ML20083F221
| ML20083F221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1983 |
| From: | Twana Ellis, Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17150A237 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-48FR44217, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8312300204 | |
| Download: ML20083F221 (8) | |
Text
.
H u xT ox & WI LLI.AM D 7o7 raST Mwe statCT P. O. Boa 1535
.f.
RICH. MON D. VEROINI.A 2 3 22 2 6.. e r = = s
- 6....c. u s. =.
. e a 9 ove60*=.
=.;,,, -g.
c-.
.3................
October 27, 1983 Mr. Samuel J.
Chilk Secretary
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Chief, Docketing and Service Branch Comments of the Utility Safety Classification Group on the ANPR for the Backfitting Rulemaking (48 Fed. Reg. 44217)
Dear Mr. Chilk':
The Commission published in the Federal Register an ad-vance notice of proposed rulemaking,(AhPR) on the revision of I
the backfitting process for nuclear reactors, 48 Fed. Reg. 44217 '(September 28, 1983).
This rulemaking would establish l
l requirements fo; the long-term management of the NRC's process I
for imposing new regulatory requirements for power reactors.
I The notice invited interested persons to submit written com-
!^
ments and suggestions by October 28, 1983.
This letter will provide the comments, in response to the ANPR, of the Utility Safety Classification Group.
t t
0312300204 831220 DR ADOCK 05000322 PDR I
^'
w
,-w
-,-g---e---.y--
- w
,g+%--
--,r--,.--------y-...-u.,-
w na,y--
y-
-yw-e
--yw-v.*
-y y
2-H t:xTox Se WI LLI AM S
- f,.
. Although various members of the Utility Group, will sub additional comments on this ANPR either individually or as l
mit members of other organizations interested in the backfitting rulemaking, ~t'h'ese comments are -intended to focus on the rela-tionship between-the safety classification issue and the backfitting rulemaking.
In particular, the safety classifica-tion issue-provides a useful example to consider in developing an appropriate definition for backfitting."
Other pertinent examples, such as the administrative requirements contained in NUREG-0737, also demonstrate the need for the broad definition of backfitting suggested in this letter.
These other examples wil1 not be addressed by the Utility Group but should be con-sidered in the rulemaking.
U_tility Safety Classification Group The Group is composed of 38 electric utility companies that have among them over seventy nuclear reactors currently 15 operation or under construction.
A list of the Utility Group's members is attached.
The Utility Group's interest, and indeed its purpose of existence, is the issue of the NRC Staff's efforts to change
~
certain definitions used in systems classification.
The regu-latory terms " safety related" and "important to safety" have been used synonymously by industry and the NRC over many years of plant design, construction, licensing and operation.
l'
(-
e w
y y.,,,w.
--r.#
4
.,,..,....-y-
._.r_,-., _. _,, _ _ _,. _..,,,,
_y.
,_,,7 r_,
E c xTox-EE TCILLI AMG
+
-f
~
Construction permits and operating licenses have been issued based on licensee commitments to and NRC acceptance of the syn-onymous use.of.these terms.
The Utility Group believes that recent NRC Staf f. actions signal a sharp departure from this
~
long-standing definition of the term "important to safety" to cover a.much broader and undefined set of plant structures, systems and components than is covered by the term " safety re-lated."
The. Utility Group's concerns have been set out in de-tail in a letter from its counsel to William J. Dircks dated August 26, 1983.
The impetus f or the NRC Staf f's ef f orts to expand the definition of "important to safety" s.eems to be a desire to ex-
- ' pand some measure of ' design and quality regulation beyond
" safe'y related" equipment.
It is important to note that while t
variations exist in the details of practica, industry as a whole has generally applied design and quality " standards to non-safety relat,ed structures, systems and components in a man-l ner co7mensurate with the functions of such items in the over-l all safety and operation of the plant.
The Utility Group is confident that these measures do adequately ensure that non-safety related equipment will perform its intended func-tion.
e
\\.
l
.. -. ~...,.,.. _... _..
_ m H exrox & WILLIAxs
~,
the existing measures applied to non-safety re.
.Despite 1ated structures, systems and components, redefining "important to safety" wit,hout proper review will have f ar-reaching, perva-sive consequences-for licensing and general regulation of nu-
. clear plants,-particularly for operating plants.
Specifically, given the extensive use of the term "important to safety" in the Commission's regulations and Staff regulatory guides, NUREG documents and other licensing documents, as well as licensee sobmittals, the result of this sharp departure from the long-
~
standing definition of this term would be a largely unexamined and perhaps unintended expansion of the scope of the above doc-uments.
Consequently, the Group is intensely interested in
~
Commission ef f orts to control the imposition of new regulatory requirements.
