ML20216F673

Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72.Recommends That Proposed Section 10CFR50.73(a)(2)(ii)(C) Not Be Promulgated & Reporting Rule Be Returned to Form That Resolve Pressure Relief Panel Reporting Issue in Advance Notice of Pr

ML20216F673
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	09/17/1999
From:	Mueller J NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-64FR36291, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-72 64FR36291-00005, NMP1L-1469, NUDOCS 9909220237
Download: ML20216F673 (2)

Text

-

a ' '

h

NiagarahMohawl6m DOCKET NUMBER N

John H. Moon., PROPOSED RULE $ $0 # 72. September 17 1999 mone 315.3ns Senior Mce President and

((p}f f gyyj) NMp1L }4h W 20 M B f w 3'5 3 W 1321 ChietNuclear Officer ""*# '"#"N""* ***

Secretary c, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 AD.

A'ITN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff 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 the Pmposed Rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.72 & 50.73 Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to provide Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's (NMPC's) {

comments on the proposed rulemaking in 64 Federal Register 36291, July 6,1999 to revise 10 1 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. NMPC generally agrees with the comments being provided by the  !

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). In addition, NMPC is very concerned that the proposed l rulemaking represents a step backward from the originally proposed rulemaking approximately  !

one year ago which resolved the concerns associated with the reporting of "outside the design {

basis of the plant," as exemplified by the NMPC pressure relief panel violation issued on June l 18,1996, associated with NRC Inspection Report 50-220/96-05. I As stated in Mr. L. J. Callan's letter to Mr. J. H. Mueller on March 26,1998, regarding the pressure relief panel violation, "In the near future, we will publish an advanced notice of  ;

proposed rulemaking and conduct a public workshop to obtain public input regarding plans to J modify the event reporting requirements...." The proposed rule that followed that letter represented a significant step forward for the industry. The currently proposed rule leaves the objectives stated in Mr. Callan's letter incomplete.

The fundamental regulatory issue associated with the reportability of changes in design values for the pressure relief panels was the definition of those changes which would cause a licensee to be "outside the design basis of the plant." The NRC Staff, by virtue ofits interpretation (which we believed was not supported by the plain language of the reporting rule that had /

existed for some period of time) had added the requirement to report any change in a design value, regardless ofits effect on the ultimate safety design basis envelope. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking on July 23,1998, appropriately resolved this issue. However, the proposed rule issued on July 6,1999, expanded the scope of reporting requirements beyond l

issues which would be relevant to the safe operation of the facility or its ability to respond to transients or accidents. The NRC Staff thereby proposed expanding the scope of what was required to be reported to include issues that had no effect on the safe operation of the facility or its ability to respond to transients or accidents. The Staff's July 6,1999, proposal would multiply the number of reports made, thereby diluting the Staff's ability to respond to the significant safety issues that are properly reportable.

9909220237 990917 PDR PR 50 64FR36291 PDR l Nine Mde Point Nuclear Station P0. Box 63 Lycoming, New York 13093-0053

1 A , s Page 2 The newly proposed Section 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(C) would require reporting if a component is in a degraded or non-conforming condition, such that the ability of the component to perform its specified safety function is significantly degraded and the condition could reasonably be expected to affect to other similar components in the plant. However, the term "significantly degraded" is open to interpretation and inconsistent application. For example, one pessible interpretation is that a deviation from any design value contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report could be viewed as a significant degradation subject to reporting. Moreover, the proposed requirement that the condition could reasonably be expected to affect other similar components also leaves much room for interpretation, confusion and inconsistency. As an example, in the case of the pressure relief panels, would this proposed reporting requirement consider the pressure relief panels as a whole or would it require consideration of each of the components that make it up. In this instance, would a licensee have to examine the possibility that bolts may be inappropriately sized on any other component of the plant?

The issue of degraded components is clearly a matter that is being satisfactorily handled within {

the purview of Generic Letter 91-18. By virtue of that letter and its implementation, which is j well understood by licensees and the Staff, the NRC would be notified and involved as '

necessary when degradation which reached a level which required the participation or approval of the NRC for continued operation is discovered.

Therefore, NMPC recommends that the proposed Section 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(C) not be promulgated, and in this respect, the reporting rule be returned to the form that resolved the pressure relief panel reporting issue in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. This would I set the reporting threshold at an appropriate safety significance threshold, help prevent a lack of clarity or ambiguous interpretations, and eliminate dilution of resources of both licensees and the NRC on issues that are below a safety significant threshold.

l I

In addition, a portion of the new rule creates a conflict with an existing regulation. The I maintenance rule,10 CFR 50.65, gives incentives to licensees to maximize the availability of safety systems. There is an opposing incentive in the proposed 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(iv) which would require reporting invalid actuations of safety systems. This requirement would have the likely effect of encouraging licensees to disable safety systems during minor troubleshooting l activities in order to avoid the risk of an invalid actuation. I Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rulemaking.

Sincerely, ohn H. Mueller Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer j JHM/JFR/ kap j l

xc: Mr. H. J. Miller, NRC Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. S. S. Bajwa, Section Chief PD-I, Section 1, NRR Mr. G. K. Hunegs, NRC Senior Resident Inspector i Mr. D. S. Hood, Senior Project Manager, NRR Document Control Desk Records Management U