ML20045H126

Requests Arranging Final Rule 10CFR50,maint Rule, Publication

ML20045H126
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/11/1993
From:	Bahadur S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20045H096	List: ML20045H095 ML20045H097 ML20045H101 ML20045H104 ML20045H108 ML20045H120 ML20045H124 ML20045H126
References
FRN-58FR33993, RULE-PR-50 AE55-2-008, AE55-2-8, NUDOCS 9307190092
Download: ML20045H126 (9)

Text

k$ @~%

v

ico, o

UNITED STATES fD g

[ " )

B NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION mj 5

WASHINGTON, D.C. 200rM001

%,*****/

JUN 111933 MEMORANDUM FOR:

David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules Review & Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration FROM:

Sher Bahadur, Chief, Regulation Development Branch, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

IMPLEMENTATION OF EDO ACTION: FINAL RULE, 10 CFR PART 50,

" MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT hdCLEAR POWER PLANTS" The Executive Director for Operations has approved the final rule on June 9, 1993.

Please implement the ED0's action by arranging for publication of the enclosed final rule in the Federal Reaister.

It should be noted that the rule should not be sent to the Federal Reaister before June 18, 1993.

Enclosed is the Federal Register Notice (12 xerox copies and copy on diskette), approval for publication, Congressional letter package for transmittal to the OCA, the environmental assessment, and the public announcement for transmittal to OPA.

Sher Bahadur, Chief Regulation. Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosures:

1.

FR Notice, 12 copies, Diskette

?.

Approval for Publication 3.

Congressional Letters Package 4.

Environmental Assessment 5.

Public Announcement D

9307190092 930701 PDR PR 50 5BFR33993 PDR

JUll 111993 MEMORANDUM FOR:

David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules Review & Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration FROM:

Sher Bahadur, Chief, Regulation Development Branch, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

IMPLEMENTATION OF EDO ACTION:

FINAL RULE, 10 CFR PART 50,

" MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" The Executive Director for Operations has approved the final rule on June 9, 1993.

Please implement the ED0's action by arranging for publication of the enclosed final rule in the Lederal Reaister.

It should be noted that the rule should not be sent to the _Ffderal Reaister before June 18, 1993.

Enclosed is the Federal Register Notice (12 xerox copies and copy on diskette), approval for publication, Congressional letter package for transmittal to the OCA, the environmental assessment, and the public announcement for transmittal to OPA.

Sher Bahadur, Chief Regulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosures:

i 1.

FR Notice, 12 copies, Diskette 2.

Approval for Publication 3.

Congressional Letters Package 4.

Environmental Assessment 5.

Public Announcement DISTRIBUTION:

RDB R/F

- SBahadur Cir/Chron.

BMorris w/ enclosures FCostanzi LRiani RAuluck JMatA M

3 0FFC:RD A/RES DB/DRA/RES RDB/DRA/R NAME:JM dm e

RAuluck SBahadur DATE:1 / \\\\ /93 h/q/93 Q/lj /93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY I

ry AEM-1 PDR 33993 j

Rules and Regulations w-e -

Vol. 58 No.119 Wednesday, June 23, 1993 l

TNs secnon of the FEDERAL REGISTER SUPPLEMENTARY edom&ATM:

data, changes to maintenance programs Back "und will likely not be made because there contane reguatory doctrnents havng 9eneral 3

appucabsty and legal effect, most of etweti would not be sufficient information are keyed to and codsfied in the Code d On July 10,1991 (56 FR 31324) the available for spotting trends or doing Federal Regulatk>ns, wtuch as putAshed under NRC published the final rule trend analysis' 50 tities pursuant to 44 U S.C.1510.

" Requirements for Monitoring the Second, the NRC conducted a

"#"* of Maintenance at Nudear regulatory review to eliminate or revise The Code of Federal Regulataons is ook! by Power Plants, ($ 50.65).De final rule-unnecessarily burdensome regulations me Supenntendent d Document Pm d new tx)uks are ksted M the Erst FEDERAL which will becomo effective July 10.

and published a final rule on August 31 REG STER tssue of each week.

1996, requires commercial nuclear 1992 (57 FR 39353) that amended power plant licensees to monitor the several regulations identified by its effectiveness of maintenance activities Comrnittee to Review Generic NUCLEAR REGULATORY for safety.significant plant equipment in Requirements (CRGR). One of those COMMISSION order to minimize the likelihood of amended regulations was 10 '

i failures and events caused by the lack CFR 50.71 (e)(Final Safety Analysis i

10 CFR Part 50 of effective maintenance. Section 50.65 Report Updates) where the frequency of (a)(3) requires nudear power plant licensee reporting to the NRC was I

RW 3150-AE55 hcensees to evaluate the overall changed from annually to once per effectiveness of their maintenance refueling cyde, ne change was made Monitoring the Effectiveness of activities on an annual basis. An because the use of a refueling cycle i

Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants industry consensus guidance document interval provided a more coordinated I

and a regulatory guide to provide an and cohesive update since a maiority of OGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory acceptable methodology for design changes and major modifications Commission.

Implementing the final rule are were performed during refueling ACTm: Final rule, niected to be published by June 30' outages. In addition, it had no adverse i

1 " 3-impact on the public health and safety

SUMMARY

De Nuclear Regulatory Discusaion and reduced t5e regulatory burden on Commission (NRC) is amending its Since the Maintenance Rule was the licensees, gulations for monitoring the published in Jul 1991, two events have e Commission is now changing the eifectiveness of maintenance programs occurred that le the Commission to required frequency of maintenance at commercial nuclear power planta-reconsider the annual evaluation activity evaluations from annually to j

drements in $ 50.65(a)(3).

DC8 Per refuehng outage. Evaluation of The current regulations require that nuclear power plant licensees evaluate

)irst,in the Summer of 1991, the data collected ovw the period of a i

performance and condition monitoring Nuclear Management Resources Council refueling cyde will provide a activities and associated goals and (NUMARC) Steering Group was formed substantially better basis for detecting i

preventive maintenance activities at to develop an industry guide for Problems in degraded performance of least annually. This amendment implementing the Maintenance Rule.

structures, systems, and components i

changes the time interval for conducting While developing the guide, the (SSC's) and weakness in maintenance evaluations from a mandatory once Steering Group suggested to the NRC in Practices. Evaluations conducted on a every year to at least once every a public meeting held on February 28, refueling cycle basis would also rdueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 1992, that instead of annual assessment consider and integrate data available months.

requirements, the NRC should consider only during refueling outages with the EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10' 1996' assessments based on a refueling cycle data available during operations; under l

interval. The NUMARC Steering Group the existing requirements this may not ADDRESSES: Copies of comments stated that:

occur depending on whether the annual received on the proposed rule may be (1) Significantly more data would be assessment coincides with the refueling inspected and copied for a fee at the available during refueling cydes than is outage. Furthermore, evaluations of data Public Document Room located at 2120 available on an annual basis; accumulated over the period of a

]

L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

(2) Key data from some surveillance refueling cyde, as opposed to the Washington, DC.

tests can only be obtained during shorter annual period required by the Single copies of the environmental refueling outages and is not available on rule, will rovide a more meaningful assessment are available from Joseph J.

an annual basis; and basis for e recognition and Mate. Office of Nuclear Regulatory (3) Adjustments to maintenance interpretation of trends.The Research. U S. Nuclear Regulatory activities that may be made after such Commisalon understands that a normal Commission, Washington, DC 20555, an evaluation would be typically frequency of refueling outage ran Telephone: (301) 292-3795' Performed after a refueling outage.

from 15 to 18 months, however, The NUMARC Steering Group further conditions may vary from plant to plant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

added that the evaluation process is a In order to ensure that an indefinite Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nudear time consuming activity and that with period of time does not oaur between Regulatory Research, U.S. Nudear limited data available. the annual maintenau evaluations, the Regulatory Commission, Washington, evaluation would not provide for Commission is establishing an upper DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3795.

meaningful results. With only limited limit of 24 months between the

it,

i I

i 33994 Federel Register / Vol. 58, No.119 / Wednesday, June 23, 1993 / Rules and Regulations maintenance evaluations. His would

2. Comment. Some commenters stated svallable only during refueling outages address those licensees that have that. as a result of the verificadon and with the data available during extended their refueling cycle beyond validation program to test the proposed operations; under the existing 24 months for any reason including industry guidelines,it was determined requirements this may not occur numerous short outa6es or extended that several systems are neither risk.

