View source for B12706, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors

{{Adams
| number = ML20235Z302
| issue date = 10/13/1987
| title = Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors
| author name = Mroczka E
| author affiliation = CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
| addressee name = Chilk S
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
| docket = 05000000, 05000213, 05000245, 05000336, 05000423
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = FRN-52FR34223, RULE-PR-50
| document report number = 52FR34223-00006, 52FR34223-6, B12706, NUDOCS 8710210079
| document type = LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS &amp; ORDERS &amp; PLEADINGS, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES &amp; PETITIONS FOR
| page count = 3
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:E          DOCKET NUMBER ey                                                                                    num ~ ~p .-DR             ,        -gd              /o w act 13- 95 n3(yggl3 9.zeg}
NM                                                      8F#tCEe ef' SE M99eF*l offic88
* seiden street. teriin, connecelout q
                      . ,me- - ~~**~                            MCMEIg(&g'EPViu.            . p.o: nox 270 gggg                                                                    ART R        ONNECTICUT 001414270 -
m . w we w-1 r-l, I'                                                                   October 13, 1987                                       x
                                                                   ' Docket Nos. 50-213'                                              '
i 50-2.45 50-336                             E 50-423 B12706                            Q . q$               ,
Re: 10CPR50.109                                 y     2:             :
O
                                                                                                                           $i           [-
\
3> ca v>
d Mr. Samuel 3. Chilk Secretary                                                                                                                     -i U. S. Nuclear Regu!.atory Commission l              Washingtea, D.C. 20555                                                                                                        ;
Attn Docketing and Service Branch Dear Mr. Chilkt Haddam Neck Plant Mllistone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1,2, and 3 Proposed Rules Revision of Backfitting Process For Power Reactors,52 Federal Register 34224 (September 10. 1987) 3 i
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO), on behalf of the r3 $        Haddam Neck Plant, and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO), on g a-        behalf of Ml!! stone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3, hereby submit g           the following comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule e r3        entitled " Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors," '52 Federal 9,   Q      Register 34224 (September 10, 1987).
N a:r l  $e@         In general, CYAPCO and NNECO consider the proposed rule to be sufficient to
   -a          conform the Commission's backfitting rule,10CFR50.109, to the decision of the
   $ .u.
[$      U.S. Court of Appeals for the D. strict of Columbia Circuit in Union of 2         Concerned Scientists vs. . Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nos. 85-1757 and 86-b"N         III'9 (D.C. Circuit August 4,1987). CYAPCO and NNECO therefore urge the Commission to adopt the proposed revisions (subject to the comments suggested).
Ib p'g 5.62ckfl Hac8'i
                                                              !\D                                                  MWO
            --             _ - - - - - -                                                                  1       -      -    _ - - -

i
   .                                                                                                                           l 1                                                                                                                           l
                                                                                                                               )
1 Mr. Samual Chi!k                                                                                             l B12706/Page 2                                                                                                i October 13,1987 l
i However, CYAPCO and NNECO do recommend some changes to the proposed rule, in the nature of clarifications, particularly with respect to the new exceptions in proposed Section 50.109(a)(4)(ii) and (iii).
The backfitting rule adopted in 1985 culminated an important effort by the Commission to enhance NRC management control over the modification of power reactors caused by the regulatory process. The rulemaking proceeding involved two rounds' of public comments and over three years of Commission                                     .
deliberation.                                                                                                l The backfitting rule established procedures to rationalize the process and ensure                           q that before a backfit is imposed, the need for and effectiveness of the proposed modifications are considered in a systematic and documented manner. An important aspect of the rule is the requirement that the NRC take into account the economic costs to licensees and ratepayers when it imposes backfits to                                      ,
achieve incremental safety improvements at facilities that already provide an                                  I acceptable level of protection. As the Commission noted, without consideration                                4 of costs., the regulatory process would become a quest for risk-free plants not                               l l
contemplated by the Atomic Energy Act.                                                                         l i
CYAPCO and' NNECO have closely followed the implementation of the backfit-                                    j ting rule since it was promulgateriin 1985. It is our belief that the rule has had a
{
positive effect in that it has heightened Staff and industry awareness of changes m requirements that may constitute backfits and has led to greater scrutiny of the actual safety impact of such changes.          For this reason, we urge the Commission to move forward expeditiously with the promulgation of a revised                                   J final rule.                                                                                                  j1 CYAPCO and NNECO are active participants in the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG). NUBARG is comprised of 28 nuclear utilities and q
the Edison Electric Institute and was formed in the early 1980s. In its comments                              ;
on the proposed rule, NUBARG provided specific comments and proposed some                                      '
specific changes in the proposed rule to clarify the circumstances under which the exceptions will apply. In particular,'we believe that the adequate protection                              l exception of 50.109(a)(4)(li) is redundant to the compliance exception of                                     i 30.109(a)(4)(1) and should therefore be eliminated. We refer you to NUBARG's                                  '
rationale for the bases supporting this suggestion. Because existing regulatory                                )
requirements form the baseline level of adequacy, the " adequate protection"                                 1 exception in subsection (a)(4)(ii) should be entirely subsumed under the                                       :
                 " compliance" exception in subsection (a)(4)(i). We believe there can be no cases
                                                                                                                                 )
in which a facility that complies with all applicable regulatory requirements                                   I would fall below the existing baseline level of adequate protection. The                                       l Commission has long recognized that compliance with regulatory requirements is-sufficient to establish that a facility provides adequate protection.                                           1 i
CYAPCO and         NNECO endorse NUBARG's comments and agree with the proposed changes. We believe that the proposed revisions to Section 50.109                                      1 submitted by NUBARG represent a preferred response to the D. C. Circuit's                                     i decision.
l-

lt
~.g Mr. Samual Chilk B12706/Page 2 October 13,1987 i
We also urge that the Staff proceed with modifications to Manual Chapter 0514.
to conform to the new rule. CYAPCO and NNECO appreciate the opportunity to      ,
comment on the Commission's proposed rule.
Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE' ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY
                                                 %<h l                                  E.yMtoczka (/
l                                  Senior Vice President l
l     cc:  W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator
}          M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No.1 l
W. 3. Raymond, Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos.1,2 and 3 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2                                ,
R. L. Ferguson, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 F. M. Akstulewicz, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant
: 3. T. Shedlosky, Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant l
l i
l l
l I
_    _ _ _ -}}