Elimination of Immediate Notification Requirements for Nonemergency Events
| Published date | 12 August 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 44290 |
| Record Number | 2021-17244 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44290-44296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17244]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
[Docket No. PRM-50-116; NRC-2018-0201]
Elimination of Immediate Notification Requirements for
Nonemergency Events
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking
process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider in
its rulemaking process issues raised in a petition for rulemaking
(PRM), dated August 2, 2018, submitted by Mr. Bill Pitesa on behalf of
the Nuclear Energy Institute. The petition was docketed by the NRC on
November 20, 2018, and assigned Docket No. PRM-50-116. The petitioner
requested that the NRC amend its regulations to eliminate immediate
notification requirements for nonemergency events for operating nuclear
power reactors. The NRC will evaluate the current requirements and
guidance for immediate notification of nonemergency events for
operating nuclear power reactors, assess whether the requirements
present an unnecessary reporting burden, and if they do, determine
whether reporting can be reduced or eliminated that does not have a
commensurate safety benefit.
DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-50-116, is
closed on August 12, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0201 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may
obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0201 or the
future rulemaking Docket ID NRC-2020-0036. Address questions about NRC
dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301-415-3407; email:
[email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-Based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737,
or by email to [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
Attention: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request
to the PDR via email at [email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (ET), Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Doyle, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3748, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. The Petition
II. Public Comments on the Petition
III. Reasons for Consideration
IV. Availability of Documents
V. Conclusion
I. The Petition
Section 2.802 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), ``Petition for rulemaking--requirements for filing,'' provides an
opportunity for any person to petition the Commission to issue, amend,
or rescind any regulation. The NRC received and docketed a PRM dated
August 2, 2018, filed by Mr. Bill Pitesa on behalf of the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI). The NRC assigned this PRM the docket number of
PRM-50-116. On November 20, 2018 (83 FR 58509), the NRC published a
notice of docketing and request for comment on PRM-50-116 in the
Federal Register. The petitioner requests that the NRC revise its
regulations in 10 CFR 50.72, ``Immediate notification requirements for
operating nuclear power reactors,'' to remove the current requirement
for licensees to immediately report nonemergency events that occur at
operating nuclear power reactors. The petitioner states that licensees
currently have procedures for responding to nonemergency events and
ensuring that NRC resident inspectors are notified of nonemergency
events independent of the requirements in Sec. 50.72. The petitioner
did not request removal of Sec. 50.72 in its entirety, only the
nonemergency notification requirements in Sec. 50.72(b). The
petitioner believes that ``duplicative notifications under Sec. 50.72
serve no safety function and are not needed to prevent or minimize
possible injury to the public or to allow the NRC to take necessary
action.''
The petitioner suggests that in lieu of the currently required
notifications, the NRC should establish guidance for the resident
inspectors that provides consistent and standard expectations for using
the existing communication protocols that the petitioner claims have
proven to be effective for communicating from the site to the resident
inspectors and, from there, to NRC management.
II. Public Comments on the Petition
On November 20, 2018, the NRC requested comments from the public on
the petition and posed five specific questions to gain a better
understanding of the scope and basis for the issues raised by the
petitioner. The comment period ended on February 4, 2019, and the NRC
received 16 public comments. Eleven comments (from NEI and nuclear
power reactor licensees) supported the petition, one comment (from two
private citizens) partially supported the petition, two comments (from
a private citizen and a nongovernmental organization) opposed the
petition, and two comments (from private citizens) were out of scope.
The following is a summary of the comments organized by the specific
questions in the notice of docketing.
In the first question, the NRC requested feedback on how
stakeholders review and use the information contained in nonemergency
event notifications, and how they would be affected if all nonemergency
event notifications were eliminated. Two private citizens stated that
they do not regularly review notifications on the NRC's website, but
the information may be beneficial to maintain for public review. The
same commenters supported the removal of redundancies in communication
and suggested that the NRC maintain only those Sec. 50.72 requirements
that do not have a corresponding Sec. 50.73, ``Licensee event report
system'' report so the public is kept informed.
Several industry commenters also responded to this question. While
their comments varied regarding the level of
[[Page 44291]]
regular review of nonemergency event notifications, the consensus was
that their organizations would not be adversely impacted by the
elimination of the nonemergency reporting requirements of Sec. 50.72.
Several industry commenters stated that their primary sources of
operating experience are Sec. 50.73 licensee event reports (LERs), NRC
inspection reports, NRC generic communications, and the Institute for
Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) operating experience database. Several
commenters also stated that Sec. 50.72 event notifications are of
little value because they do not contain sufficient information on
which to base follow-up or corrective actions.