Jepending on whether the annual shutdown periods. Although the significant nor able to be rnonitored for assessment coincides with the refueling Commission believes that it is generally performan~ce by currently known plant outage; and (3) Evaluation of data the case that maintenance evaluations level performance criteria. Some accumulated over the period of a j

will be more eflective if conducted in commenters believe that these systems refueling cycle, as opposed to the conjunction with refueling outages, have no public health or safety shorter annual period required by the licensees would still have the option of significance and that they should be rule, will provide a more meaningful i

conducting them more frequently.

excluded from the scope of the rule and basis for the recognition and in Ught of the above discuulon, the the rule modified accordingl.

Interpretation of trends. In addition, 1

NRC is changing the requ' ment for Re8Ponse.The suggestion o change ad}ustments to maintenance activities i

evaluation of the overall eLetiveness of the scope of the rule to exclude those '

that may be made after such a review maintenance activities to be performed systems that have no public health or and evaluation would be typically I

onm per refueling cycle provid d the safety significance or that have no performed after a refueling outsgo.

interval between evaluations does not current plant level performance criteria Periodic evaluation of maintenanen i

excoed 24 Jnaths.

is clearly beyond the sco of the rule, activities is a time consuming process and cannot be conalde at this time, and with limited data available, the Summary and Analysis of Puhuc However, if, as a result of any further annual evaluations not conducted in Comments verification and validation programs, conjunction with a refueling would not I

On March 22,1993 (58 FR 15303), the changes to the rule or regulatory provide for as meaningful a result.

NRC published a notics of the proposed guidance are warranted, the NRC will Rose conclusions have been reached i

rulernaking for public comment. De consider such changes at that time.

based on the NRC's independent comment period expired on May 6,

3. Comment. One commenter stated, 1993.The NRC rewived 17 comments

,,one of the clear lessons learned from assessmer.L Therefore, the commentar on the proposed rule. All of the the recently completed verification and incorrectly implies that the NRC simply commenti except for one favored the rogram, sis that the ma)or acx:epts NUMARC's suggestions without validation independent review and considaration.

change identified in the proposed rule.

• ]*

me ta g

d I tati Another reason for changing the ne comments on the proposed rule came primarily from public utilities NRC audit purposes) of performance annua assessant of plant maintenance with mmments also received from a monitorin8 *,..,

o ncerned a change made b the NRC in j

y,,pon,e. The dc$cumentation August of1992. As part of a regulatory public utilities representative and a new to euminate or mise private citir.en. The NRC has identified developed by a licensee in res nse to to CFR 50.65 is that level whi the unnemssary burdensome regulations, and grouped all comments into six broad issues. For each broad issue, the limnsee determines necessary to the NRC revised the frequency of NRC has included a summary of the support the program developed by the licensee reporting of the Final Safety licensee to monitor performana of a Analysis Reports from annually to once comments received and their resolution as foHows:

structure, system or component. The Per nfueling cycle. ms change was purpose of this rule modification is not made because the NRC believes that the

1. Comment. One commenter stated to address the level of documentation use of a refueling cycle interval that the proposed change in the rule required for NRC audit purposes. it is Pmvided a more coordinated and would unfairly require nuclear plants merely to provide more flexibility in the cohesive update since the me}ority of on an annual refueling cycle to perfonn timing of Maintenance Program the design changes and modifications twice as many evaluations as plants on evaluations.

were made during refueling outages.

a 24 month cycle. The commenter

4. Comment. One commenter stated This was not a rationale relied upon by believes that the NRC should consider a that 'The NRC is mesmerized by a NUMARC and further contradicts the fixed maximum period of 2 years and suggestion by NUMARC (Nuclear cx>mmenter's view that the NRC accepts give the utilities the latitude to manage Management and Resources Council), to the suggestions of NUMARC without the timing of the evaluation within that extend the annual assessment of plant independent consideration.

framework.

maintenancs from an annual schedule In summary the Commission i

Response ne intent of the proposed to a refueling outage schedule."ne disagrees with the commenter's view i

modification of the maintenance rule is commenter further stated that the that the extension does not improve to allow sufficient flexibility in the extension does not provide an safety. no change in requirements will scheduling of Maintenance Programs improvement in safety and may help improve the quality of assessments by evaluations so that the additional hide maintenance that was improperly ensuring that each assessment will information available fmm the refueling deferred.

Include a review of all maintenance i

activities could be factored into the Response. As stated earlier, the NRC activities conducted during the evaluation. ne refueling cycle has also decided to make the proposed change in refueling cycle including the refueling i

been adopted as the basis for FSAR the assessment requirement for the outage.

updates. It is recognized that those following reasons: O) Evaluation of data

5. Comment. One commenter stated licensees who refuel more frequently collected over the period of a refueling that effective maintenance is an ongoing will have to conduct these activities cycle will provide a substantially better duty and need and that allowing more frequently than others. ne basis for detecting problems in degraded licensees to put off rnonitoring the Commission believes that this is neither performance of SSC's and weakness in effectivt sess of maintenancs from an undue burden nor one that is outside maintenance practices; (2) Evaluations annually to 18 to 24 months sends the

, the control of the licensee to impact by conducte'd on a refueling cycle basis wrong message that the NRC does not reducing the frequency of refueling.

would also consider and integrate data care about safety.

1 I

R Federal na@sar / Vol. Sa, No.119 / Wada=adny, June 23, 1995 / R les and Regulations 33995 i

Aesponse.h NRC agmas that maint-effectiveness ao centinue burdrn for this coDecth of infonastion ofisctive raaintemena is an angoing without being assessed for pasiods le is to be redumd by 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> duty and need. N NRC does not ag ee, excess of 2 years. The NRC does not per

=== This reduction inchades however, that the rule cheap allows agree that the rub c.ndd be improved the time requimd for seriewing limnaces to put off anonitormg the further by elimination of the sfioctivvacas of =h-=, Secth requirement of a specific tirne interval.. inseractims, searching exseting sources, gathering and maintaining the 50A5 (a)(1) which is not being daeoged.

data needed and completing and Finding of No Sigid&==,

reviewing the collection of information.

requires limaseos to monitor the performanca or conditions of SSC's Envir===-*=1 I Pact: AvailabGity Send carnements ngarding the estimated against licensee established goala,in a b Commission has determined that, burden =A-*e or soy other aeped of manner sufLcient to provide somn h1=

under the National Environmental this mlisction ofinformetwn,lachxhag assurance that these SSC's are capable Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the suggesthe for reducing this burden, to of fulfilling their intended funcths. It Commission's regulations in subpart A the Infarrastion and Remrds also requires appropriate corrective of to CFR part 51, that this rule, is not Manegement Branch (MNBB-7714),

cction to be taken wban the a major Federal action that signiScantly U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, performance of the SSC does not meet affects the quality of the human Washington. DC 20555; and to the Desk established goals. W on}y thing that is environment and therefore an Officer, Office ofInformation and being changed is the frequency of the environmental impact statement is not Regulatory A&frs, NEOB-3019. (3150-periodic evaluation of the maintenance rgired.

0011), Office of" nant and program. W NRC does care about a ne final amendment does not regnfre Budget, Wemblagton, UC 20503 safety and it does not agree with the any change to nuclear power plant commentar that changing the evaluation design or require any modifiutions to a Regulatory Analysis P ant. Nor does the rule change the b Nuclear Regulatory Commiulon l

cycle sunds the wrorg message to the industry.& NRC believes that this scope of the meintenance rule or affect has considered the costs and benafits of additional flexibility will not resuh la the nature of the activities to be the final rule.With respect to benefits, any increase in risk to public health and performed, e.g., monitoring, corrective the amendment wi!! allow those safety, and in fact, should resuh in a action, and.~u ts of comphana, licensees who choose to exercise the more effective maintenance and The final rule ch only extends the option to perform evaluations of their improved plant safety.

time period for orming evehraths mhsce progre n in conjunction

6. Comment. One of the commenters of the effectiveness o(Heennees' with refuehng outages but no less i

stated that the amendments' maximum maintenance program from et least once fi+ dy than every 24 months. The time period of 24 months would be a year to at least onm every refueling Commissh beheves that this restrictive for those plants planning to cycle, not to exmed 24 months m additional Dexibility will not result is inaease their refueling cycle to 24 extension should not result la any any increase in risk to the public heakh months. The commenter explained that significant or discernible reduction in and safety,and may result in a more the Standard Technical Specification, the effodiveness of a bcensee's effective maintenance and improved Revision Q. retains the option for maintenance program; rather the change plant safety, performance of surveillance will increase the meaningfulness and Under the rule, the frequency of requirements within 1.25 tinws the quality of the snaiahnance evaluations.

odic assessments would change interval specified and thus, could l'or these reasons, the Conuntuton finds m annually to at least once per extend the refueling outage interval of that the final amendment will not result refueling cycle but not to exceed 24 plants with a 24 month refueling cycle in any significant increase in either the months. Because most refueling outages by upwards of 6 months. Acccedingly, probability of occurrence of an accident normally occurin the 15 to 18 month the refueling cycle for these plants or the consequenms of an accident and range, the time between periodic would not meet the maximum time therefore concludes that thers will be no assessments assuming a 16 month period of 24 months allowed by the significant effect on the environment as everage would be increased by about 33 amendment. Another commenter stated a result of the amendment.

