ML17311A246

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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  Arizona Public Service icon.png
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 (NUDOCS OFFSITE FACILITY)

Z REGULA Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO YSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:9409120067 DOC.DATE: 94/08/25 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET N FACIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 050'00528 STN-50-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi 05000529 STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Arizona Publi 05000530 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION KRAINIK,A.K. Arizona Public Service Co. (formerly Arizona Nuclear Power RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION P NRC No Detailed Affiliation Given

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."

SIZE:

0 DISTRIBUTION CODE: DS09D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL TITLE: SECY/DSB Dist: Public Comment on Proposed Rule (PR)-Misc Notice;Reg G R

NOTES:STANDARDIZED PLANT 05000528 Standardized plant. 05000529 I Standardized plant. 05000530 RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL Y INTERNAL: OGC/DR 15-B-18 1 1 REG FILE 01 1 1 RES DIR 1 1 RES/DER 1 1 RES/PMPDAS 1 1 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 02 1 1 C

U NOTE TO ALL'Rl DS" RECIPIENTS:

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

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 6 ENCL 6

L I

qP, '4

'I 1

'Ke Ar1zona Public Se~ice Comp PALQ YERDE NUCLEAR GENERATINQQT+IoPI r.

ny'9 r-(.;Eh F-0 P.O. BOX 52034 ~ PHOENIX, ARIZONAtIS~-~034 6

102-03096"-AK@AP7PRL nvVI Z ON-~

August 25, 1994

'I Rules Review and Directive Branch Sge<iz.

Division of Freedom of Information and Publication Services Office of Administration zW P<9MEQ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4/av(qy Washington, D.C. 20555 I ~

CA

Subject:

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."

are provided in the enclosure to this letter.

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

Sincerely, 9409120067 940825 PDR 0l. f60 REQQD A.. Krainik, Department Leader C,. PDR 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 REGULATORY GUIDE 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 All Alternating Current Power."

4 0 'C a j f