The second NRC question requested feedback on whether the public
release of Sec. 50.73 LERs alone meets the needs of the public and
noted the three Sec. 50.72 reporting requirements that do not have a
corresponding Sec. 50.73 LER. Two private citizens and a
nongovernmental organization agreed that the NRC should retain those
nonemergency event notifications that do not have a corresponding Sec.
50.73 LER. For the remaining reporting requirements, the public
comments were divided. Two private citizens suggested that redundant
reporting requirements should be eliminated, and a third private
citizen preferred maintaining the status quo for nonemergency event
notifications. A nongovernmental organization stated that notification
of plant shutdown, deviation from technical specifications, degraded
conditions (i.e., safety barriers), unanalyzed conditions, and system
actuation should continue because the seriousness of some conditions
may not be readily apparent.
Several industry members also provided comments in response to this
question. In general, the industry commenters agreed that the
information in the Sec. 50.73 LERs provides more detail and context
than Sec. 50.72 event notifications. The commenters also concluded
that generally, additional information beyond the Sec. 50.73 LER
(e.g., from the INPO operating experience database) is necessary to
meet the information needs of the industry in order to determine
applicability and take corrective actions.
The third NRC question requested that stakeholders identify, from
their perspectives, the most burdensome provisions in Sec. 50.72. The
NRC received several responses from members of the industry on this
topic. Several commenters repeated concerns raised by the petition. In
addition, the commenters provided additional insight to the potential
burdens of the nonemergency reporting requirements of Sec. 50.72.
Specifically, one commenter expressed a concern that the training
required to make infrequent event notifications detracts from training
in other areas. Another commenter stated that subjective terms in the
regulation, such as ``seriously'' (Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A)),
``significantly'' (Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(B)), or ``could'' (Sec.
50.72(b)(3)(v)) foster strenuous debates within the licensee
organization or between the licensee and the NRC. One commenter
estimated that approximately 30 to 40 evaluations per licensee are
performed per year and determined not to be reportable under Sec.
50.72.
The fourth NRC question directly asked if stakeholders agree with
the petitioner's assertion that Sec. 50.72 nonemergency notifications
are contrary to the best interests of the public and are contrary to
the stated purpose of the regulation. The comments received from
members of the public generally disagreed with the petitioner's
assertion. Comments received from industry agreed with the petitioner's
assertion.
The fifth NRC question requested feedback from stakeholders on
potential alternatives to the petitioner's proposed changes that would
address the concerns raised in the petition while still providing
timely event information to the NRC and the public. Most of the
comments received were from members of the industry and did not provide
alternative approaches to the petitioner's proposed changes to Sec.
50.72. One commenter stated that the NRC should eliminate the reporting
requirements of Sec. Sec. 50.72 and 50.73 on the basis that licensees
already have access to various industry platforms in order to obtain
pertinent operational experience information.
The NRC received other comments related to the petition, including
specific comments on the basis and background of current requirements,
the significance of a loss of safety function, and suggested
alternatives to the timeliness requirements for submission of Sec.
50.73 LERs.
The NRC reviewed the other public comments received and recommends
consideration of these comments in the rulemaking process. The NRC uses
the basis and background of the current requirements to inform the
regulatory basis of any proposed rule. The staff will discuss the
significance of the loss of a safety function in greater detail in its
regulatory basis.
Regarding the suggested alternatives to the timeliness requirements
for submission of a Sec. 50.73 LER, the staff notes that this would
result in a significant change to the reporting requirements of Sec.
50.73. This change may also result in the NRC receiving less
information regarding root causes of the events reported due to the
more stringent time demand. The NRC intends to gather additional
stakeholder feedback on this topic in the rulemaking process.
III. Reasons for Consideration
Although the petitioner requested elimination of the requirements
for licensees to immediately report nonemergency events that occur at
operating nuclear power plants, the underlying issue is whether the
current nonemergency reporting requirements create an unnecessary
reporting burden. The NRC will consider this issue in its rulemaking
process. The NRC will evaluate the current requirements and guidance
for immediate notification of nonemergency events for operating nuclear
reactors, assess whether the requirements present an unnecessary
reporting burden, and if they do, determine whether reporting can be
reduced or eliminated that does not have a commensurate safety benefit.
The NRC must preserve the ability to maintain situational awareness of
significant events at nuclear power plants, and the visibility and
openness of the event notifications to public stakeholders.
Evaluation of Petitioner Assertions
Assertion 1: Sec. 50.72 is overdue for an update.
