44290 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

from June 9 to June 8 of the following 

year. 

* * * * * 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17235 Filed 8–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

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: 

Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. 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 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov 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: Daniel.Doyle@nrc.gov. 

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 § 50.72. The 

petitioner did not request removal of 

§ 50.72 in its entirety, only the 

nonemergency notification requirements 

in § 50.72(b). The petitioner believes 

that ‘‘duplicative notifications under 

§ 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 § 50.72 

requirements that do not have a 

corresponding § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 

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’’ (§ 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A)), 

‘‘significantly’’ (§ 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(B)), or 

‘‘could’’ (§ 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 

§ 50.72. 

The fourth NRC question directly 

asked if stakeholders agree with the 

petitioner’s 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 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 § 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 

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 

§ 50.72(b). The staff performed an initial 

evaluation of each reporting 

requirement in § 50.72(b) and 

preliminarily determined that some 

nonemergency reporting requirements 

could be updated. The NRC agrees that 

the reporting requirements in § 50.72(b) 

should be assessed and will evaluate 

each reporting requirement in its 

rulemaking process. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44292 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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 2: The § 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 § 50.72, and that the 

nonemergency notifications under 

§ 50.72 serve no unique safety function. 

NRC Evaluation: The NRC disagrees 

with the assertion that § 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 § 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 § 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. 

Assertion 3: The § 50.72 

nonemergency notifications distract key 

plant staff when they are addressing 

events. 

The petitioner claims that elimination 

of the § 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 § 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 § 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 onehour report for deviation from a 

technical specification in accordance 

with § 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 

§ 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 § 50.72 

nonemergency notifications that are not 

currently reported in a 60-day LER 

under § 50.73 are unrelated to reactor 

safety. 

The petitioner asserts that the three 

§ 50.72 nonemergency notifications that 

do not have a corresponding 

requirement for a 60-day LER under 

§ 50.73 are unrelated to reactor safety. 

These three requirements are 

§ 50.72(b)(2)(xi), involving a news 

release or notification to another 

government agency; § 50.72(b)(3)(xii), 

involving the transport of a 

radioactively contaminated person to an 

offsite medical facility; and 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 50.72 event notifications that 

have no corresponding requirement for 

a LER pursuant to § 50.73. The NRC 

believes that these reports are important 

for other reasons not identified by the 

petitioner. Although the § 50.72(b)(2)(xi) 

and (3)(xii) events do not directly 

impact reactor safety, the 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 50.73 is correct, with the exception of 

the three reporting requirements in 

§ 50.72, as discussed in Assertion 4, that 

do not have a corresponding reporting 

requirement in § 50.73: § 50.72(b)(2)(xi), 

(b)(3)(xii), and (b)(3)(xiii). For these 

reports, the NRC disagrees that the 

reporting requirements of § 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 

§ 50.73 contain more detail regarding 

required content than the event 

notification requirements in § 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 § 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 § 50.73 may increase the burden on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44294 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 50.73 LERs would 

represent a significant reduction in 

timeliness for public notification 

compared to the current § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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 NRC’s 

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 petitioner’s claim 

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 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 § 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 

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 

petitioner’s request to remove the 

nonemergency reporting requirements 

contained in § 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 § 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 

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 § 50.72. 

Rulemaking will enable the NRC to 

evaluate the reporting criteria in 

§ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44296 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Document 

ADAMS accession No./web 

link/Federal Register 

citation 

PRM–50–116—Nuclear Energy Institute Petition to Amend 10 CFR 50.72, ‘‘Immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ August 2, 2018.ML18247A204. 

PRM–50–116: Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment, November 20, 2018 ......... 83 FR 58509. 

Management Directive 8.3, ‘‘NRC Incident Investigation Program,’’ June 25, 2014 ............................................... ML18073A200. 

NUREG–1614, Volume 7, ‘‘Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2018–2022,’’ February 2018 .......................................... ML18032A561. 

NUREG–1022, Rev 3, Supplement 1, ‘‘Event Report Guidelines 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(xiii),’’ September 2014 ...... ML14267A447. 

NEI 13–01, Rev 0, ‘‘Reportable Action Levels for Loss of Emergency Preparedness Capabilities,’’ July 2014 .... ML14197A206. 

‘‘Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2—NRC Special Inspection Report 05000317/2015009 and 

05000318/2015009,’’ May 27, 2015.

ML15147A354. 

Event Notification Report for January 28, 2015: EN 50769 ..................................................................................... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

doc-collections/event-status/ 

event/2015/20150128

en.html#en50769. 

Event Notification Report for January 28, 2015: EN 50771 ..................................................................................... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

doc-collections/event-status/ 

event/2015/20150128

en.html#en50771. 

Event Notification Report for April 10, 2015: EN 50961 .......................................................................................... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

doc-collections/event-status/ 

event/2015/20150410

en.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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

[NRC–2021–0124] 

RIN 3150–AK66 

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks: TN Americas LLC; NUHOMS®

EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, 

Certificate of Compliance No. 1042, 

Amendment No. 2 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend its spent fuel storage regulations 

by revising the TN Americas LLC, 

NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage 

System listing within the ‘‘List of 

approved spent fuel storage casks’’ to 

include Amendment No. 2 to Certificate 

of Compliance No. 1042. Amendment 

No. 2 would revise the certificate of 

compliance to add a dry shielded 

canister for storage, add new heat load 

zone configurations, and make other 

changes to the storage system. 

Amendment No. 2 also would change 

the certificate of compliance, technical 

specifications, and updated final safety 

analysis report for consistency and 

clarity. 

DATES: Submit comments by September 

13, 2021. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID NRC–2021– 

0124, at https://www.regulations.gov. If 

your material cannot be submitted using 

https://www.regulations.gov, call or 

email the individuals listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document for alternate instructions. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christian J. Jacobs, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards; 

telephone: 301–415–6825; email: 

Christian.Jacobs@nrc.gov or Andrew G. 

Carrera, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301– 

415–1078; email: Andrew.Carrera@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting 

Comments 

II. Rulemaking Procedure 

III. Background 

IV. Plain Writing 

V. Availability of Documents 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2021– 

0124 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyVerDate Sep<11>2014 22:35 Aug 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1