Porcent. Therefore, the licensee staff that this rule could be further improved The environmental assessment is hours to accomplish a periodic by the elimination of the requir-nt available for inspecdon at the NRC assessment under the proposed rule for a specific time interval Public Document Roosn 2120 L Street woeld be reduced from spproximately Response. The NRC believes that it la NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

460 staff hours to about 310 staff hours necessary to assure that maintenance Single copies of the environmental per plant, nis would save the licensee effectiveness is periodically assessed assessment are available from Joseph J.

approximately 150 staff hours per plant j

and that this period is not unacxsptably Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulato y

. There are no additional changes in costs long nor indefinite. Thus, a belance was Research, US. Nuclear Regulatory to be incurred by the NRC. The necesary between obtaining the Commission Washington, DC 20555, foregoing constitutes the regulatory improved reviews associated with telephone: (301) 492-3795, analysis for this final rule, assessments conduded during refueling outages and the extended or indefinite Paperwork Redaction Act Statement Regulatory Ficxibility Certification periods associated with plants with his final rule amends the in accxirdanm with the Regulatory extendml plant cycles or expenancing information collection requirements that Flexibility Act of1980,(5 U.S.C.

extended plant shutdown or outages. In are subjed to the Paperwork Reduction 605(b)), the Nuclear Regulatory l

weighing this balance, the Commission Act of 1980 (4 4 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Commission certifies that, this rule will

[

established an upperlimit of 24 months hee requirements were approved by not have a algnificant economic impact between maintenance evahjations in the Office of Management and Budget, on a substantial number of small order to obtain improved evaluations for approval number 31504011.

entities.This rule affects only the the majority of the plants having a Because the rule relaxes existing operation of nuclear power plants b frequency of refueling cycle from 15 to requirements related to the assessment companies that own these plants do not 18 mouths, and yet not allow of maintenance activition,the public fall within the scope of the definition of

f3 s

33996 Federd Regist:r / Vol. 58. No.110 / Wednesd8y, June 23,1993 / Rul s and Regulat10ns "small entitles" as set forth in the

2. In 5 50.65, paragraph (a)(3) is Standards, Regulations and Variances, Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small revised to read as follows:

MSHA. phone (703) 235-1910.

Business Size Standards set out in the swpt.tumny 34FORMmoN: On May regulations issued by the Small

,n,ew n og maing n.nc, og noci.,

15,1992 MSHA published a final rule Business Administration at 13 CFR part poww p6enta.

revising its safety standards for g,)...

venti'ation of underground coal mines

121, Beckfit Analysis (3) Performance and condition (57 Fit 20868).These standards were to monitoring activities and associated take e.Tect on August 16,1992. To allow The NRC has determined that the goals and preventive maintenance mine operators sufficient time to backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not activities shall be evaluated at least effectively plan and implement apply to this rule and, therefore that a every refueling cycle provided the necessary changes, the effective date of beckfit analysis is not required for this interval between evaluations does not the rule was delayed until November 16 final rule because this amendment does exceed 24 months. The evaluations shall 1992 (57 Mt 34683).

Involve any provisions which would be conducted takinE nto account, where On November 13,1992, as a result of i

impose backfits as determined in to practical, industry wide operating discussions with the mining CFR 50.109.

experience. Adjustments shall be made community, MSHA delayed the 1.ist of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 where necessary to ensure that the effective date of SS 75.313 and objective of preventative failures of 75.344(a)(1) until July 1,1993 (57 FR Antitrust, Classified information, structures, systems, and components 538561. This notice also provided that Criminal penalties, Fire protection' through maintenance is appropriately

$5 75.314,75.315, and 75.345 were to incorporation by reference'. Nuclearbalanced against the ob}ective of continue in effect until July 1,1993. On Intergovernmental relations minimizing unavailability of structures. June 7.1993 (58 FR 31908). MSHA power plants and reactors, Radiation systems, and components due to extended the stay of SS 75.313 and protection, Reattor siting criteria, monitoring or preventative 75.344(a)(1) until July 1,1994. The June Reporting and recordkeeping maintenance. In performing monitoring 7,1993, extension of stay,however did requirements.

and preventative maintenance activities, not specifically provide that SS 75.314, For reasons set out in the preamble an assessment of the total plant 75.315, and 75.345 would remain in and under the authority of the Atomic equipment that is out of service should effect during the stay.

Energy Act of 1954, as arnended, the be taken into account to determine the By this notice. MSHA is clarifying Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as overall effect on performance of safety that $5 75.314,75.315, and 75.345 will amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552,553, the functions.

remain in affect until July 1.1994.

This h= art is lasued under 30 NRC is adopting the following U.S.C. 811.

amendment to 10 CFR part 50.

Deted at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day b"* * #'

PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENS4HG OF Fw be W W hh h C Hs@r, PRODUCTION AND UTIUZATION I*' mas M. taw, Acung Asskrant SecreryfeMne.Wty FAClUTIES Esacuthw Dsrectorfor Operations.

onelHoolth.

1. The authority citation for part 50 (FR Doc. 93-14759 Filed 6-21-93; 8:45 mm) fFR Doc. 93-14773 Piled e.-22-93; 8:45 sm) continues to read as follows:

asumo caos m.c saumo ccor asm g

Authority: Sacs. 102,103,104,105,181, 182,183,186,189,68 Stat. 936,937. 938, 948. 953. 954. 955,956, as amended, sec. 234. 83 Stat.1244. as amended (42 U.S.C 2132,2133,2134.2135,2201,2232,2233, 2236,2239. 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202. 206. 88 Stat.124 2. as amended,1244 1246 (42 U S C 5841,5842,5846).

Soction 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95-601, sec.10,92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S C 5851).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs.101, 185. 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C 2131,2235); sec.102, Pub L 91-190. 83 Stat.

853 (42 U S C 4332). Sections 50.13, 50 54(dd), and 50.103 also lasued under sec. 108. 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C 2138). Sectnons 50.23,50.35,50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.185. 68 Stat,955 (42 USC 2235). Sections 50.33a,50.55a and appendix Q also issued under sec.102, Pub.

L 91-190. 83 Stat,853 (42 U.S.C 4332).

Sections 50.34 and So.54 also lasued under sec. 204,88 Stat.1245 (42 U.S.C 5844).

Sections 50.58,50 91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L 97-415,96 Stat. 2073 (42 USC 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122,68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C 2152).

Sections 50 80-50 81 also issued under sec. 184. 68 Stat 954, as amended (42 U.S.C 2234). Appendix F also issued under ser_

187,68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S C 2237)

.... ~.,, ~.

...~

. NRC FORM 88 (4-79)

NRCM 0240 j

. 'I.;

s W

4 BACKGROUND AND SIGNATURE TAB Use this side of the sheet to precede the signature page.when assembling correspondence.

(USE REVERSE SIDE FOR BACKGROUND TAB) r i

i h

t r

t 1

--m,

,a

,a

,.,--,,,w,,-,r

,0 -,,.,.,,,,

.e

.-,-<,e,,

,,my.,g.,

-y,--.une.,,., -,.

,c.,e m y.y y

w yg gg+pusq.,.

,,r

7.y y-NRC FORM 83 (4-79)

NRCM 0240 t

1 i

l

!'l BACKGROUND AND SIGNATURE TAB

=i Use this side of the sheet to precede the background material when j

assembling correspondence.

(USE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGNATURE TAB) 1 l

1 i

l l

l

.= - -.

_.-a...

a#

A A

.m ek

+6 J

m

+-.J B.

._44Q.4*A*.4...s4 L1

)

(

_4A

. hb PDR l

I

{

g

\\)

\\

/

J i

4 S-i to-9 3 3'A b\\ 5 Y $ k

I.

?. f

& 60

=

. ~. _ _

(57 FP.ls303)

M ET-NRC-93-3871

/

Westinghouse Energy Systems 93 ra 26 Ni :17 7 % % %;'n""

Electric Corporation kr 355 Msugn Fe,nsvivarna 15230 0355 a

April 23,1993 i

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk l

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule Change,10 CFR 50.65, " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants (55 FR 15303, dated March 22, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Westinghouse Electric Corporation (hereafter, " Westinghouse") appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change to 10 CFR 50.65, " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants" regarding the time interval for nuclear power plant licensees to evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities.

