ML20217P669

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Standards,Amended Requirements

ML20217P669
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/02/1998
From:	Rajiv Kundalkar FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-62FR63892, RULE-PR-50 62FR63892-00053, 62FR63892-53, L-98-91, NUDOCS 9804100150
Download: ML20217P669 (7)

Text

s Florida Powzr & Ught Company P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach FL 33408-0420 00CrsEl ED USNPC FPL W APR -7 P3 :38 APR02 W OFF' ~ T. > ,

RU'u. ' ': ., L.98-91 ADJUO/J.A ~ '  :.s F Mr. John C. Hoyle DOCKET NUMBER Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULE PR 5o .

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (MF4/03894) 53 I

Subject:

Proposed Rule-Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements 62 FR 63892 (Dec. 3,1997) j

Dear Mr. Hoyle:

I I

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), the licensed operator of two nuclear power plant units in Dade County, Florida, and two units in St. Lucie County, Florida, hereby submits the following comments on the above-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking.

In summary, FPL has significant concerns with some of the proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.55a.

FPL is concerned that some areas of the proposal lack a firm technical basis to justify the change.

Other proposed changes do not appear to be justified from a cost-benefit standpoint and would pose an undue hardship on licenseet.. FPL is particularly concerned that the codification of ,

regulatory limitations and modifications to a consensus standard, the ASME Code, undermines j the voluntary nature of the consensus standards process. FPL's concerns are explained funher in i the attachment to this letter. l l

FPL hereby endorses the comments filed by the Nuclear Energy Institute on the above-referenced l notice of proposed rulemaking. FPL appreciates the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking.

Very truly yours,

e. - / .

W , //

Rajiv . Kundalkar /

Vice President Nuclear Engineering i '

l Attachment 9804100150 980402 3 PDR PR ,

50 62FR63892 PDR  !

an FPL Group company to

• g Attachment to L-98-91 LPage 1 of 6.

Proposed Rule -Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements FPL Comments -

The following comments correspond to the numbering format used in the " Supplementary Information" section of the proposed rule:

)

Section 2.3.12a;Ennineerina Judument (62 FR 63894)

. l This section would require that licensees obtain NRC approval, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3),

whenever engineering judgment is used in the implementation of Section'XI. FPL opposes implementation of this proposed requirement.

Such a limitation is ambiguous and compliance with such a limitation would be very difficult. As it now stands,Section XI provides broad guidance that individual licensees are expected to apply -

to plant-specific circumstances. The limitation in the proposed rule, however, would not permit.

such determinations without prior NRC approval. It appears that each case in which a plant-specific determination did not match Section XI would require a relief request.

This position is inconsistent with other guidance, including NRC regulatory guidance, that has endorsed the use of engineeringjudgment in certain circumstances. For example:

e Section XI addresses circumstances where a licensee chooses to evaluate conditions that are

' not described in the Code under IWB-3144, IWC-3134, and IWD-3000 (refer to the 1989 1

Edition of ASME Section XI).

/

-1 e When perfonning IST, if a valve stroke test or leak test is impractical, section 4.4.4 cf i NUREG-1482 permits the " licensee to perform an engineering evaluation of the impact of- j '

adjusting valve stem packing or backseating a valve to demonstrate that the performance parameters are within acceptable limits."

Further, the proposal to limit the use of engineering judgment would alter a fundamental component of ASME Code implementation. Since NRC has for years allowed engineering , i judgment as part of ASME Code implementation, this new NRC position is a backfit and NRC  !

should prepare a full backfitting analysis for this change in position, as required by 10 CFR ~ l 50.109. 'i To comply with the proposed limitation on engineering judgment, exigent relief requests, with' possible outage extensions pending NRC staff approval of such requests, could become the norm.

Such a development would appear to impose a significant economic penalty on licensees without any apparent safety basis for the limitation. Based on these comments, FPL strongly recommends l

' deletion of the proposed limitation on engineering judgment. l I

l~

t

.o

' Attachment to L-98-91 Page 2 of 6 Section 2.3.1.2.5. Reconciliation of Ouality Reauirements (62 FR 63895-63896)

The proposed rule'should be clarified regarding the use of commercial grade dedication to procure replacement items originally purchased under an Appendix B QA program The use of-commercial grade dedication of replacement items, which is consistent .with current regulatory practice, is necessary because of the decline in the number of Appendix B manufacturers.

Section 2.3.2.2. Backaround - OM Code (62 FR 63896)

With respect to the implementation of Code Subsection ISTD for snubber testing, the proposed . q rule states that it "would permit licensees to implement Subsection ISTD of the 1996 Addenda by making a change to their technical specifications. in accordance with applicable NRC requirements." The stateents of consideration accompanying the final rule should clarify that regulatory reliefis not required if a licensee wishes to continue testing snubbers in accordance with technical specification requirements rather than Subsection ISTD.

