ML17311A246

Comment on Draft Reg Guide (DG-1031), Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps. Term Maint Preventable Failure Needs to Be Defined & Compared to Term Maint Preventable Functional Failure

ML17311A246
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	08/25/1994
From:	Krainik A ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	NRC
References
FRN-59FR33026, RTR-REGGD-01.160, RTR-REGGD-1.160 59FR33026-00006, 59FR33026-6, NUDOCS 9409120067
Download: ML17311A246 (8)

Text

PRIDRIT'Y Z DOCKET N

050'00528 05000529 05000530 (NUDOCS OFFSITE FACILITY)

REGULA Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO YSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:9409120067 DOC.DATE: 94/08/25 NOTARIZED: NO FACIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi STN-50-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Arizona Publi AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KRAINIK,A.K.

Arizona Public Service Co. (formerly Arizona Nuclear Power RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION NRC No Detailed AffiliationGiven P

SUBJECT:

Comment on draft reg guide (DG-1031), "Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPPs."

Term "maint preventable failure" needs to be defined a compared to term "maint I

preventable functional failure."

0 DISTRIBUTION CODE:

DS09D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: SECY/DSB Dist: Public Comment on Proposed Rule (PR)-Misc Notice;Reg G R NOTES:STANDARDIZED PLANT Standardized plant.

Standardized plant.

05000528 05000529 I

05000530 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME INTERNAL: OGC/DR 15-B-18 RES DIR RES/PMPDAS COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME REG FILE 01 RES/DER COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 Y

EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 02 1

1 C

U NOTE TO ALL'RlDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE O'ASTE! CONTACTTHE DOCUMENTCONTROL DESK, ROOM P!-37 (EXT. 504-2083 ) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTIONLISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 6

ENCL 6

L I

qP,

'4

'I 1

'Ke

r. r-(.;Eh F-0 Ar1zona Public Se~ice Comp ny'9 PALQ YERDE NUCLEAR GENERATINQQT+IoPI 6 P.O. BOX 52034

~

PHOENIX, ARIZONAtIS~-~034.. nvVI Z ON-~

102-03096"-AK@AP7PRL August 25, 1994

'I Rules Review and Directive Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Sge<iz.

zW P<9MEQ 4/av(qy

Subject:

I

~

CA Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Units 1, 2, and 3 Ch Docket Nos. 50-528/529/530 Comments on NRC Draft Regulatory'Guide DG-1031, "Monitoring~<

the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.""

File: 94-010-026 o

Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is responding to the Federal Register Notice, Vol. 59, No. 122, Monday, June 27, 1994, page 33206, soliciting comments on NRC's Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1031 (proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.16 ),

"Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants."

APS'omments are provided in the enclosure to this letter.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (602) 393-5421.

Sincerely, 9409120067 940825 PDR REQQD 0l. f60 C,.

PDR A.. Krainik, Department Leader Nuclear Regulatory Affairs AKK/SAB/DRL/rv Enclosure cc:

L. J. Callan K. E. Perkins K. E. Johnston B. E. Holian

I

ENCLOSURE

'COMMENTS ON DRAFT REGULATORYGUIDE DG-1031

~

~

I

Page 2, lines 2 & 26 and Page 4, line 31 Page 2, line 2 and Page 4, line 31 appear to endorse a concept of minimizing failures, which is contrary to the objective of balancing reliability and availability. Page 2, line 26 does embrace the concept of balancing reliability and availability.

Page 2, line 2 and Page 4, line 31 need to incorporate similar wording.

Page 6, lines 3 through 13 This paragraph is unclear.

The term "maintenance preventable failure" needs to be defined and compared to the term "maintenance preventable functional failure," which is defined in NUMARC 93-01.

Additionally, this paragraph implies that any second failure (regardless of time interval between failures, cause of the failure, or the impact of the failure) is an indicator of poor performance.

This would require utilities to strive for perfect reliability of all EDG components (including components that do not affect the function of the EDG) without regard to the unavailability required to meet this performance.

This level of attention is no longer required for the EDGs in light of the improvement in EDG reliability and additional actions that have been taken to comply with 10CFR50.63, "Loss of AllAlternating Current Power."

4 0

'C a

j f