The NRC is proposing to modify this interval from once every year to once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months. Westinghouse endorses the comments of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), and fully supports the proposed rule change.

Westinghouse commends the Commission for the proposed improvement in the rule, and encourages the Commission to continue to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome regulations.

Very {rul yours, k&

J N. J. Liparuit, Manager eS' Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities

,00{Y c7 y 3

(\\

~ wm m

r r3:2T iJBER F:2P0iED RULE h!! 6O-6b y

(5yfg l5pg pf"3 Ry

^:(

"" A

~~

,.5x 1

'Ai n >

a ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION e 89 EAST AVENUE ROCHESTER N Y. 14649-0001

'93 MAY -3 P4 :09 POHE RT C. MICRE DY mt-WP Prewlent AREA CODE 71c 546 2700 Genna Nut tear l'enefut teon jg!..uLM 7 %j m-mr

<*'5' staht" Mr. Samuel J.

Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Proposed Rule Change 10 CFR 50.65, Monitorina the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants (58 Fed. Reg. 15303, March 22, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

By Federal Reaister notice dated March 22, 1993, the NRC solicited comments for modification of 10 CFR 50.65 regarding the time frame for licensees to evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities.

These comments are submitted in response to that notice by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (licensee of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant).

In the Federal Reaister notice the NRC is proposing to modify 10 CFR 50.65 to amend the time interval for licensees to conduct evalua-tions of performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities from once every year-(annually) to once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) fully supports the proposed rule change and commends the Commission for its proposed improvement in the rule.

The proposed change will improve the quality of the data collected to include both operating and outage information as well as provide a better basis for detecting potential problems or weaknesses in maintenance practices.

However, the proposed change would unfairly require plants on an annual refueling cycle to perform twice as many evaluations as plants on the 24 month cycle.

RG&E therefore recommends that the NRC consider a fixed maximum evaluation period of two years and give utilities the latitude to manage the timing of the evaluation within.that framework.

Such a change would permit utilities on an annual refueling cycle to perform the evaluation biennially.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change and request that the Commissioners or NRC staff contact us if there are any questions.

7 d N-M. P $ l E Very]rulyyours,

/

) /-lh,?vf _

60 b i

Robert C. Mecr9dy

/

,e t

j

.l

C OC;GT ?.'U"EER i

Pn0?OSED RULE E0 W CSPFA 153 o3) a.g me g

h A i } '.$

'93 ARHB All :07 Tennessee Valley Authonty,1101 Market Street. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402

.r n e i.

m. y i,,

i>C f.; > m

~i, as

A i.,1 -

April 27, 1993 3

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission.

Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) - REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 50.65, " MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has reviewed the proposed amendment noticed in the March 22, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 15303-15305) and TVA fully supports this proposed change.

1 TVA appreciates the opportunity to respond to this request for comment.

Sincerely,

'1[^

Mark O. Medford Vice President Technical Support s

/

v 0 *v, s

^

h p

q ^;O s

\\

3

+.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk i

Page 2 AprilL27, 1993 cc:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II.

101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323

?

Mr. Warren Minners,' Director Division of Safety Issue Resolution

- j U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

]

Mr. Thomas E. Tipton Vice President and Director-Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-3706 I

i

_,t i

I E

-v e

n r

Soutnern Nunear Operating Company Post Othce Sci 1295

. t. := 7 B1em<ngham. Aaoama 35201 Telephone 205 M8 5086

,g %

• L..

CSr Fft 153o3)

'93 MAY -3 P2 :27 Southern Nudear Operating Company J. D. Woodard Vtce Prestar the Southern eleCinC System Farley Project j,-

[l[

u,

• Mo.

April 29, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule

" Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (58 Federal Reaister 15303 of March 22. 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company has reviewed the proposed rule

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

published in the Federal Register on March 22, 1993.

In cccordance with the renuest for comments, Southern Nuclear Operating Company is in total agree ~ ?>

with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC.

Shoul,, t Ave any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, a

D. Woodard JDW/JDK t

I a 7)

A yl i

~

i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 cc: Southern Nuclear Operatina Comoany P

D. Hill, Plant Manager U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission. Washinaton. D. C.

G. F. Wunder, Licensing Project Manager, NRR U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission. Reaion II S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator G. F. Maxwell,-Senior Resident Inspector

a Or

- _yb EO

' E GULEI (SWFI?1530 W@LF CREEik 5

' NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION

'93 MY -3 P2 :27 Bart D. Withers Y,.Y

[

d Y".'

President and

" u v ri( 'I.,

Chief Executwe Otheer April 30, 1993 WM 93-0061 Secretary, U.

3.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.

C.

20555

Reference:

Federal Register Notice, 58 FR 15303, dated March 22, 1993

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482:

Comments on Proposed Revision to 10 i

CFR 50 65 (a) (3), the Maintenance Rule Gentlemen:

r As noted in the reference Federal Register Notice, the proposed revision to 10 CFR 50. 65 (a) (3), issued March 22, 1993 for public comment,-would change the frequency to evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance activities from annually to once every refueling outage but not to exceed 24 mo: th,.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) fully supports the position of the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) that the change would be appropriate since significantly more data is available during ' refueling outages, key data from some surveillance tests can only be obtained during refueling outages, and adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made are typically performed after a refueling outage.

Also, the proposed change would be consistent with the frequency of the submittal of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) which was changed in August 1992 from j

annually to once per refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months.

WCNOC appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments.

We also recognize the NRC's efforts in this regard towards eliminating unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations.

This effort utilizes sound regulatory principles and is consistent with the NUMARC "Industrywide Initiative".

\\

()0{

g3h s

/

PO Box 411 I Burhngton. KS 66839 / Phone. (316) 364 8831 An Eaual Opportumty Emp6 oyer M F-HC/ VET

+

WM 93-0061 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (316) 364-8831, extension 4000, or Mr.

Kevin J.

Moles of my staff, at extension 4565.

Very truly yours, Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer BDW/jan cc:

W.

D.

Johnson (NRC)

J. L. Milhoan (NRC)

G. A. Pick (NRC)

W.

D.

Reckley (NRC) l

Georg.a Power compans r r.

'4 M "

'* ' I 40 l~.erness 0+mer Fadwav l-.'j,,,1 4,,,,(( [ J$'1 h O Pcst Omce Bcx 1235 B rrnmgnam. Watarna 35201 (W FR /5 303) reone as m 2,

May 3, 1993 O

h

. OOrgiaPower J. T. Beckham,.lt.

,9,

,,,u,, _/

m.

wI v

0 n r:

vce smsiaent. t.uaear Hatch Pro)W1

,y e. -

r --

Docket Nos.

50-321 50-424 HL-3262 50-366 50-425 ELV-15412 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule

" Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (58 Federal Reaister 15303 of March 22. 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Georgia Power Company has reviewed the proposed rule " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," published in the Federal Register on March 22, 1993.

In accordance with the request for comments, Georgia Power Company is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC.

Should you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, Qf/

/

g/ J. T. Beckham, Jr.

JTB/JDK 0

\\

4 30 5 k' ( h f

/

x

k Georgia Power n U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 cc: Georgia Power Company C. K. McCoy, Vice President, Plant Vogtle W. B. Shipman, General Manager - Plant Vogtle H. L. Sumner, Jr., General Manager - Plant Hatch NORMS U. S. Nuclear Requlatory Commission. Washinaton DC K. N. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch D. S. Hood, Licensing Project Manager - Vogtle U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission. Reaion II S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator L. D. Wert, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle HL-3262 ELV-05412 mes

=r"w1Ih.ntanon ih.;t.i'.

.h n. Len t n~'oua _'

(STFRI5303.)

f

'b

' Y.' ~b l ~. s 3 l

\\dW VIRGINIA POWER April 30, 1993 Secretary Serial No.93-195 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL&P/RBP Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTEN ANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Virginia Power has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Federal Register notice dated March 22, 1993 which proposed to amend regulations for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance programs at commercial nuclear power plants. The proposed amendment would change the time interval for conducting evaluations from once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.

We support the proposed rule change and endorse the NUMARC comments provided separately to the NRC on this issue.

Very truly yours, N

^

/

M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Prograrns cc:

Mr. Ron Simard Director, industry Relations and Administration Division Nuclear Management and Resources Council s

1776 Eye Street, N. W.

-/

G SO 5 ' 1,D -

Suite 300 a

Washington, D. C. 20006-2496 s

~

w.m 3pfg: ' u g

me

>g7

_(.,.;.,

nut:,)g aag.,ag-7 we t

2 s'Er FR I G303)

. L NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL m,.e sw n >.. w yr. w nr:c. c.c 2ccc670 "93 5 P S 110

,.m) w ac Thomas E. Upton e

y,.