The petitioner states that the NRC has occasionally revised the
notification and reporting requirements in Sec. Sec. 50.72 and 50.73
based on accumulated operating experience to remove certain
requirements that provided little or no safety benefit. The petitioner
asserts that these regulations have not been updated in this manner
since January 2001, and that the petition is based on the accumulation
of additional operating experience.
NRC Evaluation: The NRC agrees with this assertion. The NRC
acknowledges that it last updated notification and reporting
requirements in Sec. 50.72 in 2001 and that sufficient operating
experience exists to consider an update to the reporting requirements
in Sec. 50.72(b). The staff performed an initial evaluation of each
reporting requirement in Sec. 50.72(b) and preliminarily determined
that some nonemergency reporting requirements could be updated. The NRC
agrees that the reporting requirements in Sec. 50.72(b) should be
assessed and will evaluate each reporting requirement in its rulemaking
process.
[[Page 44292]]
Assertion 2: The Sec. 50.72 nonemergency notifications are
redundant with resident inspectors' communications to the NRC.
In support of this assertion, the petitioner states that resident
inspectors are familiar with the design and operations of nuclear power
plants and are trained how to react to events that occur at the site,
including when to escalate issues to NRC management. The petitioner
also claims that NRC licensees have procedures or practices in place
that ensure notification of the resident inspector independent of the
requirements of Sec. 50.72, and that the nonemergency notifications
under Sec. 50.72 serve no unique safety function.
NRC Evaluation: The NRC disagrees with the assertion that Sec.
50.72 nonemergency notifications to the Headquarters Operations Center
(HOC) \1\ are redundant with resident inspectors' communications to the
NRC. The petitioner claims that licensees have procedures in place to
ensure that resident inspectors are informed of these types of events
and that the reports made under Sec. 50.72 are duplicated by licensee
verbal reports to the onsite NRC resident inspectors. The NRC notes
that the notifications to the resident inspectors as described by the
petitioner are voluntary initiatives performed by the licensees; the
NRC does not require licensees to contact the resident inspector. If
the NRC relies on voluntary practices alone to maintain awareness of
the nonemergency events listed in Sec. 50.72(b), then there is an
increased risk of loss of situational awareness and the ability to make
timely decisions with adequate information. The resident inspectors may
receive voluntary reports from licensees but may not always be
immediately available and are not expected to perform the communication
duties assumed by the HOC. Headquarters Operations Officers (HOOs) are
always on call and have special knowledge and communication tools to
enable accurate and efficient collection and dissemination of
information for all types of facilities. In addition, every call to the
HOO is recorded to ensure accuracy of information. Adding this burden
to the resident inspectors could impact their ability to provide
adequate oversight of the nonemergency events and decrease the speed
and quality of information sharing within the NRC about nonemergency
events. Further, reliance on the Resident Inspectors picking up the
reporting requirement undermines the basis for the rule change as it
would recognize that the need for the reporting is still necessary, it
would simply shift the responsibility from the licensee to the NRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NRC HOC is the primary center of communication and
coordination among the NRC, its licensees, State and Tribal
agencies, and other Federal agencies regarding operating events
involving nuclear reactors or materials. Located in Rockville, MD,
the NRC HOC is staffed 24 hours a day by employees trained to
receive and evaluate event reports and coordinate incident response
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertion 3: The Sec. 50.72 nonemergency notifications distract
key plant staff when they are addressing events.
The petitioner claims that elimination of the Sec. 50.72(b)
nonemergency notifications requirement would provide a safety benefit
by allowing licensees to redirect technical and engineering resources
away from procedural reporting compliance activities and toward
assessment and corrective action activities immediately following
nonemergency events.
NRC Evaluation: The NRC disagrees, in part, with this assertion. A
wide variety of events are reportable in accordance with Sec. 50.72.
Likewise, the amount of effort expended to determine if the event in
question is reportable varies widely. For example, a licensee should
know immediately if it is issuing a press release or notifying another
government agency, which is reportable under Sec. 50.72(b)(2)(xi). The
burden for reporting this event should be only the additional cost of
calling the NRC HOO and reporting the event without a significant
amount of internal deliberation by the licensee. The one-hour report
for deviation from a technical specification in accordance with Sec.
50.54(x) serves as an example reporting requirement that should be
apparent to the licensee and require minimal resources to report. On
the other hand, commenters on the petition noted that other events,
such as unanalyzed conditions, are less apparent and require more
resources to determine if they are reportable. The time estimates
provided by the commenters varied significantly. The NRC also received
public comments that question whether licensees have sufficient
resources to respond to events if they do not have sufficient resources
to determine if an event is reportable. This assertion also raises a
concern that licensees do not have a sufficient understanding of the
intent of Sec. 50.72(b).