The Relationship of the Safety Classification Issue to the Backfitting Rulemaking Question 1.aoof the ANPR asks, in essence, whether i
backfitting management measures should apply to proposed hard-(
t_
ware changes or whether the term should be more broadly defined l
to encompass other activities associated with a nuclear power plant.
The Utility Group urges the Commission to define j
"backfitting" to encompass any change in a regulatory require-ment or its implementation which results in any change in the design, conbtruction, testing or operation of a nuclear power
(
t.
b i
e i7.......-...
...f
' ~
H t:xrox & WILu Axe e
r.
plant. for which a construction permit or operating license has been issued.
A-narrower definition of "backfitting" would only partially accomplish the rulemaking's goal of injecting ratio-nal management into the process of imposing new regulatory re-quirements.
In the case of; safety classification, the widespread use of the term "important to safety" throughout the Commis-sion's regulations, Staf f regulatory guides, NUREG documents
'and other licensing documents means that a6y change in the definition of "important to safety" would have ramifications well beyond the imposition of new hardware iequirements.
Such a change could, for example, affect such activities as quality
,' assurance programs, seismic and environmental qualification programs and training programs.
Changes in these and other c'rtain to entail extensive expenditures of utili-programs are e
I ty resources.
Thus, at a minimum there is an impact that t
should be weighed against the corresponding benefits.
More-over, because utility resources are finite, changes in such programs may well result in a dilution or diversion of a utili-ty's resources with a potential corresponding decrease in safe-ty.
Consequently, it makes sense to give the term "backfitting" a broad interpretation to ensure that all aspects of the imposition of new requirements, whether'the result of new regulations'or the clarification or interpretation of existing regulations, are effective'ly scrutinized.
_...__,.-._.,._______...._.._.,_.__.i.[_.,_,,_.~_i.i
. ~.....
lit; N T O N & TILLI ANO The d.tility Group 'also urges the Commission to.give a broad interpretation to what is considered a "new requirement" in any revis,ed backfitting rule.
Question 1.b. of the ANPR asks whether the Commission's interim directions to the NRC Staff provide a useful approach.
These interim directions de-fine a backfit as a proposed new staff position or a proposed change in an existing staff position.
The Utility Group
- believes that these directions should be expanded to include instances in which the Staff " clarifies" or " reinterprets" ex-isting staff positions or NRC regulations.
The safety classi-fication issue provides a good example of why this should be so.
The present issue was framed by a November 20, 1981 memorandum from NRR Director Harold Denton to all NRR person-
~
nel.
This memorandum which has never been circulated for pub-lic comment and which argues that the category "important to safety" is broader than "sa'fety related" (or " safety grade"),
disclaims ~any intent to alter existing regulatory requirements.
Although the Utility Group believes that the NRC Staff's effort
~~~ to expand the definition of "important to safety" is an attempt to change the meaning of a regulatory term without benefit of rulemaking or other appropriate procedure, some Staff members do not agree.
According to them it is merely a " clarification" of the defidition of important to safety.
Despite the a-4.
e n --( -
H exTox & WII.1.I AMO disclaimer and the characterization, revision of the definition of "important to safety" to make it a broader category than "safetyLrelated" could have far-reaching, peivasive conse-quences for the ' licensing and general regulation of nuclear plants.
Thus, clarifications of existing staff positions or new interpretations should be included within any definition of
'backfitting."
We hope these comments prove helpful.
We will be happy
.to provide further information if you wish.,
~
~
~
Sincerely yours, _
JA fh T.~5.'E11isf l1T"' '
/
Donald P. Frwin Anthony F. Earley, J r. '
Counsel for Utility Safety Classification Group Attachment cc:
Chairman Nunzio J.
Palladino Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick Bernthal Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Thomas M.
Roberts William J.
Dircks Herzel H.E.
Plaine, Esq.
9 L.
,r 1
UTILITY SAFETY CLASSIFICATION GROUP
~
Arkanas Power & Light Co.
(representing also Mississippi Power &
Light, and Louisiana. Power & Light)
.Ba t more Gas & Electric Co.
li Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Commonwealth Edison Co.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York
' Consumers Power Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Florida Power Corp.
Florida Power & Light Co.
Gulf States Utility Co.
Illinois Power Co.
Long Island. Lighting Co. "
Nebraska Public Power District Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
Northeast Utilities Service Co.
l-Northern. States Power.Co.
Omaha Public Power District Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co '
Public Service Company of Indiana Public Service Company of New Hampshire (representing also the Yankee Atomic Electric Power Company, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.
j and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co.
Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
i f
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.
Southern California Edison Co.
r Sacramento Municipal Utility District l
SNUPPS (representing Union Electric Co., Kansas Gas &
b Electric Co., Kansas City Power & Light Co.,
and Kansas Electric Power Coop., Inc.)
Toledo Edison Co.,
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
l L
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
p a
I i
1 l
-%...y-p-.
< g,
..