Section 2.3.2.3. Clarification of Safety-Related Valves (62 FR 63897)

-In this section, NRC proposes to " clarify that the provisions of 6 50.55a(f)(1) apply only to pumps and valves-in steam,' water, air, and liquid radioactive waste systems that perform a function to shut down the reactor, maintain the reactor in a safe shutdown condition, mitigate the consequences of an accident, or provide overpressure protection for such systems." Current-system classifications (based on Regulatory Guide 1.26) specifically exclude instrument and service air, diesel engines (including generators and auxiliary support), diesel fuel oil, emergency.

and normal ventilation, fuel handling, and radioactive waste management. Also, under the OM Code, parts 1 and 10, only relief valves "which are required to perform a specific function in -

shutting down a reactor or in. mitigating the consequences of an accident" are required to be -

included in an IST program. FPL suggests that the statements of consideration should clarify that the rule change 'does not expand the components included in the IST program beyond those classified as Class 1,2, or 3 that perform a function to shut down or mitigate the consequences of .

an accident. q Section 2.3.215.1. Stroke Time Testina (62 FR 63897) i i

The proposed 6 50.55a(b)(3)(ii) would require that "the stroke-time testing requirement of j

Subsection ISTC of the OM Code applicable for motor-operated valves (MOVs) be supplemented

'with programs that licensees have previously committed to perform, prior to issuance of this amendment to 6 50.55a, for demonstrating the design basis capability of MOVs." To avoid  ;

I i

- Attachment to L-98-91 f

' Page 3 of 6

~

- confusion,- supplemental MOV. programs should not be referenced by this section of 10 CFR 1 50.55a. These programs are above and beyond the requirements of the Code and are, at various  !

i

sites, implemented independently from the IST program. They are not subject to periodic 120-month updates, nor are they~ subject to the requirements oi 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) for relief requests. ' The proposed rule would make owner-defined programs a requirement rather than a J

commitment, with no uniformity among licensees. The proposed change should be deleted.

Section 2.4.II Anoendix VIII(62 FR 63897-63898)

I The proposed rule states,'in part, that licensees "would be required to implement Appendix VIII,  !

including the modifications, for all examinations of the pressure vessel, piping, nozzles, and bolts l and studs which . occur after six months from the date of the final rule." The expedited implementation of Appendix VIII poses an undue hardship for the following reasons:

• In referring to the industry's Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI), this section infers that. all demonstration samples have.been completed. On the contrary, Appendix VIII performance demonstration samples for dissimilar metal piping welds do n01 exist within the PDI sample inventory. Further, such samples cannot be fabricated in six months.

. Companies that perform reactor pressure vessel examinations are not qualified for all aspects (i.e., Supplements) of Appendix VIII. The PDI has not tested vessel examination procedures or personnel for Supplements 5 and 7 because current Code rules are impractical. A committee, which includes NRC consultants,'is currently rewriting Appendix VIII to facilitate -

implementation. Thus, completion of all Appendix VIII Supplements will require more than

' six months. l

• - The proposed modifications to Appendix VIII would invalidate many current qualifications. It would invalidate reactor vessel qualification test specimens by eliminating notches. It would invalidate existing specimen test sets by requiring that all specimens for single-sided examinations contain microstructures like the components to be inspected. It will not be possible to retrofit samples and requalify within six months.

• - The proposed rule properly recognizes that licensees have contributed financially' to PDI sample fabrications. However, the proposed changes to Appendix VIII will invalidate much of the PDI sample program, exposing the industry to added' costs beyond the $10,000,000 already spent to provide test samples.

e The cost of detennining component microstructures (to show compatibility with PDI test

' samples) would be prohibitive. It would represent an unnecessary and unwarranted financial l burden without a corresponding increase in safety.

f.

l l.

l l

I. .

.. ' Attachment to L-98-91 Page 4 of 6 Section 2.4.1.1.1. Anoendix VIII Personnel Oualification (62 FR 63898)

L Proposed changes to 6 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) would require that "all personnel . qualified for L performing ultrasonic examinations in accordance with Appendix VIII receive 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of annual

[ training which includes laboratory work and examination of flawed specimens." ' The proposal- i further states that:an.. examiner's capability to interpret signals "begins to diminish within l L approximately six months if skills are not maintained." The proposed rule does not set forth justification for increasing the training burdens on licensees.

L Forty hours of annual training is unnecessary from a technical standpoint and would not justify the cost involved. . Individual licensees do not have the appropriate on-site samples or' facilities to l . conduct training. The cost of supplying flawed samples for test purposes would be approximately

- $75,000 per site. Neither is it reasonable to expect the EPRI NDE center to provide space and L samples for approxima'.ely 400 examiners for four weeks every year. Such training would have to

!- cycle 40 people per' week, which is not feasible. Furthermore,' the majority of examiners are

~ independent contractors, for whom the additional training costs would be especially burdensome.

