ML20198J403

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirement for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPPs

ML20198J403
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	12/11/1998
From:	James M. Levine ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-63FR52201, RULE-PR-50 102-04221-JML-S, 102-4221-JML-S, 63FR52201-00025, 63FR52201-25, NUDOCS 9812300172
Download: ML20198J403 (9)

Text

-

, o?5 00 ~, LJ u James M. Lev,ne TEL 502)393-5300 /31 Stat on 7602 Pa;o Verde Nuclear Semor Vice Prescent FAX >60'J P O Gen 52034 Generatrng Stat;on 'auc;ey g { 22 $:?3f27 i UJ Nemx. AZ e5072 2024 102-04221-JML/SAB/MLG December 11,1998 Secretary of the Commission A.,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 00CKEF NOW8E8 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudication's Staff PROPOSED R H N 50

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Units 1,2 and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 Comments on NRC Proposed Changes to 10 CFR 50.65, Requirements For Monitoring The Effectiveness Of Maintenance At Nuclear Power Plants.

In the September 30,1998 Federal Register (63 FR 52201-52206), the NRC solicited comments on the proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants. APS has reviewed the proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.65 and is providing the attached comments for consideration.

APS also endorses the NEl comments on this subject. Specifically, APS supports the position that the rulemaking should be withdrawn and renoticed with a corresponding change to risk-inform the scope of the maintenance rule as described in 10 CFR 50.65(b). APS is also in agreement with the NEl position that the rulemaking should not proceed until the industry and the NRC reach an understanding of the undefined, subjective terminology used in the proposed rule, and make appropriate revisions to the rule language to codify this understanding.

APS would also recommend that Regulatory Guide 1.160 Revision 3 be issued prior to the completion of rulemaking. The regulatory guide is referenced in the proposed rule but is not available for review.

Additional comments are provided in the enclosure to this letter.

No commitments are being made to the NRC by this letter.

9812300172 981211 )

PDR PR ,

50 63FRS2201 PDR l

l j@  :

3 Secretary of the Commission '

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Comments on NRC Proposed Changes to 10 CFR 50.65, Requirements For Monitoring i The Effectiveness Of Maintenance At Nuclear Power Plants.

l Page 2 l  :

t

- Please contact Mr. Scott Bauer at (602) 393-5978 if you have any questions or would like additional information regarding this matter.  ;

4 Sincerely, l ,  ;

Q jU ,~ ,/

1 1 -

/

h .

j l j JML/SAB/MLG/rlh i

! Attachment cc: E. W. Merschoff M. B. Fields J. H. Moorman W- g -.-.__m._,...s .... . . . - . , . ,. . .,, , ,.y- .-- -- , , y - - , -. -, -

--r-

l l

I l

ENCLOSURE i

i  !

l Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking i 10 CFR 50.65 i

i i

4 j

4 E

$ 0 Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.65 CHANGE 1.

Add an introductory paragraph to 10 CFR 50.65 clarifying that the proposed rule applies

under all conditions of operation, including normal shutdown.

Prior to paragraph (a)(1), add the following wording: "The requirements of this section are applicable during all conditions of plant operation, including normal  ;

shutdown operations." The intent of this paragraph is to ensure that safety assessments are performed before maintenance activities when the plants are shut

down as well as when the plants are at power. The shutdown condition may be defined in a plant's technical specifications, but the intent of this paragraph is that shutdown is i generally considered as a time when all control rods are inserted and the average reactor coolant temperature is below 200 deg. F.

l APS COMMENT .

1. Although this does not conflict significantly with Palo Verde's definition of " Cold 1 Shutdown," it adds a potential regulatory expectation that will be left open to j interpretation. The proposed wording applies to Mode 5 (Cold Shutdown), as j well as Mode 6 (Refueling). The " general" statement made in the SECY 98-165 l

letter is not consistent with the real scope of concern. The proposed change should better define what " normal shutdown operations" includes. There may be significant potential for finding utilities in violation of 10 CFR 50.65 while i remaining in full compliance with Technical Specifications if this language is i adopted in 10 CFR 50.65, NUMARC 93-01 or Regulatory Guide 1.160.

J a

I i

1

Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.65 CHANGE 2.

Delete the last sentence of paragraph (a)(3) and create a new paragraph, (a)(4), that requires the performance of safety assessments.

The proposed rule would remove the last sentence of paragraph (a)(3) and would add a l new paragraph, (a)(4), as follows in its entirety: "Before performing maintenance I activities on structures, systems, or components within the scope of this section I (including, but not limited to, surveillance testing, pcst-maintenance testing, corrective maintenance, performance / condition monitoring, and preventive maintenance), an assessment of the current plant configuration as well as expected changes to plant configuration that will result from the proposed maintenance activities shall be conducted to determine the overall effect on performance of safety functions. The results of this assessment shall be used to ensure that the plant is not placed in risk-significant configurations or configurations that would degrade the performance of safety functions to an j unacceptable level." Deleting the current last sentence in paragraph (a)(3) will  !

remove the recommendation for performing safety assessments from the paragraph that contains the periodic, programmatic, long-term review considerations of the rule.

Creating a new paragraph, (a)(4), specifically for the safety assessment requirements would cause the assessment concept to stand as a separate entity within the maintenance rule.

APS COMMENTS

1. The proposed change addresses the concern that facilities were only looking at monitoring and preventive maintenance activities within the scope of 10 CFR 50.65 as being subject to the safety assessments. The term " maintenance activities" differs among utilities. APS currently refers to maintenance activities as work orders and specific maintenance jobs. In this case, the scope of the NRC use of maintenance activities correlates more closely to what Palo Verde would describe as work types (Corrective Work Orders, Surveillance Test Work Orders, Preventive Maintenance Work Orders, Deficiency Work Orders, etc.).