, _>n;ev Le e

w-

. g.e o a May 5,1993 w.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:

Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.65, Monitoring the Efectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants 58 Fed. Reg.15303 (March 22,1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

By Federal Register notice dated March 22,1993, the NRC solicited comments for modification of 10 CFR 50.65 regarding the time frame for licensees to evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities. These comments are submitted on behalf of the industry by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council. Inc.

(NUMARC)I in response to the NRC's notice of March 22,1993 (58 Fed. Reg.15303).

In the FederalRegister notice the NRC is proposing to modify 10 CFR 50.65 to amend the time interval for licensees to conduct evaluations of performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities once every year (annually) to once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months. NUMARC fully supports the proposed rule change and commends the NRC for its proposed INUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations. in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect / engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

s ih y

\\\\

.1

h Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 5.1993 Page 2 improvement in the rule. The proposed change will improve the quality of the data collected to include both operating and outage information as well as provide a better.

basis for detecting potential problems or weaknesses in maintenance practices.

NUMARC appreciates the opportunity to comrnent on the proposed rule change.

Please contact Warren Hall or me if there are any questions.

Sincerely, Rifeb)

/m homas E. Tipton TET/WJII:sp p

I i

1 1

e YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY.

• • C";[o".0*)l;*;"l" g

r,,.,__..,=,--;[y5g u.c m.c f_

a

&A 580 Ma nYree,

-o$thn ihabsachusetts 01740-1398

".Y

'93 MAY Mall :13 May 5, 1993 Y

FYC 93-010 SPS93-040 Mr. Samuel J.

Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule:

" Monitoring the Effectiveness of' Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (58FR15303)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company '(YAEC) appreciates the opportunity.to comment on the subject proposed rule.

YAEC is the-owner of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts e

and provides engineering and licensing services to nuclear power plants in New England.

Thece comments are filed.on behalf of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation as well.

Northeast Utilities has expressed concurence with the points presented in this letter and will be' filing similar comments on behalf of their plants.

The proposal in this notice is to change the required frequency at which nuclear power plant licensees must evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance from annually to.once per refueling outage.

We agree with and support this change for the reasons provided in the notice.

Evaluation of data collected over the period of a

refueling cycle

will, indeed, provide a

substantially better assessment of maintenance activities.

The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) has commented to this effect in their filing, and we support their comment.

There is, however, another aspect of the subject rule which should be addressed at this time which has to do with the boundaries of the rule's scope.

NUMARC's document No.

93-01

" Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Ef fectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" has been adopted by the NRC as the applicable substantive regulatory guidance for the rule.

As a result of the recently completed Verification. and Validation program conducted to test 93-01, it has been determined that plants will identify several systems that are neither risk-significant nor able to be monitored for performance using any currently known plant. level performance criteria.

In other words, a few systems I

Nj goo o[

.y; j

C

\\

Mr. Samuel J.

Chilk May 5, 1993 Page 2 (nominally between 1 and 8 systems, depending entirely on how a plant defines " systems") identified by the current interpretation of the emergency operating procedure (EOP) criterion (criterion-(b) (2) (i) will be screened as in-scope but are:

1) not significant in terms of risk, 2) non-safety in terms of classification, and 3) not able to affect plant performance in any way.

The impact of the above is that, under the rule, system-specific performance measures must be devised for each of these systems and performance data must be collected to monitor. the defined measures.

It would seem that systems of no public health or safety significance should be excluded from the scope of a rule intended to " monitor the effectiveness of maintenance activities for safety significant plant equipment..." (Final Rule 56FR31306).

For example, specific, formal performance monitoring of the public-addrers

system, the auxiliary house

boiler, or the freeze protection system seems unnecessary.

The Federal Register notice which published the maintenance

...given the period allowed for implementation, rule noted that "

there can be adjustments made to the rule before it becomes effective...".

Since one of the clear lessons learned from the recently completed'V & V program is that the major expense of the rule's implementation will be the detailed documentation-(for NRC audit purposes) of nerformance monitorina as well as f ailure cause determinations and corrective actions, modification of this aspact of the rule appears to be one of these necessary " adjustments '.

Given the current impetus toward cost-effective regulation by ' ae NRC Regulatory Review Group (58FR13808), this would seem to be the appropriate time for such an adjustment.

Such a change could be made by a minor addition to the current sub paragraph (b) (2 ) (i) of 10 CFR 50.65 as follows:

(i)

That are relied upon to mitigate accidents or transients or are used in plant emergency operating procedures (EOPs) and are deemed to be either risk sicnificant or monitored by plant level performance criteria; or The underlined language could eliminate the few systems discussed above from the regulatory data collection imposed by the maintenance rule.

Their deletion from scope would in no way alter the maintenance practices which apply to them already.

These practices were included in the programs which the NRC Maintenance i

Team Inspections had found entirely acceptable in their-i comprehensive reviews (58FR31312).

Mr. Samuel J.

Chilk May 5, 1993 Page 3 The added advantage of this simple delineation is the introduction of the word " risk" in the rule language.

Thus, one of the fundamental features of the implementation document, NUMARC 93-01, would have an anchor in the language of the rule itself.

Further, the compatibility in scope between the Maintenance Rule and the License Renewal Rule would be enhanced.

The major dif ference in their respective scope definition has been identified (see SECY 93-049) as the EOP criteria.

The Maintenance Rule of fers a real opportunity to move towards a performance-based regulatory system which will place emphasis, correctly, on the most safety significant equipment.

Both the change proposed in the subject notice and the one suggested 'in this i

letter will help shape the rule to a more cost effective and optimally focused requirement.

Sincerely yours, a

D.

W.

Edwards Director, Industry Affairs DWE/sf 1

oc UJu:.pgrg y PRO, o::D,no-r (S T Fg 5303

/0

u,u u, U5HRC

'93 MY -7 P4 :03 tiarvin I.

Lewis 7901 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 62 gryc{~:-tC,ji,cI

.[j,((h

• Phi 1a..

PA 19152 (215)624-1574 The Honorable Ivan Selin USNRC Washington.

D.

C.

20555 Dear Chairman Selini lease accept these comments on the Proposed Rule for monitor.ng the effectiveness of nuclear power plant maintenance (10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AE55.)

The NRC is mesmerized by a suggestion by NUMARC to e :< t e n d the annual assessment of plant maintenance from an annual schedule to a refueling schedule. This e:< tension would not provide any improvement in safety and help to hide maintenance which was improper 1y deferred.

There are many deficiencies and violations coming to light which would have been hidden by differing maintenance and the evaluation of maintenance. Mr. Allen Mosbrugh gave up his lifelong career to bring to light the deficiencies in maintenance at og t l e. ( See enclosed page from Gainsayer. POB 9574, Atlanta GE 30306. dated Spring 92.)

Maintenance problems led to the a c r. i d e n t at TMI2 well before the advent of any refueling outage.

Many recent violations involve deficiencies which wei e ongoing for months and even years.

Effectivenets of maintenance is an ongoing duty and need.

Allowing the licensees to put off monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance from annual to 18 or 24 month intervals sends the mes n a cle that the NRC does not care about safety. Whether or not the NRC cares about safety, this is the wrong message to send.

I respectfully request that the NRC stiffen regulation of licensees rather than approving carte blanche for licensees to nullify thn effectiveness of maintenance.

I wish that I could say.

Resne.tfully submitted.

/

f l

1. O e

5-4-93.

[\\)/ b O d O

s

GK86ESAYER Newsletter for GANE - Georgians Against Nudear Energy Spring / Summer 1992 p

TUh On Ii.rlO in VeOrc10 b

F or a weekin March 1992, the National NOW Cf05e are VOU f0

0. n 7

Labor Relations Board heard testimony i

v between Allen Mosbaugh and Georgia Nuclear Plant Vogfle?

/

d *"*".

, r Power Company.

