ML20198K223

Forwards Comments Re Various Aspects of Proposed Rulemaking, 10CFR50.59, Changes,Tests & Experiments, as Published in Fr on 981021.Util Supports Proposed Rulemaking,As Drafted by Commission

ML20198K223
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	12/22/1998
From:	Terry C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
FRN-63FR56098, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52, RULE-PR-72 63FR56098-00059, 63FR56098-59, NUDOCS 9812300371
Download: ML20198K223 (2)

Text

. -

t l

!+,

NiagarahMohawk' Carl D. Terry Phone: 315.349.7263 Vice President

• Fax: 315.349.4753 Nuctar Safety and Assessment and Support i.

j December 22, 1998 NMPIL 1396 i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 RE: Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-220 Docket No. 50-410 DPR-63 NPF-69

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rulemaking,10 CFR 50.59, ' Changes, Tests, and Erperiments' Gentlemen:

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking of 10 CFR 50.59, " Changes, Tests, and Experiments," as published in the Federal Register, October 21,1998, Volume 63 (63 Fed. Reg. 56098 (1998)).

, Overall, NMPC strongly supports the proposed rulemaking, as drafted by the Commission.

With regad to the proposed " margin of safety" considerations, NMPC endorses the proposal to

delete " margin of safety" as a separate criterion (Option 2) from 10 CFR 50.59. Our specific comments regarding various aspects of the proposed rulemaking are provided in the enclosed

! attachment.

l Very truly yours,

! Carl D. Terry

_ Vice President l !R OC 00 20 Nuclear Safety Assessment and Support i

P PDR _

CDT/JJUkap Attachments , {O t

-T {lp xc: Mr. H. J. Miller, NRC Regional Administrator l Mr. S. S. Bajwa, Director, Project Directorate I-1, NRR Mr. G. K. Hunegs, Senior Resident Inspector Mr. D. S. Hood, Senior Project Manager - NRR Records Management

, Nine Mile Pomt Nuclear Station R0. Box 63. Lycoming. New York 13093-0063

• www.nimo com l

1

., , 1 l \

l NIAGAR A MOHAWK COMMENTS IN RFRPONSE TO 56098 WDERAL RFC.lSTER/VOL. 63. NO. 203/WFnNESDAY. OCTOBER 21. 1998/ )

i .. -

PROPOSED RULES NMPC supports: I The proposal to split the existing three evaluation criteria in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) into individual criteria in new Section (c)(2).

Replacing the term " safety evaluation" with " evaluation".

• The proposal to clarify that changes controlled by 650.54(a), (p), and (q) need not also be evaluated under f50.59.

l  :* The Commission's proposed definition for " change" to be provided in f 50.59.

The Commission's proposed definition for " facility as described in the final safety I analysis report (as updated)" to be provided in 650.59.

j

• The Commission's proposed definition of " tests and experiments not described in the l safety analysis report" to be provided in 650.59.

l l

• The Commissien's proposal to allow " minimal" variations in probability of occurrence or consequences of accidents and malfunctions. In regard to this proposal, NMPC recommends the Commission's proposed third option. This option would define

" minimal" as being 10% of the remaining margin between current conditions and acceptance guidelines, with the amount of change decreasing as the limit is approached, whereby the acceptance guideline could not be exceeded without first obtaining

! Commission review and approval. In support of this option, NMPC recommends that the new rule be applied appropriately to the radiological consequences of accidents and not to the radiological consequences associated with normal operations or anticipated operational occurrences. Accordingly, it would apply only to infrequent events and limiting faults (design basis [ postulated) accidents) with regard to the " reference values" or " acceptance guidelines" defined in 10 CFR 100. The new rule would not apply to the " dose limits" defined in 10 CFR 20 and General Design Criterion 19, which are regulatory limits not to be exceeded.

NMPC strongly supports:

The Commission's proposal (Option 2) to delete " margin of safety" as a separate criterion. NMPC believes that a reduction in the " margin of safety" associated with a l fission product barrier would be identified and addressed while considering other evaluation criteria.

l i

- _