[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2665]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 7, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 

Event Reporting Guidelines; Availability of Draft Report

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The NRC is announcing the availability for public comment of a 
draft report, NUREG-1022, Revision 1, ``Event Reporting Guidelines, 
Second Draft Report for Comment.''

DATES: The comment period expires April 5, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publication 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555.
    A free single copy of a second draft NUREG-1022, Revision 1, may be 
requested by those considering public comment by writing to the 
Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. A copy also is available for 
inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 
L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcel Harper, Phone: (301) 492-4497, 
FAX: (301) 492-8931, or Dennis Allison, Phone: (301) 492-4148, FAX: 
(301) 492-7142, mailing address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC has prepared a draft report, NUREG-
1022, Revision 1, ``Event Reporting Guidelines, Second Draft Report for 
Comment.'' The document provides proposed clarification of the 
immediate notification requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and the 30-day 
written licensee event report (LER) requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 for 
nuclear power plants. This document will replace NUREG-1022 and its 
Supplements 1 and 2.
    The purposes of this document are to ensure events are reported as 
required by improving the reporting guidelines related to 10 CFR 50.72 
and 50.73 and to consolidate these guidelines into a single reference 
document.
    The NRC staff is seeking public comment before finalizing the 
revised NUREG because of the broad interest in event reporting at 
nuclear power plants. The staff requests that comments be limited to 
the same scope as the document, which involves clarifying but not 
changing the reporting requirements in Secs. 50.72 and 50.73.

Previous Draft and Comment

    The availability of the first draft report for public comment was 
announced on October 7, 1991 (56 FR 50598). The comment period, which 
was extended on November 25, 1991 (56 FR 59303), expired on January 31, 
1992.
    The issues raised by public comments were discussed at a meeting on 
May 7, 1992, and consensus was reached for a number of the issues. The 
NRC staff's summary of the May 7, 1992, meeting is provided in a 
memorandum for T. Novak from P. Baranowsky, dated June 3, 1992, 
Subject: Summary of Meeting with NUMARC, BWROG LER/JCO Committee, and 
Others on Comments on Draft NUREG-1022, Revision 1.
    On April 8, 1993, the NRC staff issued an agenda for a second 
meeting (58 FR 18167) which provided proposed resolutions for remaining 
issues. These matters were then discussed at the second meeting on May 
6, 1993, where consensus was reached for a number of additional issues. 
The NRC staff's summary of the May 6, 1993 meeting, which includes a 
verbatim transcript, is provided in a memorandum for G. Holahan from P. 
Baranowsky, dated May 20, 1993, subject: Summary of Public Meeting on 
the Issues Raised by Public Comment on Draft NUREG-1022, Revision 1.

Noteworthy Issues

    Reviewers should note that, in the second draft, shaded text 
indicates reporting guidance that is considered to be new or different, 
in a meaningful way, from previously published generic reporting 
guidance. It does not indicate changes made relative to the first 
draft.
    Reviewers may wish to take note of the following principal 
differences from the positions proposed in the previous Federal 
Register notice of April 8, 1993 (58 FR 18167):
    (1) Actual threats. Following discussions at the meeting of May 6, 
1993, the text has been revised so that minor events are not portrayed 
as constituting actual threats to plant safety. (Section 3.2.5 
beginning on page 40 and Section 3.2.8 beginning on page 50.)
    (2) Timeliness. As discussed at the meeting of May 6, 1993, text 
has been revised to specifically state that the timeliness guidance in 
Generic Letter 91-18, which applies primarily to operability 
determinations, is also appropriate for reportability determinations. 
(Section 2.11 on page 17)
    (3) Outside design basis. As discussed at the meeting of May 6, 
1993, the text has been revised to make it clear that the staff's 
position regarding long-term incapability of a single train does not 
include cases of technical inoperability or minor time infractions. In 
addition, as a partial response to industry comments, the wording of 
this position has been revised to eliminate statements about ``assuming 
an additional single failure'' within the system. Instead, the wording 
now indicates that the plant is outside of its design basis because the 
system does not have the ``suitable redundancy'' required by the 
General Design Criteria as a minimum design criterion for the system. 
However, the position has not been retracted. (Section 3.2.4 on page 
37.)
    Reviewers may also wish to note the following points:
    (1) Section 2.1. Engineering judgment should be supported by a 
logical thought process. (page 11)
    (2) Section 2.7. Discussion has been included to address multiple 
relief valve failures. (pages 13 and 14)
    (3) Section 3.2.7. Eight hours is considered a ``short time'' with 
regard to loss of assessment equipment which is rarely used. In 
addition, individual licensee procedures are, in essence, cited as the 
authority with regard to loss of response equipment such as sirens. 
(page 47)
    (4) Section 3.2.8. Significant hampering includes hypothetical 
demands, i.e., site personnel were or ``would be'' significantly 
hampered. In addition, precautionary evacuations are not reportable 
unless there is significant hampering. (page 51)
    (5) Section 3.3.2. The logic indicates that automatic or 
inadvertent actuations of single ESF components are generally not 
reportable because single components of complex systems usually do not 
mitigate the consequences of an event. However, deliberate operator 
actuations of one or more components of an ESF in response to plant 
conditions in order to mitigate the consequences of an event, such as 
starting an ECCS pump in response to rapidly dropping pressurizer 
level, are reportable. (page 57) Also, the text requests that licensees 
report, on a voluntary basis if need be, actuations of specific listed 
systems. This is the same position as proposed previously by the staff. 
(page 59) In this regard, the staff also intends to communicate clearly 
that guidance regarding voluntary reporting is not enforceable.
    (6) Section 3.3.3. The text now provides considerable discussion 
and a number of examples taken directly from previous guidance. 
(Section 3.3.3 begins on page 65)
    (7) Section 4. The text reflects recent changes in the telephone 
systems used for emergency telecommunications.

Organization of Comments

    Commenters are encouraged to be specific. Comments may be submitted 
as proposed modified text for the NUREG that encompasses their 
comments, or as discussions of example conditions or events that 
illustrate a particular point regarding reportability. To assist in 
producing efficient and complete comment resolution, commenters are 
requested to reference the numbered section(s) in the draft NUREG (for 
example, Section 3.3.4) and page number(s) related to their comments, 
where possible.

Submittal of Comments in an Electronic Format

    Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original 
paper copy, a copy of their comments in an electronic format on IBM 
compatible, DOS formatted 3.5 or 5.25 inch diskettes. The text format 
and software version should be identified on the label of the diskette.

    Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 1st day February, 1994.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Edward L. Jordan,
Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data.
[FR Doc. 94-2665 Filed 2-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P