Allen Mosbaugh, formerly third-high-Georgia Power has never heard g

est manager of Plant Vogtle was fired by some of the 276 tapes which Mos-Georgia Power in Oc tober 1990 after blow-baugh ended up giving to the NRC.

ing the whistle on safety concerns at the TheNRChasbeenconductingexten-nuclear plant.

sive investigations at Vogtle since At issue with the Labor Department is September 1990andhasalreadycited whether Mr. Mosbaugh was fired legally or and fined Georgia Power for numer-O not. For almost a year Mr. Mosbaugh wor'.ed ous violations.

within "the system" at Vogtle from his So - while Mr. Mosbaugh has 2

posnion of command to address and correct sacrificed his job md possibly his f.%

unsafe procedures at the nuclear plant. As career in an effort to protect the pub-gi\\

his cf forts were thwaned and ran into dead-hc trom Georg a Power's careless ends,it began tolook to him as if the safety attitude towards sa'ety, and Georgia

- M violations were deliberate and ordered from Power argues endlessly that his con-9lI a level above him. He began using con.

cerns have no basis and he was rude

~N h cealed tape recorders to gather evidence.

to tape his collcagues - the NRC i_

During the period that he was taping, Geor-continues its investigation of Plant

^ ~ 1*

N I

gia Power's cavalierattitude towards sr.fety Vogtle.

a OA.< ~ ~ u actually put the plant within five hours of a ag, %,,,7 ma,r d corrierisia meltdown.

MOSBAUGH TESTIFIES Mr. Mosbaugh testified that before he Mr. Mosbaugh did not put his job on decisions were made to" stay on schedule" began the secretive taping, he checked ex-the line lightly. Although the Labor Depart-as opposed to safety. He reportability re-tensively for state or federallaws or any ment will not rule on the validity of his ports are analyzed in Washington. "If a company polic y which would prohibit such concerns (that is for the NRC to deal with) plantis making lots andlots of thesereports activity. Finding none, his concern for the the technical safety issues figured heavily that plant may be viewed as a problem. Ifit public heahh and safety led him to gather into Mr. Mosbaugh's testimony.

is not making any of these reports,it might evidence that the Nuclear Regulatory Com-From October 1989 until May 1990 more be considered to be a better, well run mission would find convincing enoogh to Allen Mosbaugh reported directly to the plant," Mosbaugh observed.

intervene-since Mosbaugh's power as a plant's general manager, George Bockhold.

Mosbaugh served as assistant plant manager it was obvious to him was not It is during this time that Mr. Mosbaugh suppon manager for Vogtle. He also served enough to change Georgia Power's course began to see risk-taking behavior in the as vice-chairmati on Vo gtle's Plant Review at Vogtle, company's policy decisions.

Board (PRB). The PRB was established to GeoigiaPowerforitspanproducedno Mosbaugh expressed panicular con-review issues arising at the plant and to evidence that the taping, the reason they cern for strict observance of"reponability" advise the general manager on all matters give for terminating Mosbaugh,is against requirements, a variety of requirements related to nuclear safety. It was in this anylaw.newholethrustof theirargument specified by the NRC in the Code of Fed-position that Mosbaugh first t<came aware is that secretive tapin g is against the rules of cral Regulation's for reponing events re-of an mcident that should have been, but polite society and an invasion of lated to plant safety. Requirements set up was not, reported to the NPC he incident Mosbaugh's co-workers' privacy.

by the NRC were being violated because ainetiu.dsiii w GANE = P.O. Box 8574 Atlanto, GA 30306

• 404/378-GANE

lation of tech specs. Not only that, but more certain than ever that he was sus-g Georgia Power did not report the violation pected of having gone to the NRC and was M

• " Pm" PP to the NRC, thus breakmg another law, it subjected to oven hostility and suspicion cct.:sred in October 1988 and had to do was his atternpts to deal with this violation from his superiors. They enlW frequently with cenain dilution valves trtat had been that aroused his suspicions that these deci-of a lack of teamwork and communication, opened during the"mid. loop" of a nuclear sions were deliberate and konn very high and suggested he was the cause of refueling, level of management.

inharmony between the department stVf At mid. loop, the fission control rods After several weeks deliberation Mos-managers.

are fully employed in shutting down the baugh stepped into the unknown and be-In August 1990,Mosbaugh's position reactor and the rextor coolant is teduced to came a whistleblower. He mailed a de-in the company was downgraded, in Sep-one-third its narrnal level in the reactor tailed, anonymous report of his concerns to tember he was barred from the worksite and f' ally in October 1990 he was fired Dur-vessel. At this entical time borated water is the NRC, even using gloves to ensure that m

used for the coolant. Since boron prevents the tip-off would not be traced back to him.

ing the 18 months since Mosbaugh was a fission reaction it ccmpensates for the neNRC respondedwithaprompton-fired from Vogtle he has endured three reduced water flow. Opening the " dilution site investigation of the October 1988 valve bouts with Georgia Power over his labor valves" for the add 2 hon of any other chemi-incident, questioning people at the plant case.he first two were decided in his favor cals or any other purpose can result in the and gathering relevant documents. it was in and this hearing was prompted by Georgia addition of deminerahzed water to the bo-the succeedmg weeks that Mosbaugh would Power's appeal to administrative court.

rated coolant in the vessel, thereby dimin-decide to begin tape recording conversa-He has also emered a 2.206 "show ishing the controlling capability of the bo-tions on the job at Plant Vogtle. Mosbaugh cause" petition with the NRC. A "show rated coolant.

was appalled to hear a licensed supervisor cause" peution puts Georgia Power in the Technical Specifications (tech specs) suggest intentional violations of tech specs position of defending their license to oper-require that these dilution valves be shut at if necessary to conclude a refueling outage ate a nuclear plant given the many allega.

all times during the "mid. loop" interval.

more promptly. He ended up filing two tions of wrongdoing. Meanwhile, the NRC Mosbaugh stated that opening of the dilu-additional anonymous charges with the continues to investigate the safety viola-tion valves in mid-loop put the plant in an NRC conceming safety violations by Plant tions using Mr. Mosbaugh's taped evidence.

"unanalyzed" and therefore unsafe condi.

Vogtle managemenL Georgia is very fortunate to have a danger-l tion. The Wesunghouse manual contained When a near-meltdown occurred,again.

ous nuclear threat come under close scru.

no formal technical analysis to show what during refueling,in March 1990,Mosbaugh tiny and has Allen Mosbaugh to thank for reactions would occur within the reactor stepped up his clandestine investigation.

taking personal risk to make it happen.

vessel under these conditions.

This accidentis the now-notorious incident

-Glenn Carrolland Steve Watkins

"... I continued to gather the facts on when a fuel nuck backed into a switch-yesd EPILOGUE Since thisissue ofthe GAIN.

what had happened, and so I got control power pole and Unit I lost all power to its SAYER has been held up so long, this case logs and shift supervisor logs... and what safety systems for almost 45 minutes. Not has had some major developments. Admin.

I found out is these valves had been opened only did the incident reinforce to Mr. Mos-istrative Judge Robert Glennon issued his on four different occasions.

baugh that the company held unhealthy jinal order on the labor hearing against "The first two occasions that they had attitudes towards safety, but in the NRC-Allen Mosbaugh. In a dreadfulprecedent, been opened on, the reactor coolant system utility dialogue that always ensues from a he says that Mosbaugh went toofarin his was not technically at mid. loop. On the serious incident at a nuclear plant, he wit-taping activities. The basis of the decision second two occasions that they had been nessed high officials falsifying infonnation as given in thejudge's order is a sequence

]

opened, the reactor coolant system was at about the reliability of the back-up power of events which is inconsistent with the 4

^

mid-loop as indicated by the log entries in systems at the plant. At the time he was still record. Mr. Mosbaugh is appealing this the main control room log," Mosbaugh on the Policy Review Board (PRB) at the latest decision with the new Secretary of testified.

plant, and he was able to alert his Board Labor. We trustJudge Glennon is enjoying At about this time, Mosbaugh heard colleagues to the enor. They drafted an his new appointment in Florida. It is our rumors that the operations staff had tefused accurate repon, which was pre-empted by hope that Mr. Mosbaugh will see justice to open the dilution valves dunng the inter-top-level Georgia Power officials.

prevail in this case and we express our val in issue, that they had been overruled by Mosbaugh felt it was time to file his appreciation that he haspersistedin bring-their management, Skip Kitchens, and that first whistleblower compaint with the De-ing these important issues to light.

Mr. Kitchens had opened the valves him-partment of labor when he was removed On the NRC side where the investiga-self. Mosbaugh now believed that Skip from the PRB in June 1990. A weeklater he tion of allegations of criminal misconduct Kitchens had deliberately violated the tech also signed a confidential agreement with by managers of Vogtle and Southern spec in October 1988 and was faced with the NRC. He still continued with his secret Nuclear Operating Company is conducted the knowledge that this constituted crimi-audio tape recording activities, not even

- the NRC has completed its investigation nal conduct.

telling the NRC.

andpassed the case on to the U.S. Depart-Mosbaugh was flabbergasted. In 20 Always given high marks in his perfor-ment oflustice where a grandjuryis inves-years working in the nuclear power indus-mance reviews - he received the first tigatin gfor possible prosecution ofcrimes try he had never encountered a willful vio-average rating of his career. Mosbatch was against the safety ofpcople in Georgia.