Using the consensus standards process, industry and NRC had previously agreed on a training frequency of once per year. Rather than imposing an onerous 40-hour. requirement, FPL I

recommends 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> (which is above the~ current standard of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />) of annual practice (as

!. ~differentiated from formal training) on flawed samples.

Section 2.4.1.1.2. Anoendix VIII Soccimen Set Cracks (62 FR 63898) .j l

This section proposes that "all flaws in the specimen sets used for performance demonstration for  !

piping, vessels, and nozzles be cracks." -l

' The existing Code allows, for good reason, a mix of notches, fabrication flaws, and cracks for vessel specimens. First, the cost of cracks alone would be prohibitive with no ' corresponding increase in added , value. Second, manufactured ' cracks are not appropriate in some configurations, such as the nozzle inner radius. Cracks must be implanted by welding, which leaves a tell-tale ultrasonic halo that is easily detected. The PDI wisely chose to usa a selected

< number..of, notches to maintain test integrity. The acoustic response from notches is ,

indistinguishable from the specific-type cracks postulated for nozzle inner radii and/or ebd bast .i metalinterface regions.

The NRC assertion in this section that " notches are easier to detect than flaws" is appropriate for intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC), but not for fatigue cracks in heavy-walled vesselsi lt is incorrect to apply limited IGSCC data to all aspects of ultrasonic ISI.

p

.. ?

• p

' Attachment to L-98 -

' Page 5 of 6 l

The proposed rule would invalidate Code-allowable notches and fabrication flaws in completed Code-compliant specimens. This is surprising, given that licensees have spent many years and several million dollars.to fabricate the existing specimens. The~ NRC's proposal is clearly

' burdensome and, we believe, unwarranted. The NRC staff should perform a thorough evaluation

in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 (Backfitting) to ensure that the proposed change will provide l a cost-effective safety improvement.

' Section 2.4.1.1.3. Anoendix VIII Soecimen Set Microstructure (62 FR 63898) -

This section states that "all! specimens for single-side tests contain microstructures like the-components to be inspected and flaws with non-optimum characteristics consistent with field experience that provide realistic challenges to the UT technique."

Single-side tests _ include about half of all piping welds._ It is not feasible to determine the.

microstructure of several hundred welds in each plant in order to show that in situ microstructures l match those of the qualification specimens. The financial burden is not justified by the limited.-

L increase in the level of safety.

For vessels, FPL proposes " single-side tests" for areas with geometric access limitations and for completely " clean" welds where costs could be reduced by scanning from one side of a weld-rather than two. sides. This would help reduce the overail cost impact of the proposed I impleme'n tation of Appendix VIII. For FPL, the cost savings would be approximately $500,000 (corresponding to two days of outage time) per examination. A recommendation that could L significantly reduce licensee implementation costs is worthy of careful consideration. -

l FPL further recommends that Appendix VIII be endorsed for voluntary implementation without limits or modifications.

Section 2.6. ASME Code Interpretations (62 FR 63903-63904)

With respect to Code interpretations issued by ASME, this section acknowledges that "the ASME-is the official interpreter of the Code." But it further states that "NRC will not accept ASME interpretations that,.in NRC's opinion, are contrary to NRC requirements or may adversely impact facility operations." Since NRC has strong participation on ASME committees, it is not clear why regulatory concerns about ASME interpretations cannot be resolved as part of the normal consensus process. This would eliminate the need for inserting complicated limitations r

and modifications in 10 CFR 50.55a. Another approach would be to issue a Regulatory Guide,-

l

~s imilar to Regulatory Guide 1.147 for Code Cases, to identify ASME interpretations that NRC deems contriuy to regulatory requirements.

O=

• ~

Attahhment to L-98

Page 6 of 6 L

' Section 2.7. DSI-13 (62 FR 93904) '

This section states that "the proposed rule has been prepared under the traditional approach; i.e.,

licensees would be required to' update their ISI and IST programs every 120-months to the latest

- edition and addenda incorporated by reference into 6 50.55a. .If a decision is reached subsequent to publication of the proposed rule that is adverse to this approach, this position will be corrected l prior to publication of the final rule." If the 120-month update policy is changed before l

publication of the final mie, this proposal should be reissued for comment prior to promulgation.

Sec Shell Oil Co. v. EPA. 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir.1991).

General Comment The proposed rule endorses specific Code Cases within 10 CFR 50.55a (e.g., N-513, N-523, and OMN-1). The typical vehicle for endorsing Code Cases has always been Regulatory Guide 1.147.

FPL recommends that Code Cases continue to be endorsed through Regulatory Guide 1.147 I

i

'I J

i

['