APS reviews all maintenance activities (i.e., work types) on System, Structures, and Components (SSCs) scoped within 10 CFR 50.65 for effects on plant operations. This is an important concept to understand if we are to consistently and correctly understand and interpret the scope of the proposed changes.

f

^

2

Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.65

2. SECY 98-165 makes the following Statements:

A. The Commission believes it is necessary to explicitly require licensees to perform safety assessments prior to removing equipment from service for maintenance during all conditions of plant operations including normal shutdown.

APS Comment:

The reference to removing equipment from service is very general in nature and deviates from the normal language found in 10 CFR 50.65.

Replacing the term " equipment" with "SSCs within the scope of the rule" in this phrase would change the complexion of the entire statement and more clearly states the NRC's intent.

B. The Commission desires to clarify that the rule does apply during shutdown conditions. Regarding which activities would be preceded by a safety assessment, the Commission has recognized that, although definitions regarding maintenance activities are fairly consistent from organization to organization, there is some variation in the definition of corrective maintenance.

APS Comment:

The Palo Verde definition of activities differs significantly from the NRC's l as noted in comment #1 above. l l

3. The proposed change does not address situations where failure to perform l

i maintenance would have a greater impact on risk or safety functions than performing the risk significant maintenance activities.

3

._ . .]

=

l l Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.65 i

CHANGE 3.

Define in paragraph (a)(4) the scope of the requirement for performing those assessments to be all conditions of operation including normal shutdown. The  ;

proposed rule would add the following in paragraph (a)(4) to define the scope of pre-maintenance safety assessments: "Before performing maintenance activities on structures, systems, or components within the scope of this section (including,  ;

but not limited to, surveillance testing, post-maintenance testing, corrective maintenance, performance / condition monitoring, and preventive maintenance),

an assoasment * *

• shall be conducted * * * ." The NRC's intent is that licensees pedorm safety assessments before all planned maintenance activities that require ,

removing from service equipment that is within the scope of the maintenance rule, as defined in 10 CFR 50.65(b) and (a)(1). The safety assessments required in this paragraph need not be sophisticated probabilistic risk assessment analyses in all '

cases. Licensees would have the flexibility to use probabilistic and/or deterministic methods, as appropriate, when performing the safety assessments required by paragraph (a)(4).

1 APS COMMENTS

1. The 10 CFR 50.65 proposed change does not address the quality of safety assessment tools required for the two types of safety assessments (i.e., at-power and shutdown conditions). The quality and sophistication of the safety assessment tools are important to assure appropriate analyses of plant configurations for risk management purposes.

2. The proposed change should consider providing guidance on documenting the limitations of assessment tools, and when operator judgment can be relied upon for safety assessment.

3. The proposed change does not specify if documentation of the assessment is required. If specific documentation is required to be maintained it should be discussed in the rule.

4. The proposed change does not define what constitutes an acceptable assessment. .;

l i

4 ,

l 1

l

!. j l

I Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.65 CHANGE 4.

Specify in paragraph (a)(4) that the safety assessments are to examine the extant plant condition and the condition expected during the planned maintenance activity. The proposed rule would include the following wording in paragraph (a)(4): "... an assessment of the current plant configuration as well as expected changes to the plant configuration that will result from the proposed maintenance activities . . .". The NRC's intent is that a reasonable safety assessment be performed The assessment may range from simple and streightforward to complex. However, notwithstanding the degree of sopnistication required for the assessment, the NRC intends that the assessment will examine the plant condition existing prior to the commencement of the maintenance activity and examine the changes expected by the proposed maintenance activity.

APS COMMENTS

1. The proposed rule does not provide for emergent work that, if not completed immediately, would place the plant at greater risk.

2. An assessment of the plant configuration may need to be updated in the event emergent work results in a configuration different from the one assessed. In such cases, the revision to the assessment must be weighted against the ur0ency of the emergent work. The proposed rule does not address expectations for revising the assessment. Such expectations would most appropriately belong in Regulatory Guide 1.160 or NUMARC 93-01.

3. The plant configuration should be defined as Maintenance Rule SSCs in the scope of 10 CFR 50.65.

5

Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR 50.65 CHANGE 5.

Specify in paragraph (a)(4) that the objective of performing the safety assessments is to ensure that the plant is not placed in risk-significant configurations or configurations that would degrade the performance of safety functions to an unacceptable level. The proposed rule would add in paragraph (a)(4) the wording to specify the NRC's expectations regarding the use of each safety assessment, as follows: "The results of this assessment shall be used to ensure that the plant is not placed in risk-significant configurations or configurations that would degrade the performance of safety functions to an unacceptable level." The NRC's intent is to require that each licensee perform a safety assessment before undertaking each planned maintenance activity and be aware of the risk issues associated with that maintenance activity. The guidance to be developed for licensees and promulgated in Regulaton/ Guide 1.160, Revision 3 (proposed), is expected to assist the industry in implementing this provision of the proposed rule, providing guidance regarding risk-significant configurations and unacceptable levels of safety function degradation.

APS COMMENTS

1. The 10 CFR 50.65 revision has undefined terms, such as " risk-significant configurations" and " unacceptable level" of degradation. The rulemaking should not proceed untilindustry and the NRC reach an understanding of these terms.

2. The proposed Regulatory Guide 1.160 Revision 3 has not been issued for comments. It needs to be available for comments in parallel with the proposed rule change. The Regulatory Guide should endorse NUMARC 93-01.

3. " Performance of t,afety functions" needs to be defined. The degradation of performance should be evaluated by its impact on Core Damage Frequency and Large Early Release Frequency.

6 I

.