Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 50.72. Several industry commenters stated that their primary sources of operating experience are 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 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 50.73 LERs alone meets the needs of the public and noted the three 50.72
reporting requirements that do not have a corresponding 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 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 50.73 LERs provides more detail and context than 50.72 event notifications. The commenters also concluded that generally, additional information beyond the 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:35 Aug 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

nonemergency reporting requirements of 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 50.72b3iiA, significantly 50.72b3iiB, or could 50.72b3v 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 50.72.
The fourth NRC question directly asked if stakeholders agree with the petitioners assertion that 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 petitioners assertion.
Comments received from industry agreed with the petitioners assertion.
The fifth NRC question requested feedback from stakeholders on potential alternatives to the petitioners 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 petitioners proposed changes to 50.72.
One commenter stated that the NRC
should eliminate the reporting requirements of 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 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 50.73 LER, the staff notes that this would result in a significant change to the reporting
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

44291

requirements of 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: 50.72 is overdue for an update.
The petitioner states that the NRC has occasionally revised the notification and reporting requirements in 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 50.72 in 2001 and that sufficient operating experience exists to consider an update to the reporting requirements in 50.72b. The staff performed an initial evaluation of each reporting requirement in 50.72b and preliminarily determined that some nonemergency reporting requirements could be updated. The NRC agrees that the reporting requirements in 50.72b should be assessed and will evaluate each reporting requirement in its rulemaking process.

E:FRFM12AUP1.SGM

12AUP1