To address these concerns, the NRC would need to perform additional
analysis on each reporting requirement to determine which reporting
requirements are creating these issues. The NRC will gather additional
input from external stakeholders to determine the best way to resolve
these concerns.
In summary, it is likely that certain reporting requirements have
significantly more impact on licensees than others. As part of the
rulemaking process, the NRC will hold public meetings with licensees to
better understand which requirements cause these issues and how best to
address them.
Assertion 4: The Sec. 50.72 nonemergency notifications that are
not currently reported in a 60-day LER under Sec. 50.73 are unrelated
to reactor safety.
The petitioner asserts that the three Sec. 50.72 nonemergency
notifications that do not have a corresponding requirement for a 60-day
LER under Sec. 50.73 are unrelated to reactor safety. These three
requirements are Sec. 50.72(b)(2)(xi), involving a news release or
notification to another government agency; Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(xii),
involving the transport of a radioactively contaminated person to an
offsite medical facility; and Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(xiii), involving a
major loss of emergency assessment capability, offsite response
capability, or offsite communications capability.
The petitioner states that the first two requirements are
essentially ``courtesy calls,'' and resident inspectors can handle
them. The petitioner claims that Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(xiii) is a good
example of a burdensome regulation that distracts licensee managers
from the problems at hand. The petitioner claims that resident
inspectors will be aware of these types of emergency preparedness
problems. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that issues reported under
Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(xiii) will be captured in the licensee's corrective
action program, reviewed by the resident inspector, and, as
appropriate, captured in a subsequent quarterly inspection report that
is made available to the public.
NRC Evaluation: The NRC disagrees, in part, with this assertion.
The petitioner correctly points out the three kinds of Sec. 50.72
event notifications that have no corresponding requirement for a LER
pursuant to Sec. 50.73. The NRC believes that these reports are
important for other reasons not identified by the petitioner. Although
the Sec. 50.72(b)(2)(xi) and (3)(xii) events do not directly impact
reactor safety, the Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(xiii) notification allows the NRC
to confirm that reasonable assurance of public health and safety and
the common defense and security is maintained by quickly evaluating and
ensuring that the licensee maintains its ability to effectively
implement the emergency response plan or that the
[[Page 44293]]
licensee has taken or is taking the appropriate compensatory measures
to ensure the emergency plan can still be effectively implemented. The
NRC may need to take immediate action in response to these events. For
example, a major loss of assessment capability, without adequate
compensatory measures put in place, could degrade or prevent a
licensee's ability to successfully implement its emergency response
plan and negatively affect the NRC's reasonable assurance
determination. The NRC needs to be able to quickly assess the impact of
the loss of assessment capability as well as the adequacy of the
compensatory measure(s) put in place to address the loss, to allow for
timely engagement with the licensee, if required.
The number of event reports under Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(xiii) dropped
significantly after NRC endorsement of NEI 13-01, ``Reportable Action
Levels for Loss of Emergency Preparedness Capabilities,'' dated July
2014 in Supplement 1 to NUREG-1022, Revision 3, dated September 2014.
Prior to the endorsement of NEI 13-01, the NRC received on the order of
hundreds of reports per year under this requirement. After the
endorsement of NEI 13-01, the NRC now receives approximately 50-60
reports per year. As explained in the statement of considerations for
the 2000 final rule amending Sec. 50.72, ``Reporting Requirements for
Nuclear Power Reactors and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations
at Power Reactor Sites; Final Rule'' (65 FR 63769, 63774; October 25,
2000), the 8-hour reports, such as Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(xii) through
(xiii), are for ``events where there may be a need for the NRC to take
an action within about a day, such as initiating a special inspection
or investigation.'' If the NRC accepts the petitioner's suggested
changes and relies solely on licensees' voluntary calls to the resident
inspectors, then the NRC may not be able to take appropriate action in
a timely manner. The current requirements in Sec. 50.72 establish
timeliness requirements for notifying the NRC. If the NRC removed these
requirements, then licensees would instead provide voluntary reports to
resident inspectors based on each licensee's procedures, which may or
may not impose timeliness expectations for notification of the resident
inspector. For example, event response for nonemergency events could be
delayed several days if an event, such as an actuation of the reactor
protection system, occurs on a Friday night, and the resident inspector
is not informed until Monday morning. Such a delay may impact the
agency's ability to determine the appropriate response to an event in a
timely manner. If, due to the delay in reporting, the NRC is delayed in
this assessment and in potentially taking responsive action, public
health and safety could be affected.
