Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules Based on these reasons and examples, the NRC disagrees with the petitioners 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 50.72
nonemergency notification requirements are contrary to the NRCs principles of good regulation, specifically efficiency and openness.
As set forth in NUREG1614, Volume 7, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2018
2022, the NRCs 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 50.72
requirements is that information is provided to the public. However, the petitioner states that the public availability of LERs under 50.73
within 60 days is sufficient for transparency purposes given that these are nonemergency events. The NRCs response to this view is included in its evaluation of Assertion 5.
NRC Evaluation: The NRC disagrees that the reporting requirements of 50.72 are contrary to the other principles of good regulations. The NRC
agrees in part with the petitioners claim
VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:35 Aug 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

that the reporting requirements of 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 petitioners 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 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 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 50.72.
Assertion 8: The purpose and objectives of 50.72 will continue to be
PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

44295

fully met if the requested amendments are made.
The petitioner claims that the purpose and objectives of 50.72 will continue to be fully met if the NRC grants the petitioners request to remove the nonemergency reporting requirements contained in 50.72b. 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 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 50.72 due to being unnecessarily burdensome and still preserve the purposes and objectives of 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 petitioners concerns.
NRC Evaluation: The NRC agrees, in part, that the rulemaking process can evaluate and potentially resolve the petitioners 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 petitioners proposed changes that would eliminate all nonemergency reporting requirements in 50.72.
Rulemaking will enable the NRC to evaluate the reporting criteria in 50.72b 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.

E:FRFM12AUP1.SGM

12AUP1