JPN-98-021, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Codes & Stds

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Codes & Stds

ML20248G038
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	05/26/1998
From:	James Knubel CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FRN-63FR20136, RULE-PR-50 63FR20136-00016, 63FR20136-16, IPN-98-062, IPN-98-62, JPN-98-021, JPN-98-21, NUDOCS 9806050071
Download: ML20248G038 (4)

Text

123 Ma:n Street White Plains. New York 10601

. 914 681.6840 914 287.3309 FAX) 'gp 00CKETED JVED ussc l998 tuy y M 9 08 y 3 _3 t g p a g 's,,e,1 ,,,

1. > NewYorkPbwor w weam 4# Authority RULES & Ca. yp;pgH US NRn" OFFICE ?r- a RULL ADJUO' 7 DOCKET N(20ER PROPOSED BlH.E S SO (4,3FRaol36) M*Y26 1998 JPN-98-021 IPN-98-062 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGES TO PARAGRAPH (h) OF 10 CFR 50.55a " CODES AND STANDARDS"

REFERENCES:

See below.

Dear Sir:

The Authority has reviewed the proposed rule (Reference 1) published April 23,1998 amending 10 CFR 50.55a(h). The rule is similar to a final direct rule published in October 1997 (Reference 2) by the NRC in that it proposes to incorporate a reference to IEEE Std. 603-1991 (Reference 3) to replace IEEE Std. 279 (Reference 4). The Authority expressed several concerns (Reference 5) regarding the final direct rule. While the latest proposed rule includes many changes to address the industry's comments on the earlier version of this rule, several concerns remain. These concerns are detailed below, Safety Bases Not Enumerated The NRC staff has not provided information that demonstrates that the new standard would result in an increased level of protection to the public health and safety, for either 1 now or currently licensed plants.

0 The FR notice and draft Regulatory Analysis focus on three reasons why the 1991 standard should be incorporated into the regulations. The three reasons cited are: (1) standard IEEE 279-1971 is no longer in effect and has been withdrawn by the IEEE: (2) IEEE 603-1991 standard reflects " current technology;" and, (3) the adoption of IEEE 603-1991is consistent -

with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.

9806050071 980526 PDR PR 50 63FR20136 PDR g

l .

i*

i Neither the FR notice, nor the Regulatory Analysis, provides a technical or safety basis for the proposed rule.

The fact that an outdated standard is referred to in federal regulations does not alter the fact that it remains ar, integral part of the licensing basis for many of currently operating US nuclear power plants. IEEE 279-1971 is, and will continue to be, part of the licensing basis for many operating plants.

The development of new standards does not diminish the value, or validity, of older industry standards. They were the basis upon which Operating Licenses were issued and continue to be the basis upon which adequate protection of the public health and safety is assured. The mere existence of a new industry standard does not, by itself, provide sufficient basis for its enforcemer^ as a regulatory requirement.

l Industry codes and standards should be adopted by the NRC wherever practical and judicious. Clearly, that was the purpose and intent of the Technology and Transfer Act, and the ?..:thority endorses the use of 7w standards when appropriate. However, the intent of the act was not to suggest that new standards be made mandatory without compelling justification.

l In summary, the reasons enumerated in the FR notice or regulatory analysis do not outline

! why the new standard is technically superior to it's 1971 equivalent. The FR notice or regulatory analysis do not demonstrate why this change to 10 CFR 50.55a(h) will improve l safety at US nuclear power plants. At a minimum, the old and new standards should be compared to demonstrate the extent to which the public health and safety might be improved through the adopticn of this rule. The comparison should include an estimate of l

the magnitude of risk reduction associated with the application of IEEE 603-1991 to new and operating nuclear power plants.

Definition of " System-Level Replacement" I

a While the FR notice defines a system, the rule itself doe not define what constitutes a

" system-level replacement." As a result, the threshold for the mandatory use of IEEE 603-1991 could be interpreted as the replacement of two components. This is much too low a I l- threshold for operating plants. l i

While the FR notice implies that modifications or changes to components and subsystems

! are not " system-level replacements," other portions of the FR notice could be interpreted to I I

conflict with this statement. In particular, the notice defines a "sy: tem" 3: c " con ~.bination of two or more interrelated components." The Authority is concerned that this "two component" language could be interpreted to require the introduction of IEEE 603-1991 l when only two components are being replaced or modified. I J

The language of the rule should be clarified to define what constitutes a " system-level replacement." Any rule made final should make it clear that that modifications or changes to components and subsystems are not " system-level replacements." It should establish a high threshold for the introduction of IEEE 603-1991 into an otherwise IEEE-279 qualified system.

[

4 4

This letter does not contain any new commitments. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Director - Nuclear Licensing, Ms. C. D. Faison.

Very truly yours,

.f

.Knubel l

Senior Vice President and I

Chief Nuclear Officer

References:

1. April 23,1998 FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 63, No. 78, pages 20136-20139, " Nuclear l

Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule, Codes and Standards; IEEE National Consensus Standard"

2. October 17,1997 FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 62, No. 20, pages 53932-53935, ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Final Direct Rule, Codes and Standards; IEEE National Consensus Standard"

3. IEEE Std. 603-1991, " Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Generating Stations"

4. IEEE Std. 279, " Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations"

5. NYPA letter, J. Knubel to USNRC, dated December 1,1997 (JPN-97-037/IPN-97-164) regarding comment on Final Direct Rule, Changes to Paragraph (h) of 10 CFR 50.55a

" Codes and Standards" cc: next page 4

I i

O cc: Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 1

Office of the Resident inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 136 Lycoming, NY 13093 Office of the Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Indian Point 3 P. O. Box 337 Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. George F. Wunder, Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B2 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Joseph Williams, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects I/ll U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 1482 Washington, DC 20555