In addition, it may not be readily apparent to the public how the
NRC communicates and utilizes information received under these
reporting requirements. The HOO communicates this information to all
the interested internal NRC stakeholders when these reports are made.
The reports in Sec. 50.72(b)(2)(xi) and (b)(3)(xii) are of particular
interest to the agency in that they ensure that the NRC is aware of
communications made to other agencies and is kept informed of
situations that are of high public interest (i.e., news releases and
transport of contaminated personnel). An important factor for event
notifications under Sec. 50.72(b)(3)(xii) is the potential for
radioactive materials on the contaminated individual to be removed from
the site and distributed outside of the radioactivity-controlled area.
The petitioner claims that reports made under Sec. 50.72(b)(2)(xi)
and (b)(3)(xii) are essentially ``courtesy calls'' made to the NRC. The
NRC notes that by the petitioner's own admission, licensees expend
minimal effort to notify the NRC if a news release or notification to
another government agency is made. In these cases, the reportability of
these events should be readily apparent to the licensee and, therefore,
cause little administrative burden beyond that of a call to the NRC
HOO.
Regarding the claim that resident inspectors can handle these
``courtesy calls,'' in addition to the previous discussion regarding
delayed communication, communicating these events only to the resident
inspector could alter the direct and efficient communication structure
via the HOO and replace it with an indirect structure that is less
efficient at disseminating information within the NRC. Moreover,
licensee calls to the NRC HOC are recorded to ensure accuracy of
information but, under the petitioner's proposal, licensee
conversations with resident inspectors would not be recorded. Since the
NRC HOC infrastructure for dissemination of this information currently
exists, the resident inspectors could report the information to the NRC
HOC. But this shifts the responsibility of contacting the HOC from the
licensee to the resident inspectors. In addition, the NRC HOC
procedures would need to be updated to address any issues associated
with this change, and the NRC would need to develop guidance for the
resident inspectors to communicate nonemergency events to the NRC HOC.
These changes would incur additional costs for training and equipment
and may result in inconsistencies in the quality and timeliness of
information about these events being shared within the NRC. This could
potentially delay the NRC in the performance of its regulatory
functions. The concerns with additional burden on resident inspectors
if they are expected to communicate issues within the NRC are provided
in the NRC's evaluation of Assertion 2.
The NRC needs to preserve the ability to respond effectively to
events, maintain situational awareness, provide proper regulatory
oversight, and maintain credibility with the public. The NRC intends to
gather additional stakeholder feedback on this topic in the rulemaking
process.
Assertion 5: The public will continue to be notified of the event
in accordance with Sec. 50.73.
The petitioner states that the fuller descriptions in LERs
``provided within 60 days, as required by 10 CFR 50.73, are available
to the public. Given that these are nonemergency events, this is
sufficient for transparency purposes.''
NRC Evaluation: The NRC agrees, in part, with this assertion. The
petitioner's claim that the public will be notified of the event in
accordance with Sec. 50.73 is correct, with the exception of the three
reporting requirements in Sec. 50.72, as discussed in Assertion 4,
that do not have a corresponding reporting requirement in Sec. 50.73:
Sec. 50.72(b)(2)(xi), (b)(3)(xii), and (b)(3)(xiii). For these
reports, the NRC disagrees that the reporting requirements of Sec.
50.73 are sufficient for the purposes of public transparency.
The NRC agrees with the petitioner's statement that LERs contain
``fuller,'' or more complete, descriptions of the reported event. The
requirements of Sec. 50.73 contain more detail regarding required
content than the event notification requirements in Sec. 50.72. The
LERs generally contain a much more descriptive narrative of the event
and the failure mechanisms involved.
In addition, the NRC received several public comments regarding
timeliness of LERs. Two private citizens expressed support for the
petition with the caveat that Sec. 50.73 LERs should be moved to a 30-
day reporting requirement to meet the needs of informing the public.
However, such a significant change to the timing of the reporting
requirements in Sec. 50.73 may increase the burden on
[[Page 44294]]
licensees and result in the NRC receiving less information regarding
root causes of the events reported due to the more stringent time
demand. Furthermore, even a 30-day reporting requirement for Sec.
50.73 LERs would represent a significant reduction in timeliness for
public notification compared to the current Sec. 50.72 notification
requirements. As part of the rulemaking, the NRC will consider how it
would continue to provide timely notification of events to the public
if it also alters timing requirements for notifications by licensees.
