ML032390498
| ML032390498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/2003 |
| From: | Kansler M Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| Ngbea E S | |
| References | |
| +adjud/ruledam200505, 68FR26511 00012, PR-50 | |
| Download: ML032390498 (7) | |
Text
Entergy Nuclear Northeast Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
,I Entergy 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Tel 914 272 3200 Fax 914 272 3205 DOCKETED DOCKETED Michael R. Kansler USNRC Presidenlt (
August 26, 2003 (10:26AM)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF August 19, 2003 JPN-03-022 DOOWNET NL-03-135 ENO Ltr. 2.03.086 PROPOSM RUSLI~Q -1 \ BVY 03-073 (69FR t511)
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff
Subject:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. I Docket No.50-003 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-286 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-293 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-271 Comments on ProDosed Rulemaking - 10 CFR 50.69. Risk-Informed Cate-gorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3160-AG42)
Reference:
Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 95, Pages 26511-26551, dated May 16, 2003
Dear Madam Secretary:
Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (ENO) is pleased to submit comments on the above subject proposed rulemaking.
ENO believes, in general, that the proposed regulatory change embodied in 10 CFR 50.69 is positive and allows an approach that aligns the level of regulatory requirements with the level of safety significance. Specific comments on the proposed rulemaking are provided in Attachment I to this letter.
Ire 1&pF4?_. c SEC.4-o to(r7 SEII
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. There are no new commitments made in this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Charlene Faison at 914-272-3378.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Regional Administrator Senior Resident Inspector's Office Region I Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road 600 Rocky Hill Road - Mail stop 66 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Plymouth, MA 02360 Senior Resident Inspector's Office Mr. Travis Tate, Project Manager Indian Point Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 337 One White Flint North Buchanan, NY 10511 11555 Rockville Pike, Mail Stop 0-8-B-1A Rockville, MD 20852 Senior Resident Inspector's Office James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Mr. Patrick Milano, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Directorate I P.O. Box 136 Division of Licensing Project Management Lycoming, NY 13093 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-8-C2 Mr. Guy Vissing, Project Manager Washington, D.C. 20555 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Mr. Robert Pulsifer, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Directorate I Mail Stop O-8-C2 Division of Licensing Project Management Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-8-B1I Senior Resident Inspector's Office Washington, D.C. 20555 Indian Point Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senior Resident Inspector's Office P.O. Box 38 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Buchanan, NY 10511-0038 320 Governor Hunt Road P.O. Box 157 Mr. David O'Brien, Commissioner Vernon, VT 05354 Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05602
cc: continued Mr. John L. Minns, Project Manager Mr. Paul Eddy Project Directorate IV-I NYS Department of Public Service Division of Licensing Project Management 3 Empire Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, NY 12223 Mail Stop 7-D-1 Washington, D.C. 20555
ATTACHMENT I Comments on Proposed Rulemaking - 10 CFR 50.69 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 1 Docket No.50-003 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-286 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-293 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-271
JPN-03-022 NL-03-135 ENO Le. 2.03.086 BVY 03-073 Attachment I Page 1 of 3 Attachment I Comments on Proposed Rulemaking -10 CFR 50.69 General Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.69 The process of implementing the new regulation contains provisions that go beyond what are necessary to address the proposed rule. For example, it is not necessary to require a license amendment to be able to proceed. While some type of licensee/staff interaction may be appropriate, the introduction of the license amendment process introduces a degree of uncertainty that may discourage licensees from pursuing what could clearly be a "win-win" approach to improving both safety and efficiency.
The proposed rule also requires that the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) be updated at least once every 36 months to account for plant specific data, design, and procedure changes as well as plant specific and industry operating experience. Since operating cycles of 24 months are now common, this requirement would place the maximum interval in the middle of an operating cycle. The regulation also requires a timelier update if any change would result in a significant increase in the CDF or LERF or might change the categorization of SSCs. Since, realistically, most plant changes are implemented during outages and, given the need for ongoing reviews and updates as required to address any significant change, the maximum Interval is no more than a ubackstop". Therefore, it is more reasonable to tie the maximum interval to two operating cycles.
Specific Comments on Proposed 10 CFR 50.69 Issue 1: PRA Requirements - whether the rule should require a Level 2, Internal and external Initiating events, all-mode, peer-reviewed PRA that must be submitted to and reviewed by the NRC.
ENO does not see the safety benefit for requiring this level of PRA to assure that an adequate level of safety Is provided In this application. This proposed requirement would be counter to the recognized value of the current policy of aligning the level of requirements to the proposed application. Imposing requirements that place an unreasonable burden on licensees does not serve to improve overall safety if it inhibits or precludes licensees from moving toward a regulatory regime that is accepted by virtually all stakeholders as a positive step in improving safety.
JPN-03-022 NL-03-135 ENO Lr. 2.03.086 BVY 03-073 Attachment I Page 2 of 3 ENO believes that incorporation of PRA input consistent with the level of the technology adopted by each licensee and combined with non-quantified insights and the experience of the integrated decision making panel can provide a result of sufficient quality to accomplish the intent of the proposed regulation.
Issue 2: NRC Review - whether the NRC should review and approve alternative treatments (the current proposed rule requires that the NRC review and approve the categorization process, but not the specific alternative treatments to be applied to the low-risk components).
"Two primary objectives of this effort (toward risk Informed regulation) are to develop a risk-informed regulatory framework that will enhance safety as well as reducing unnecessary staff and licensee burden"'. The proposed approach In this regulation is intended to provide that balance. All design and functional requirements are required to be retained under the proposed regulation. The alternate approach will simply reduce the burden where appropriate (and may, in fact, increase the requirements associated with some risk significant SSCs). Requiring the licensee and staff to expend unnecessary resources upfront to assess the efficacy of altemate treatments for low risk significant SSCs, thereby potentially redirecting limited resources from other more significant activities, would, In fact, adversely impact overall safety. The very nature of low risk significant SSCs is that the normal course of implementation and monitoring by the licensee and regulator provides adequate safety assurance.
Issue 3: Inspection and Enforcement - whether or not changes are needed In the NRC inspection and enforcement programs to ensure an appropriate degree of NRC oversight There is nothing inherently unique to this risk informed application that would necessitate a different approach to regulatory oversight than already established in the current risk informed regulatory regime. There are numerous opportunities within the proposed regulation and the overall risk informed regulatory regime to assess and monitor licensee processes and programs.
= NL-03-135 ENO Ltr. 2.03.086 BVY 03-073 Attachment I Page 3 of 3 Issue 4: Operating Experience - what role relevant operational experience could play in reducing the uncertainty associated with relaxing special treatment requirements, and what Information may be available that could be useful.
The use of an integrated decision making process, already incorporated into the proposed regulation, is specifically intended to incorporate a breadth of operational and design experience into the categorization process. The licensee must be able to demonstrate that the categorization process, Including the determination of safety significance, uses both risk insights and traditional engineering Insights, and:
- maintains the defense-in-depth philosophy
- maintains sufficient safety margin, and
- assures that increases in risk (ifany) remain small The integrated decision-making panel (IDP) must be composed of experienced personnel who possess diverse knowledge and insights in plant design and operation and who are capable in the use of deterministic knowledge and risk insights in making SSC classifications. Ongoing opportunities for sharing and incorporating experience on a broader basis, including those associated with existing industry (e.g. INPO, NEI and Owners Group) and regulatory (e.g. Maintenance Rule) programs already provide a substantial data source for licensees to draw upon in both categorizing SSCs and recognizing impacts and changes in performance.
- 1) SECY-98-300, "Options for Risk-Informed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50- 'Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities"', December 23, 1998.