ML20073B307

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.55a Re Inservice Testing (IST) & Inservice Insp (Isi),Which Will Separate Ist/Isi Into Two Individual Sections.Change Will Help Clarify Which Requirements Are Applicable to Each
ML20073B307
Person / Time
Site: Nine Mile Point  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 04/12/1991
From: Terry C
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-56FR3796, FRN-57FR34666, RULE-PR-50 56FR3796-00017, 56FR3796-17, AD05-2-039, AD5-2-39, NMP1L-0579, NMP1L-579, NUDOCS 9104240122
Download: ML20073B307 (2)


Text

'

DOCKET NUMBER

, f M V NIAGARA oA0 POSED RULE PR 50 ___ /7 R UMOHAWK (SF4 03 7'//o , ...s

,s.Pt.u

, shh NINE MILE PolNT NUCLEAR STATION /P.O BOX 3? LYCOMING NEW YORA 13093 / TELEPHONE (315) 343 2110

'91 APR 19 P4 :26

. m cr  : .o w -

t,0ced w , '.i W i hkuu-April 12, 1991 NMP lL 0579 U. S. Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-220 Docket No. 50-410 DPR-63 NPF-69 Gentlemen:

On January 31, 1991, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment proposed revisions to 10CFR50.55a regarding Inservice Testing and Inservice Inspection (50 Fed. Reg. 3796, January 31, 1991). Attached please find Niagara Mohawk's comments regarding the proposed rule.

Very ,truly yours, h

^

Dr Carl D. Terry W

Vice President Nuclear Engineering xc: Ron Simard, NUMARC 9104240122 910412 PDR PR S6 FRO 3796 PDR j)sto

,, e___,_-._ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . - . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . . _ _ . . . . _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _

r

f. ,

'( NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER. CORPORATION COMMENTS ONLPROPOSED CRANGE8 TO 10CFR50.55A [

The proposed changes to: A#CFR50.55a will-separate Inservice

-Inspection (ISI.)~and Inservice TestingL(IST) into two separate sections, 10CFR50.55a(f)-and_(g). -This change will~ help clarify b

whicherequirements.are: applicable:to ISI and which are applicable i

.toLIST. iThe_ proposed change anticipates the deletion of IST- 1

requirements.from ASME_XI:and preparesLthe way for the: imposition [

oftthe O&M Code. Niagara Mohawkibelievest additional  ;

clarification-isLrequired-for component supports.;: Supports are l

. visually.inspectediunder'ISI rules,-but snubbers are; functionally tested.to both technical specification requirements.and oM-4.

+ -Referencing'OM-4LinL10CFR50.55a(f) would. clarify-functional

. y' _ testing-requirementstand_would complement-Technical specification '

improvement 1 efforts.t u' Thel proposed changesLto110CFR50.55a(f)1 endorse _the use of OM-- t L 6&l0 for testing pumps and' valves.- OM-6&l0. expand the. scope of testing programs to include pumps and valves that were not i n

originally < designed, purchased, or installed to ASME rules -

L.c t

(e'.g., Diesel auxiliary' systems). Thisioxpanded scope creates a-h sonflict.with?thetTechnical Specifications which requires ASME B_ class 1,-2, org3~ components-to be-tested. :Furthermore, this ,

[ expansion in scope does nota takelinto consideration; the impa'ct ;of 1 Ladditional testing-onothe reliability of theseJaystems;nor tho' ,

. fact thatEthese systems were~not: designed to be tested to OM y >

.standardsk Consequent.ly, this' rule ( change 1wilixtesultiin more- 4 "i -testington auxiliaryLcomponents and?more' requests:for relief from

testing requirements".. We also1 object toithelmorecrestrictive 3

, Lyalve' leakage: 11mits.being proposed. ~ oM-10 valve leakage-limits M aretbased;onsthe lexpected-leakage of:a; valve in. good operating-

fcondition.t <These limits are not: based.on.containmentileakage p  : limits. '10CFR50 Appendix?J: cont'ains theioverallLleakage111mits' 1 ifor! containment-isolation-valves. The.- Appendix: J111mit: is based - c

' .on:10CFR100. ItLisTinappropriate4tocapply a; specific containment-W leakagedlimit_-on:a valve-by-valvenbasis.T If' changes'toslocal.

LleaktrateEtest~ requirements areLnecessary,--they should be.

addressed in:AppendialJ,:not in_10CFR50;55a.; -!

Niagara Mohawk 1has no(problem:with the proposed _ change to i

10CFR50.55a(g). -Me'have beentpursuing-alternate techniques for examiningc the reactor- vessel- beltline region ~ for:several: years..

ok -

Me note,: however, that. even with the11mproved techniques,1there.

will stillobe some access restrictions andithat full coverage i

!willinot'be:obtained. : Thus, relief: requests'for theEreactor tweldsLwillLstill be(required. It might,:therefore, be'more 4< prudent to require existing: relief requests to be revised and o resubmittedirather than cancel =all-the relief requests for o ' category'B-A weldsents.

i

~..,.,.._.~..._,,,m,. . . _ . , _ , . , . . . _ _ . , _ . . . _ . .._..._ u._,_ ~.._ _.__ _ ___