2 GAINsAYG

$PRNG/ SUMMER 1992

CCC"ET E!.EER PI 56 -

pa;.?O22D RULE r5 (SrFRin03) ll ConsumBIS W

POW 8f

- o.via e so,,

n vb HAY POWERING AUCHIGAN5 PROGRESS f, ; l Generai Othces: 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, M149201 (517) 788-0453 s.ea < w Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN:

Docketing and Service Branch RE: SUPPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FIllAL MAINTENANCE RULE, " REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" By notice in the Federal Reaister (58 FR 15303) dated March 22, 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) publi shed a proposed amendment to the Final Maintenance Rul e,

" Requirements for the Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants." The current rule, which is scheduled for implementation in 1996, requires that commercial nuclear power plants monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their maintenance programs on an annual basis. The proposed amendment would change the time interval for conducting the evaluations from once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.

Consumers Power Company supports the proposed change to the final maintenance rule. We agree with the NUMARC Steering Group position that:

(1) the proposed change would make significantly more maintenance data available; (2) key data from surveillance testing becomes available during a refueling outage that would not normally be available on an annual basis; and (3) adjustments to maintenance activities resulting from previous evaluations are typically incorporated following a refueling outage.

In addition to the foregoing, there is a recognized cost benefit for the nuclear utility industry as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change would reduce the amount of plant staff time necessary to: (1) collect and review data; (2) maintain the data for future reference; and (3) generate the required report (s). Clearly the adoption of a refueling cycle interval for evaluating the effectiveness of maintenance would allow an increase in cost efficiency for the industry.

od

/

x PAUSADES BIG ROCH POINT nucleof Plant I....g m

N 7--

y

i 2

Finally, since the NRC has determined that the proposed change would have no significant impact on either the environment or the health and safety of the public, clearly the adaptation of the proposed amendment to the maintenance rule is correct and proper.

Therefore, Consumers Power Company urges the NRC to proceed with its plans to amend its regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50.65, " Requirements for the Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants."

h David P Hof 1

Vice President Nuclear Operations i

i i

5 E

DOC'.GT NUMBER PROFCGED RblE N @- -

C SP F1215301)

=ll==ll=ll e:r. J :

/1 Log # TXX-93205

>;N A File # 10185 Ref. # 10 CFR 50.65

=

=

'93 MY 10 P3 :26 MELECTRIC

- n

.,ni

c ?

May 6. 1993 4t" William J. CahlH. Jr.

Govup t rrr 14rs den Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED RULE CHANGE 10 CFR 50.65. MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (58 FED. REG. 15303, MARCH 22, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

By Federal Reaister notice dated March 22, 1993, the NRC solicited comments f or modification of 10 CFR 50.65 regarding the time frame for licensees to evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities.

These comments are submitted by TU Electric in response to the NRC's notice of March 22, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 15303).

In the Foderal Reaister notice the NRC is proposing to amend the 10 CFR 50.65 time interval f or licensees to conduct evaluations of performance and condition monitoring activities, their associated goals and preventive maintenance activities from once every year (annually) to once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.

TU Electric commends the Commission for its proposed improvement in the rule.

The proposed change will improve the quality of the data collected to include both operating and outage information as well as provide a better basis for detecting potential problems or weaknesses in maintenance practices.

However. TV Electric believes that the rule could be improved further by the elimination of the requirement of a specific time int erval.

The imposition of a specific time interval will add burdensome requirements without a commensurate increase in the margin of safety.

By allowing the Licensee the ability to determine the time interval for conducting evaluations, there is more flexibility in the allocaticn of limited resources.

The elimination of a prescriptive time interval is consistent with the ongoing "NRC Program for Elimination of Requir'-ments Marginal to Safety"

\\

e 13[] O 0 !

'2 g " 95

/

N h

4m N. Olne Sirect LB. Mi DaHas. Texas 75201 y

TXX-93205 Page 2 of 2 TV Electric appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change and requests that the Commission or NRC staff contact Mr. Carl B. Corbin at (214) 812-8859 if there are any questions.

Sincerely, William J. Cahill, Jr.

By:

J. S. Marshall Generic Licensing Manager CBC/vid n

e-e

1. A* 0**CU 31N000 CY,Y. T ?U.*,$55 nq Y

":Cc0 sui _E Wi 3 0 e

ppt (56F&16303)

MAY 0 611993 g

i9393fE13hl P7 :20 t,

~ ss-y; Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re:

Proposed Rule: " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants,

58 FR 15303, March 22, 1993, Recuest for Comments On March 22, 1993, the U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment a proposed rule change (58 FR 15303) to 10 CFR 50.65 regarding the time frame for licensees to evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities.

These comments are submitted on behalf of Florida Power and Light Company (FPL),

a licensed operator of two nuclear power plant units in Dade County, Florida and two units in St. Lucie County, Florida.

The NRC is proposing to modify 10 CFR 50.65 to amend the time interval for licensees to conduct evaluations of performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities.

The proposed amendment would change the time interval f rom once every year to once every fuel cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.

FPL fully supports the proposed rule change.

FPL appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments.

V truly yours,

~

A)

R.

E. G io Director', Nuclear Licensing REG /MSD/dmb M 3.-/5 oo w

\\

\\

an iPL Gsoup company i

Y

U-602132 L30-93(05 - 04 )LP arAET IiUMBER 1A.120 Q'pgMy rid C h

Ilknors Power Company N.

yi Chnton Power Stahon h

i ton L 6 727 -

Tel 217 935-0881 ILLIN 915

.o a u m 33 P4sM R iOCrR50.65 May 4,1993

/h 0

.6i j g Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Sec etary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on the Proposed Rule Change to 10CFR50.65

Dear Mr. Chilk:

By Federal Register notice dated March 22,1993 (see 58 Federal Register 15303), the NRC solicited comments relative to a proposed amendment to 10CFR50.65, " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Mainter.ance at Nuclear Power Plants", paragraph (a) (3). Illinois Power (IP) appreciates the opportunity to provide its comments on the proposed rule change.

In the Federal Register notice, the NRC is proposing to amend 10CFR50.65 to change the time interval for licensees to conduct evaluations of performance and conditioning monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities from once every year to at least every refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months. Illinois Power fully supports the proposed rule change. An evaluation period which includes data kom both operating and refueling periods will provide a better basis for assessing the effectiveness of maintenance activities.

Sincerely, m

0 R. F). f lares ^ f:,l uv 1

J

~

[ Director - Lic/)

ensing RFP/nis cc:

NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager NRC Resident Office, V-690 2

Regional Administrator, Region III, USNRC 9 09 lilinois Department of Nuclear Safety 30D N

i

-. - ~ _

~,

,~ r ~ g s n *=.1 py

,,U! $

NORTHEAST UTILITIES

( S P F R. 1 F 3 Q ) o m e,,,3,g,,3,,,,t,,,,,,, c,,,,,

9

. sIINIA:

yi ki~

P.O. BOX 270

)

i

n. +i..n..o r. cc..-

aahnL HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 l

C,$$$[,SC *c['"

(203) 665-5000 k

L J

'93 tiAY 12 P4 :12

]$

r: c

- m u.

i 'd t*,i i

id May 6, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 B-All B14473 Secretary of the Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3 Proposed Rule " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (58 FR 15303) letter is to provide the NRC ~ with Connecticut Yankee -

The purpose of this Atomic Power Company (CYAPC0) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNFCO) comments on a proposed rule regardin

" Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.""' gThe proposed amendment to 10CFR50.65 would change the time interval for conducting evaluations from once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.

On behalf of the Haddam Neck Plant and Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3, CYAPC0 and NNEC0 have reviewed the proposed rule and offer the following comment.

CYAPC0 and NNECO agree with and support the proposed rule for the reasons provided in the Federal Register notice.

Evaluation of data collected over the period of a refueling cycle will provide a better assessment of maintenance activities since significantly more data is available after a refueling outage than on an annual basis.

The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) has commented to this effect in their filing, and we support their comment, N

9,p D 5 ; g 6 0 & '

l (1) 58 FR 15303, dated March 22, 1993.

NN CM4N PEV 4-68

'i l a

Regulatory Publications Branch B14473/Page 2 May 6, 1993 The We' appreciate the opportunity to participate in the comment process.

changes proposed in the notice will better serve the nuclear industry with regard to monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance programs.