The NRC intends to gather additional stakeholder feedback on this topic
in the rulemaking process.
Assertion 6: The NRC has never taken any kind of action in response
to prompt notifications.
The petitioner claims that the requirement to notify the NRC within
4 or 8 hours implies that the NRC would need to take action before the
end of the 8-hour shift (for a 4-hour report) or soon after the shift
turnover (for an 8-hour report). The petitioner claims that in the
almost 40 years that this regulation has been in place, the NRC has
never taken any kind of action in this tight timeframe to protect the
public for one of these nonemergency events. The petitioner claims that
there is no need for this type of prompt action, and that the NRC
rarely dispatches inspection teams. The petitioner claims that
notification from the resident inspector is more than sufficient for
this kind of ``prompt action.''
NRC Evaluation: The NRC disagrees with this assertion. The
petitioner claims that the requirement to notify the NRC within 4 or 8
hours implies that the NRC would need to take action before the end of
the 8-hour shift (for a 4-hour report) or soon after the shift turnover
(for an 8-hour report). When the NRC receives these reports, the NRC
HOO adds the items to a database for communication in a regular morning
email. If there are items of interest (e.g., complicated reactor
scrams, emergency core cooling system injection) that indicate a need
for prompt communication, the NRC HOO notifies interested NRC
stakeholders via immediate phone calls as soon as the information from
the event is put into the database. The NRC HOO may also issue to NRC
management a ``HOO Highlight'' email. These events are typically
communicated to staff and management within an hour of receipt of the
notification.
There are several other actions that the NRC could take in response
to these notifications. In the statement of considerations for the 2000
final rule, the Commission analyzed the intent of the timeliness
requirements in Sec. 50.72(b), and noted that the final provisions
required 4-hour reporting, if the event was not reported in 1 hour, for
an event or situation, related to the health and safety of the public
or onsite personnel, or protection of the environment, for which a news
release is planned or notification to other government agencies has
been or will be made. The Commission stated that such an event may
include an onsite fatality or inadvertent release of radioactively
contaminated materials, and that this is the same as previously
required. The Commission concluded that these reports are needed
promptly because they involve events where there may be a need for the
NRC to respond to heightened public concern.
The 2000 final rule also required 4-hour reporting, if the event
was not reported in 1 hour, for unplanned transients. The Commission
explained that these are events where there may be a need for the NRC
to take a reasonably prompt action, such as partially activating its
response plan to monitor the course of the event. For the remaining
events reportable under Sec. 50.72, the final rule required 8-hour
reporting, if not reported in 1 hour or 4 hours; these are events where
there may be a need for the NRC to take an action within about a day,
such as initiating a special inspection or investigation.
Since the implementation of the 2000 final rule, the NRC has taken
various prompt actions in response to event notifications under Sec.
50.72(b). For example, the nonemergency event notifications serve as a
potential trigger for Management Directive (MD) 8.3, ``NRC Incident
Investigation Program,'' evaluations, which may or may not result in a
reactive inspection in response to the event.
The NRC performed a total of 140 reactive inspections from 2006 to
2018, an average of approximately 11 reactive inspections per year. In
the period from 2006 to 2012, the NRC performed an average of
approximately 14 reactive inspections per year. In the period from 2013
to 2018, the NRC performed an average of approximately 7 reactive
inspections per year. In 2018, the NRC performed 4 reactive
inspections. Even though the total number of reactive inspections has
declined over the past 12 years, the NRC still performs several
reactive inspections per year. In addition to these reactive
inspections, there are more events for which the agency performs an MD
8.3 evaluation. For those evaluations where baseline inspection is
recommended (no reactive inspection), the regions occasionally dispatch
additional inspectors to the site to respond to nonemergency events.
There are also cases, such as the dual unit trip at the Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant in 2015 (Event Notification 50961), where the NRC
performed an MD 8.3 evaluation and decided to perform a reactive
inspection within approximately 24 hours (``Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant Units 1 and 2--NRC Special Inspection Report 05000317/
2015009 and 05000318/2015009,'' dated May 27, 2015).
The NRC also routinely receives inquiries from reporters and
members of the public regarding events at nuclear power stations. The
nonemergency event notifications provide timely notification of events
for those situations where the agency may need to respond to heightened
public concern. For example, the Calvert Cliffs dual unit trip resulted
in local news media coverage. Wholesale removal of these reporting
requirements could render the agency unable to respond effectively to
public requests for information.
