ML20198L191

Submits Comments Re Proposed Rule to Revise 10CFR50.59, Changes,Tests & Experiments

ML20198L191
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	12/21/1998
From:	Donnellon R CENTERIOR ENERGY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-63FR56098, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52, RULE-PR-72 2579, 63FR56098, NUDOCS 9901040080
Download: ML20198L191 (3)

Text

. . . . - . . . = ~ _ _.

. v. l l

N-Q Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 North State Route 2 m Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449-9760 ,

December 21,1998 Serial Number 2579 l

Secretary i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 ,

Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Comments Regarding the NRC Proposed Rule to Revise 10 CFR 50.59,

" Changes, Tests, and Experiments", and Related Changes to 10 CFR Parts 50, 52 and 72 Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Toledo Edison Company is the operator and a licensee of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS). As a 10 CFR Part 50 licensee, Toledo Edison has a vested interest in any rules the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may adopt which can affect the management and operation of a commercial nuclear power plant. Toledo Edison is responsible for not only ensuring that the DBNPS is operated safely, but for also ensuring the DBNPS is operated in a cost-effective manner for its customers.

Industry Comments Toledo Edison has reviewed the NRC proposed rule to revise 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments, and related changes to Parts 50,52 and 72 concerning the authority to make changes to the facility or procedures, or to conduct tests or experiments, without prior NRC approval. These proposed rule changes were noticed in the Federal Register on October 21,1998 (63FR56098). Toledo Edison has also reviewed the k O comments prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on behalf of the nuclear power industry. Based on these reviews, Toledo Edison endorses the comments being provided by NEI in response to the 63FR56098 notice, with the clarifications discussed below.

Toledo Edison Comments

1. With respect to the proposed change to the existing 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2)(iii) criterion db pertaining to the reduction in the margin of safety as define.d in the basis for any /

Technical Specification, Toledo Edison recommends use of Option 2: Delete

" Margin of Safety" as a Criterion, as described in the proposed rule. Toledo Edison 9901040000 901221 PDR ADOCK 05000346 P PDR k

Serial Number 2579 Page 2 provides the following associated comments that are consistent with Commissioner Diaz's comments to the proposed rule published on page 56115 of the notice.

The proposed rule's Option 1: Control Inputs to Analyses and Methods that Establish TS, would replace the existing " margin of safety" criterion with " result in a reduction in the margin of safety associated with any Technical Specification" and an associated ,

clarifying definition for this proposed criterion. The proposed rule definition for this l criterion is "that the input assumptions, analytical methods, acceptance conditions, criteria and limits of the safety analyses, presented in the final safety analysis report (as updated), that established any technical specification requirement, are altered in a nonconservative manner." This proposed criterion and definition could be interpreted as an overly conservative, zero increase standard that would result in many facility changes requiring NRC review and approval as unreviewed safety questions (license amendments). This is contrary to the intent of the proposed rule changes to reduce the burden in licensee and NRC staff resources for review of inconsequential facility changes.

Toledo Edison believes the inclusion of the proposed definition of" facility as described in the final safety analysis report (as updated)," the facility design requirements and evaluations, and the methods of evaluation, in the proposed 10 CFR 50.59 rule envelope the above areas of the recommended definition of margin of safety. As such, the proposed rule would require them to be evaluated under the other six 10 CFR 50.59 criteria. Therefore, the need for the " margin of safety" criterion would be unnecessary and should be deleted as described in Option 2 of the proposed rule.

2. The proposed rule sought comments on whether any of the other evaluation criteria should be revised if the " margin of safety" criterion is deleted. Toledo Edison believes the proposed rule requires no further supporting changes beyond those described in the proposed rule to delete the " margin of safety" criterion.

3. The proposed rule notice specifically requested comments on rule language proposed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) (page 56117). Toledo Edison has carefully considered the " margin of safety" criterion proposed by NEI. Toledo Edison agrees with NEI that the NEI-proposed alternate approach would greatly reduce the scope of margin of safety reviews requiring approval by the NRC. However, Toledo Edison believes the other 10 CFR 50.59 criteria for the identification of an unreviewed safety question (license amendment) provide adequate protection as described in Comment 2 above. Any significant proposed changes to the fission product barriers (fuel, primary system, containment) should manifest themselves as increases in probability or consequences. Any insignificant effects should fall within the minimal realm that has been accepted in principle by the NRC.

Toledo Edison believes this alternate approach to margin of safety may prove to be challenging to implement and be subjective in some areas. For example, the

.: .u l' Serial Number 2579 Page 3 -

application of this method may undermine the regulatory concept of the Core

- Operating Limits Report (COLR), which is a means of safely performing fuel core l reloading without prior NRC approval. Inclusion of this margin of safety criterien could prove to be time consuming, in light of the minimal increment in protection that it may provide.

l l Toledo Edison commends the NRC for its efforts in the proposed rule making and

! interest in seeking comment on these issues.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. James L. Freels, Manager - Regulatory Affairs, at (419) 321-8466.

l Very truly yours, h '

JEA 3 Isl. i

! Robert E. Donnellon-Director, Engineering & Services I

JCS/laj l cc: J. L. Caldwell, Acting Regional Administrator, NRC Region III A. G. Hansen. DB-1 NRC/NRR Project Manager K. S. Zellers, Acting DB-1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector 1

l 1

~

l