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY FOR:

J. F. Opeka i

Executive Vice President Nh BY:

E. A. DeBarba Vice President cc:

T. T. Martin, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. W. Andersen, NRC Acting Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. I G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 V. L. Rooney, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Station W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant P. D. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos.1, 2, l

and 3

9'N9 af

. 09,

/O 74 9

,h s,,

4 v

IMAGE EVALUATION

,9 4,,

O I/ ( C }' ({ff

\\////

h,

' ')F TEST TARGET (MT-3) s g

ggf#

////

+

l.O

?

.T lll!I 2 2 LMO

,,s llllL2A l,l ll 1.8 l mme

!I ma=

l.25 1.4 ll I.6

!, = =

mee=a 4_...._.--

150mm 4__._.___..____..

6"

% ~ 4)S e "$ Ao AO

,, y

~

gt A, #a, w 4:

,r y

v s

r g

4 b

.;Pp '

//

go

, 43 D

m 4+9&

l

% A 'A x\\\\\\o e.

((g /

6 N

,4 #,

O t 0% #

IMAGE EVALUATION 4

\\////7 %[

tgkl TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4

~j Q7)+g/)

y i

s 1.0 l? 2 m a m p-tm l,l f_

4 1.8 l===

j l.25 1.4 1.6 i

,j

~

4-150mm 1

4 6"

p

% y //

4+ 4

.3c., g

.n

1. @,@y 3/e)/

f @g ~

$q+

p&s*c

,(,

o gy &.s

's f\\

~~~~~ ~ ~

e p.

e f

p'f.y g kt D

0) i.

hh

$$ p

[f, j

40

%Jk aauud;

$ @I/r 4

$*Q l

40 g+"e s

/'/

p gj 9, d, IMAGE EVALUATION O

//// 1 9'gh'

/

6 *!e g,

TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 j%

f

ffllp, k?

4c q# $

/% %

l.0 Em M m m p" t tu l.1 [* N 1.8 i

4 f

l.25 1.4 I.6

==

4 150mm I

4 6"

?

l g# *(}/f 4* b4NN 4

x sp&;%s%

g,%apj>,%'/,7 fg%

0' y

\\[.

4.

q e

• I-~

u

.Mb

-- --- - - s

.&~

e 9, Qit (O

es, f+g(g #

t 9*

l MAGE EVALUATION

\\j/o/

/

$ff TEST TARGET (MT-3) j

/

1. @ 4 4

///,

x'>*gy 4 'e, {4 s

w c

I.0

&M M

>= m p=

ti m b B2 ll0l23 1.1 e

l.8 1

1.25 IA i.6 4

150mm 4

6" 44 4h.y%,,,if// l')4S s;;;l#

//

7-o y

/

IL 4

a

.his%

.., aadd#

.s

gw r

'a b

g 758118/5303)

Y BOSTON EDISON 25 Brainttee Nil Park Braintree, Massachusetts 02184

'93 NY 14 P3 :00

/ta 1

.o W. C. Rothert

"^

3 General Manager Tceenical

~

l 4

May 6, 1993 BECo Ltr. 93460 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatrry Commission Washington, D.C.

-2055o Attn:

Docketing and Service 3 ranch Docket No. 50-293 License No. OPR-35 H

Subject:

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE TO 10CFR50.65. " MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" (58 FR 15303)

Dear Mr. Chilk,

Boston' Edison Company submits the following comments on the subject proposed rule

- change.

The proposal seeks to amend the frequency for conducting maintenance

' activity evaluations from once overy year to at least once every refueling cycle,

but not to exceed 24 months.

We support the concept of' extending the maintenance. activity evaluation frequency and agree with_ the reasons for the change as presented in the subject Federal Register Discussion Section represented in quotations as follows:

" Eval.uation of data collected over the period of a rr. fueling cycle will provide -

a substantially better basis for detecting problems in degraded performance of-structures, systems and components (SSC's) and weakness in maintenance practices.

Evaluations conducted on a refueling cycle basis would also consider and integrate data available only during refueling outages with the data available during operations; under the existing requirements this may not occur depend;ng on whether the annual assessment coincides with the refueling outage.

Furthermore, evaluations of data accumulated over the period of a refuel ig cycle, as opposed to the shorter annual period required by the rule, will provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends."

We recommend the Commission give consideration to eliminating the proposed 24 month limit between maintenance evaluations. This limit would be restrictive'for plants planning to increase their refueling cycle to 24 months.

s a

k 4

~~

The rationale for selecting the 24 month limit, as discussed in the Federal Register Notice, is based on the current industry refueling outage interval of 15-18 months.

However, the NRC improved Standard Technical Specifications, Revision 0, issued November 25,1992 (57 FR 55602) retains the option for performance of surveillance requirements within 1.25 times the interval specified.

This provides an option for plants with refueling cycles of 24 months to extend surveillance intervals of upwards to 6 months, which in turn, similarly extends their refueling outage interval by the same amount of time.

Ftr plants exercising this option, the advantage of incorporating refueling outage data in the periodic maintenance evaluation, as intended by the rule change, would not be available. Aligning the time limit of periodic maintenance evaluations with the allowances already established in the improved STS would ensure the advantages of collecting and i

integrating refueling outage data, the purpose of the rule change, are preserved for all plants.

We consider the adoption of this recommendation to be reflective of the current Commission initiative to revise or eliminate unnecessarily burdensome regulations and ensure that the regulated community is not subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulation. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change and request that you contact us if there are any questions.

. /

vW /

i.

W. C. Rothert

/

JDK/bal cc:

Mr. Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

475 Allendale Rd.

~

King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. R. 8. Eaton Div. of Reactor Projects I/II Office of NRR - USNRC One White Flint North - Mail Stop 14D1 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Sr. NRC Resident Inspector - Pilgrim Station i

i l

i

,-,.,e,------

r

,m,m en

em 7 jggq l} CO -

9 9

-'E PHILADELPIIIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (58FR /S3D3) j 7 NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.

WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 93 EY 17 A10:47 i

015) MO-6000 l

, May 6,1993 y

eu v.

1, m ne.

STATION SUPPORT DEPARTMENT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Philadelphia Electric Company Comments Concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50,

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

Gentlemen:

This letter is being submitted in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) request for comments regarding the Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50, " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" published in the Federal Register (58 FR 15303, dated March 22,1993).

Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule which would change the time interval for conducting evaluations of 3

performance and condition monitoring activities and preventive maintenance activities from once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not exceeding 24 months.

PECo fully endorses this proposed rule. We support this proposed rulemaking based on the reasons given by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) Steering Group that are included in the Federal Register notice.

We recommend promulgating this as a final rule.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

i Very truly yours, M

,td Georg A. Hunger, r., Director Ucensing Section E

v

'7 W g o /l

All10N - Murley.- NRR i

Cys:

Taylor Beckjor

1. o neyq'o,,

L#dlTED STATES SnieZek Mat NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Blaha o

{

I W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20556 Knubel IN RESPONSE, PLEASE j

%,,,,,c February 17, 1993 REFER TO:

M930129A OFFCE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:

James M. Taylor Executive Director for O rations FROM:

Samuel J.

Chilk, Secret r

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRIM.NG ON IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE FOR THE MAINTENAN E RULE AND INDUSTRY VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION EFFORT, 10:00 A.M., FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1993, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

The Commission was briefed by the NUMARC and the NRC staff on the implementing guidance for the maintenance rule and the industry verification and validation effort.

NUMARC was represented by:

Corbin McNeill, President and Chief Operating Officer Philadelphia Electric Company Tom Tipton, Vice President, NUMARC The Commission requested further information from NUMARC concerning the participants in their workshop on implementing the maintenance guidance.

The Commission requested that the maintenance inspection guidance for the maintenance rule be published for public comment and be the subject of a public workshop.

(EDO) (NRR)

(SECY Suspense:

6/1/94) 9300026 Consistent with the authority delegated to the EDO by the Commission for rulemaking of a minor nature, the staff should:

publish a proposed rule modifying the periodicity of the evaluations -- of monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities' -- required of licensees under paragraph (a)(3) of the Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.65) from annually to once per refueling interval (not to exceed 2 years);

b g y pt O/

.a

?

. obtain and address public comments on the proposed rule; and, provided significant concerns are not identified through the comment process, implement the final rule change.

F(EBO)

(SECY Suspense:

publication of proposed NRR) r".ve change in Federal 9300027 Register for 45-day comment period - 3/15/93)

(SECY Suspense:

Incorporate public comments and publish final rule - 6/1/93) cc:

The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick f

Commissioner de Plangue OGC O1G Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)

OP, SDBU/CR, ASLBP (via FAX)

PDR - Advance DCS - P1-24 Y

f e

+