Finally, depending on the nature of the nonemergency event, the
agency may need to activate its response plan. At the Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, winter storm Juno in January 2015 caused a loss-of-
offsite power that caused a reactor trip (see Event Notification
50769). Then, about 10 hours later, a second event notification, 50771,
was made due to complications with the plant response and failed
mitigating systems. At that point, the NRC's Incident Response Center
entered into Monitoring mode for this complicated event even though
emergency plan activation criteria were not met.
The petitioner claims that the NRC dispatches inspection teams for
only 1% of nonemergency events. However, the petitioner's statement
does not recognize the actions taken by the NRC prior to dispatching
these inspection teams. As discussed earlier in this section, the NRC
sends inspection teams to nuclear power plants several times a year.
The notifications made under Sec. 50.72 serve as a potential trigger
for the resident inspectors and regional staff to perform an MD 8.3
evaluation. The MD 8.3 evaluation assesses an event against several
criteria to determine if the NRC should, in response to an event, (1)
handle the issue in the baseline inspection program, (2) dispatch a
special inspection team to investigate the event, or (3) dispatch an
augmented inspection team to investigate the event in greater detail.
The NRC may initiate an MD 8.3 evaluation as soon as a report is
received, depending on the event.
[[Page 44295]]
Based on these reasons and examples, the NRC disagrees with the
petitioner's assertion that the NRC has never taken any kind of action
in response to these types of prompt event notifications or that these
types of ``prompt actions'' are not needed.
Assertion 7: The Sec. 50.72 nonemergency notification requirements
are contrary to the NRC's principles of good regulation, specifically
efficiency and openness.
As set forth in NUREG-1614, Volume 7, ``Strategic Plan: Fiscal
Years 2018-2022,'' the NRC's principle of efficiency states, in part,
``Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk
reduction they achieve. Where several effective alternatives are
available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be
adopted.'' The petitioner argues that the burden of these requirements
is not consistent with the degree of risk reduction achieved for the
reasons discussed in the petition. Several commenters provided
additional details about burdens associated with these requirements,
including developing and maintaining procedures and training, screening
events for possible reporting, over-reporting, retracting notifications
determined to be unnecessary, and recordkeeping. The petitioner and
several commenters state that the limited benefit to the NRC and the
public from these notifications is not commensurate with the time and
resources expended. The petitioner states that there are currently two
pathways for communicating similar information, and the more efficient
pathway that optimizes resources and also communicates more information
should be the one that is adopted. The petitioner believes that the
more efficient pathway is from the licensee to a resident inspector and
then from the resident inspector to NRC regional management.
Regarding the principle of openness, the petitioner states that a
perceived benefit of the current Sec. 50.72 requirements is that
information is provided to the public. However, the petitioner states
that the public availability of LERs under Sec. 50.73 within 60 days
is sufficient for transparency purposes given that these are
nonemergency events. The NRC's response to this view is included in its
evaluation of Assertion 5.
NRC Evaluation: The NRC disagrees that the reporting requirements
of Sec. 50.72 are contrary to the other principles of good
regulations. The NRC agrees in part with the petitioner's claim that
the reporting requirements of Sec. 50.72 should be evaluated for
efficiency. However, as discussed previously, the reporting
requirements vary greatly by number of reports per year and the amount
of time licensees may spend deciding whether a specific reporting
requirement has been met. Therefore, the NRC will consider this issue
in its rulemaking process, where the NRC may solicit public input to
help determine the best course of action to address the petitioner's
concerns.
The NRC agrees in part that LERs meet the informational needs of
the public, except in those cases where an event causes immediate
heightened public concern. These cases may include press releases,
emergency response to the site, failures or inadvertent actuation of
emergency sirens, notification of other government agencies, or the
transport of contaminated individuals from the site, and openness and
efficiency is of utmost importance.
Regarding the principle of independence, the nonemergency reporting
requirements in Sec. 50.72 support the concept of seeking all
available facts and opinions from licensees. Specifically, the
nonemergency reporting requirements support this principle in that
licensees notify the NRC of events of interest. The intent of the rule
is to support the capability of the NRC to make timely decisions and to
provide adequate assurances regarding actual or potential threats to
public health and safety. This depends heavily on the rapidity with
which significant events are communicated by nuclear power reactor
licensees to NRC. The NRC has an obligation to collect facts quickly
and accurately about significant events, assess the facts, take
necessary action, and inform the public about the extent of the threat,
if any, to public health and safety. Notification of these nonemergency
events in a timely manner allows the agency to perform an independent
assessment of the event and take appropriate action, if necessary.
