverse to quality are reportable or not. In addition, minimizing CSF ,
actuations (such as RWCU isolations) to reduce operational radiation exposures associated with the investigation and recovery from the actuations, are consistent with ALARA requirements.
The existing provisions in 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(iv), require the reporting of an event or condition that results in a manual or automatic actuation of an ESF, including the RPS, except when the actuation results from and is part of the pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation. A pre-planned sequence implies that the procedural step indicates the specific ESF or RPS actuation that will be generated and control room personnel are aware of the specific signal generation before its occurrence or indication in the control room, flowever, if the ESF, including. ,
the RPS, actuates during the planned operation or test in a way that is not part of the planned procedure, such as at the wrong step, the event is reportabic. ,
The Commission proposes to make additional relaxations to event reporting by excluding three additional categories of events as follows:
(1) The first category excludes events in which an invalid ESF or RPS actuation occurs when the system is aircady properly removed from service it all requirements of plant pror.edures for removing equipment from service have been met. This would include required 7
Y
,w., s - . - , ** - -+=.--y. ,-, -- -
clearance documentation, equipment and control board tagging, and 1
properly positioned valves and power supply breakers.
(2) The second category excludes events in which an invalid ESF or RPS actuation occurs after the safety function has already been completed (e.g., an invalid containment isolation signal while the containment isolation valves are aircady closed, or an invalid actuation of the RPS when all rods are fully inserted).
(3) The third category excludes events when an invalid actuation, isolation, or realignment of/only the reactor water cican up (RWCU) system, or any of the following ventilation systems:
control room emergency ventilation (CREV) system, reactor 'diding ventilation system, fuel building ventilation system, auxiliary building ventilation system, or their equivalent ventilation systems occurs. Invalid actuations that involve other ESFs not specifically excluded, (such as emergency core cooling system isolations or actuations; containment isolation valve closures that affect cooling systems, main steam flow, essential support systems, etc.; containment spray actuation; and, residual heat removal system isolations), would continue to be reportable.
L z Licensees would continue to be required to submit LERs if a deficiency or condition associated with any of the invalid ESF actuations of the RWCU or the CREV systems (or other equivalent ventilation systems) satisfies any reportability criteria under 650.72 and 550.73.
8 i
, t. +
Impact of the Proposed Amendments Relaxing the current requirement for reporting of certain types of ESF ,
actuations will reduce the industry's reporting burden and the NRC's response burden. This reduction would be consistent with the objectives and the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The proposed amendments would have no impact on the NRC's a'ility to fulfil its mission to ensure public ,
health and safety because the reporting requirements that the Commission proposes to delete have little or no safety significance.
It is estimated that the proposed dhanges to the existing rules will result in about 150 (or 5-10 percent) fewer Licensco Cvent Reports each year.
Similar reductions are expected in the number of prompt event notifications reportable under 10 CFR 50.72.
Submittal of Comments The licensees are encouraged to submit their estimates on impact of the proposed amendments in their comments on the proposed rule.
Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of their comments in an electronic format on IBM PC DOS compati-ble 3.5- or 5.25 inch, double-sided diskettes. Data files should be provided in Wordperfect 5.0, or 5.1. ASCll code is also acceptable, or if formatted text is required, data files should be submitted in IBM Revisable format Text Document Content Architecture (pFT/DCA) format.
9
~
y . .
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impacts Availability The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of, action described in categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(3)(ii) and (111).
Therefore neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.
paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements-that are subject to the paperwork Reduction Act bf' 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork reduction requirements.
Because the rule would relax existing reporting requirements, public reporting burden for the collection of information is expected to be reduced.
Itisestimatedthatabout150fewerLicenseeEventReports(NRCform366)and a similarly reduced number of prompt event notifications, made pu"suant to 10 CFR 50.72, will be required each year. The resulting reductica in burden is estimatea to average 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> per response, including the tir.e for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and.
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the estimated burden reductions or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for further reducing reporting burden, tc the Information and Records Manageme;.t-Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; 10
r ,
and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs NE08-3019, (3150-0011 and 3150-0104), Office of Hanagement and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. ,
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed rule change. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L S_treet, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555. Singic copies of the draft a'ndlysis may be obtained from: Raji Tripathi, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 492-4435.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification in accordance with the Regulatory flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605 (B)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule affects only the event reporting requirements for operational nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fill within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in t:ie Regulator" Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration Act in 13 CFR Part 121.
11
(
Backfit Analysis As required by 10 CFR 50.109, the Commission has completed an assessment ,
of the need for Backfit Analysis for the proposed rule. The proposed amend-ments include relaxations of certain existing requirements on reporting of information to the NRC. These changes ne ther impose additional reporting i requirements nor require modifications to the facilities or their licenses.
Accordingly, the NRC has concluded that the proposed rule does not constitute a backfit and, thus, a backfit analysis is not required.
J List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1964, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the Commission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50 DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
12
AUT110RITY: -Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. .
i 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, j 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,l1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.-10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.
936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec.-102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, and 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections ,
- 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issudd 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 F also issued under sec.187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
9950.5, 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat.
948, at. amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); 6550.5, 50.7(a), 50.10(a)-(c), 50.34(a) and (c), 50.44(a)-(c), 50.46(a) and (b), 50.47(b), 50.48(a), (c),.(d), and (c),-50.49(a), 50.54(a), (i), (i)(1), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v), and (y),.
50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-(e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a), 50.62(b),
50.64(b), 50 55, and 50.80(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 1511, 68 Stat. ,
13
t~ i 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and 0050.49(d), (h), and (j), 50.54(w),
(z), (bb), (cc), and (dd), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.61(b), 50.62(b), 50.70(a),
50.71(a)-(c) and (c), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 1610, 69 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
f
- 2. In 950.72, paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
950.72 Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors.
-)
Non-Emergency Events. * * *
(b)
(2) Four-hour reports. * * *
(ii) Any event or condition that results in a manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF), including the reactor protection system (RPS), except when:
(A) The actuation results from and is part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; ,
(B) The actuation is invalid-and:
111 Occurs while the system is properly removed from service; 14
lC .
t t
121 Occurs after the safety function has been already completed; l or 131 Involves only the following specific ESFs or their equivalent systems:
(1) Reactor water cican-up system; (ii) Control room emergency ventilation system; ,
(iii) Reactor building ventilation system; (iv) Fuel building ventilation system; or (v) Auxiliary buildinD ventilation system.
.> i
- 3. In 650.73, paragraph (a)(2)(iv) is revised:
550.73 Licensee Event Report System.
Reportable events. * * *
(a)
(2) The licensee.shall report: * * *
(iv) Any event or condition that resulted in a manual or automatic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF), including the reactor protection system (RPS), except when:
15
F .
p; '. q . ,
(A) The actuation resulted from and was part of a pre-planned sequence during testing or reactor operation; 4 l
(B) The actuation was invalid and:
Ill Occurred while the system was properly removed from service; fil- Occurred after the safety function had been already l completed; or fil involved only the following specific ESfs or their equivalent systems: ,
(i) Reactor water ciban-up system; (ii) Control room emergency ventilation system; (iii) Reactor building ventilation system; (iv) fuel building ventilation system; or ,
(v) Auxiliary building ventilation system. -
Dated at Rockville, MD, this // -day of s , 1992, for the Nuclear egulatory Commission.
/
I[
Jajn6s M. aylor de tive Direc or or Operations-16