Regarding reliability, the NRC acknowledges that Sec. 50.72 has
not been updated since 2001. During the rulemaking process, the NRC
will evaluate the additional operating and regulatory experience gained
since 2001 and determine if any changes are necessary to the
nonemergency reporting requirements of Sec. 50.72.
Assertion 8: The purpose and objectives of Sec. 50.72 will
continue to be fully met if the requested amendments are made.
The petitioner claims that the purpose and objectives of Sec.
50.72 will continue to be fully met if the NRC grants the petitioner's
request to remove the nonemergency reporting requirements contained in
Sec. 50.72(b). The petitioner bases the request on the existence of
voluntary procedures to inform resident inspectors.
NRC Evaluation: For the reasons listed in the responses to the
assertions in this section of this document, the NRC disagrees in
general that the intent of Sec. 50.72 would be fully met if the
requested amendments were implemented as stated; however, the NRC
intends to assess this claim in the rulemaking process to determine
whether the NRC can eliminate any requirements within Sec. 50.72 (due
to being unnecessarily burdensome) and still preserve the purposes and
objectives of Sec. 50.72. The NRC needs to maintain the ability to
respond effectively to events, maintain situational awareness, provide
proper regulatory oversight, and preserve credibility with the public.
Assertion 9: Rulemaking is the preferred solution to deal with the
petitioner's concerns.
NRC Evaluation: The NRC agrees, in part, that the rulemaking
process can evaluate and potentially resolve the petitioner's
underlying concerns associated with unnecessary burden caused by
requirements associated with nonemergency event notifications. The NRC
will address this issue in the rulemaking process. The NRC disagrees
with the petitioner's proposed changes that would eliminate all
nonemergency reporting requirements in Sec. 50.72. Rulemaking will
enable the NRC to evaluate the reporting criteria in Sec. 50.72(b) on
a case-by-case basis to determine if the reporting requirements should
be modified (e.g., changing the timeliness or method of reporting
requirements or eliminating or adding requirements). The NRC will hold
public meetings with stakeholders throughout the rulemaking process to
better understand which requirements have the greatest impact on
industry and the public. It may be possible to address some of these
concerns by clarifying regulatory guidance.
IV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
[[Page 44296]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession No./web
Document link/Federal Register
citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRM-50-116--Nuclear Energy Institute Petition ML18247A204.
to Amend 10 CFR 50.72, ``Immediate
Notification Requirements for Operating
Nuclear Power Reactors,'' August 2, 2018.
PRM-50-116: Petition for rulemaking; notice 83 FR 58509.
of docketing and request for comment,
November 20, 2018.
Management Directive 8.3, ``NRC Incident ML18073A200.
Investigation Program,'' June 25, 2014.
NUREG-1614, Volume 7, ``Strategic Plan: ML18032A561.
Fiscal Years 2018-2022,'' February 2018.
NUREG-1022, Rev 3, Supplement 1, ``Event ML14267A447.
Report Guidelines 10 CFR
50.72(b)(3)(xiii),'' September 2014.
NEI 13-01, Rev 0, ``Reportable Action Levels ML14197A206.
for Loss of Emergency Preparedness
Capabilities,'' July 2014.
``Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 ML15147A354.
and 2--NRC Special Inspection Report
05000317/2015009 and 05000318/2015009,'' May
27, 2015.
Event Notification Report for January 28, https://www.nrc.gov/
2015: EN 50769. reading-rm/doc-
collections/event-status/
event/2015/
20150128en.html#en50769.
Event Notification Report for January 28, https://www.nrc.gov/
2015: EN 50771. reading-rm/doc-
collections/event-status/
event/2015/
20150128en.html#en50771.
Event Notification Report for April 10, 2015: https://www.nrc.gov/
EN 50961. reading-rm/doc-
collections/event-status/
event/2015/
20150410en.html#en50961.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusion
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC will consider the
petition in the rulemaking process. The NRC will evaluate the current
requirements and guidance for immediate notification of nonemergency
events for operating nuclear power reactors, assess whether the
requirements present an unnecessary reporting burden, and if they do,
determine whether reporting can be reduced or eliminated that does not
have a commensurate safety benefit.
The NRC tracks the status of all rules and PRMs on its website at
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/rules-petitions.html. The public may monitor the docket for the rulemaking on
the Federal rulemaking website, https://www.regulations.gov, by
searching on Docket ID NRC-2020-0036. Publication of this document in
the Federal Register closes Docket ID NRC-2018-0201 for PRM-50-116.
Dated: August, 9, 2021.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-17244 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
