ML20235T186

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, Extension of NRC Authority to BOP Portion of Plant & Misapplication of Adequate Protection Std of Backfit Rule

ML20235T186
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek, 05000000
Issue date:	02/24/1989
From:	Preston B Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR47822, RULE-PR-50 53FR47822-00036, 53FR47822-36, NLR-N89035, NUDOCS 8903080185
Download: ML20235T186 (8)

Text

y - - - . -_ __

.m  :

J.

DOCKETMUMBER

-r:0 POSED RULE, gpW4- q Ag  : 3(3 hO x ' (6%[f V]8$&

PCC KETED Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey O'80T8C Nuclear Department

.g

., r r ,

00 6,' . I February 24, 1989

• NLR-N89035 Mr. S. J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MAINTENANCE RULE SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS DOCKET NOS.'50-272, 50-311, AND 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company comments on the subject proposed rule are attached for your consideration.

We have also reviewed the NUMARC comments'sent to the NRC and we fully endorse the NUMARC position.

Additionally, we have reviewed and are'in agreement with the dissenting view point expressed by Commissioner Roberts. We believe that the points raised by Commissioner Roberts related to:

1) The extension of NRC authority to the BOP portion of the plant.

2) The promulgation of the formal rule making without regulatory guidance on implementation requirements.

3) The possible misapplication of the adequate protection standard of the backfit rule.

should be addyessed, in detail, as part of any final rule making package.

Sincerely, 8903080185 890224  ?

^[M 53N47822 PDR Man ge Licensing and Regulation Attachment The Er.ergy Peccie As/0

(

95-2!EB <50% !2 85

_y _.

I o5

.]

I Mr. Samuel J. Chilk- 2/24/89 C Mr. J. C. Stone Licensing' Project Manager - Salem Ms. K.'Halvey Gibson Senior Resident Inspector - Salem j

Mr. C. Y. Shiraki Licensing' Project Manager - Hope Creek Mr. G. W. Meyer Senior Resident Inspector - Hope Creek Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator

' Region I Ms. J. Moon, Interim Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental-Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 U.S. NRC Document Control Desk

)

l

y e

ATTACHMENT Paragraph Comments AH -The NRC fails to quantify.the number of plants whose maintenance programs are deficient but instead chooses to use generalizations and-qualitative judgements in assigning risk contribution. To support the demonstration required to invoke the " adequate protection" exemption of 10 CFR 50.109 a more quantitative.

analysis should be undertaken. . The question that comes to mind is simply, Is the industry as a whole being punished for problems at a relatively small number:of plants.

AI As stated'in' Commissioner Roberts dissenting opinion, the authority of the NRC:to regulate balance of plant equipment which is irrelevant to the protection of the public health and safety, is questionable. .-The NRC should confine.its rulemaking to those systems where inadequate maintenance poses an undue risk to the public.

Performance improvements.beyond this-barrier relate more to plant availability. Extending the rulemaking process into this area exposes the NRC to potential conflict of interest criticism. ,

1 AJ It is our position that useful generic maintenance 1 performance indicators (MPI) have not been identified as yet. Generic MPI(s) is necessary to assure that future comparisons of plant versus=

industry performance can be accomplished-from a common baseline. Additionally, care must be taken to develop appropriate indicators while minimizing the necessary record keeping requirements to support them. .

AM Formal rulemaking with its implicit enforcement sanctions does not constitute " encouragement",

coercion is perhaps a more appropriate word. )

AN If this is an NRC conclusion, then why the mandate to provide an industry standard by September 1989?

In our opinion, this schedule does not reflect an informed decision based on the present status of 1

l

I i

y industry initiatives. Performance based maintenance programs are only starting.to get off the ground. To try and force fit an existing trial program to all plants could be a complete disaster.

AO WeLagree that rulemaking should be-directed-towards specifying the_NRC's expectations, however; given the absence of even a draft-regulatory guide, we fail to:see'how this; goal is, satisfied. The'very generalized guidance provided' g' in the following sections does not provide

' sufficient information on which to develop a satisfactory standard. In this respect, we' fully...

agree with Commissioner _ Roberts comments relative to delaying the issuance of a proposed. rule until-such time _as the NRC develops the necessary draft regulatory guide.

~AP~ We~believe that the best thing the NRC could do at this point is to begin an open dialogue-with the industry, similar to that'which resulted in.the succe'ssful resolution of the Station Blackout issue. Our experience tells us that type of process best serves all parties involved'without placing an undue burden on licensees or placing.

the public at risk.

AT It is our_ position that the: schedules mandated by the commission'for the preparation of an industry standard and subsequent. industry implementation are unrealistic. If forced to adhere to the schedules identified,.it will be impossible to take full advantage of lessons learned from initiatives presently under evaluation. The end result would likely be a product that is not sufficiently specific to address NRC expectations and which, if implemented by industry, would necessitate substantial revisions at a later date to reflect lessons learned when'present initiatives are complete.

AV See our comments on AI.

AU to BB The attributes identified are to general in nature to provide a clear insight into NRC expectations.

Again, we recommend that the NRC withdraw the 2 .

1 proposed. rule-until such time as a draft regulatory guide is available.

BQ See our comments on'AM. -

BS It is appropriate to'have third party certification of maintenance programs, similar tog that. presently provided for licensee training'.

programs.- Although INPO would' appear to be-the-obvious choice, the NRC and industry should solicit code / standards groups for interest and/or participation.

, BU' It is~ appropriate that the industry develop a Maintenance Standard, and a commitment.to do so-should be made. However, a strong caveat.should be placed on that commitment relative to the schedule for development.

BY The Standard.should. identify key requirements but be general enough to allow flexibility in how to meet these key requirements.- There is no'one right way to accomplish a maintenance program. 'z, upgrade. To force fit a proscriptive approach could well result in disaster. What works well at one utility might well fail at another.

BW No, see our previous comments on AT.

BX As'previously stated, we support third party audit and certification of maintenance programs.

BY As we have stated previously, the industry can and should develop a standard, however, the present schedule is unrealistic. Given the tone of this paragraph, NUMARC must take a hard line relative to the schedule.

BZ Statements in this paragraph are contradictory.

Implicit in the invocation of the " adequate protection" standard for exemption from the provisions of a full backfit analysis, is the conclusion that a significant threat is presented to the public health and safety. Further, the NRC claims that the proposed rule only " codifies and standardizes" present regulation.

CA The rule should be limited to those systems / components that can lead to safety system 3

• r L

b^

r challenges through transients and scrams. Also see our comments on AI.

CB Recent. revisions to the NRC enforcement policy-provide. specific' sanctions which NRC may apply-directly to licensee personnel. To the extent that individual accountability is lui issue, a reference to those provisions of 10:CFR 2 relating to individual enforcement actions should be sufficient. It is' inappropriate for the NRC to insert itself into licensee disciplinary programs; which are conducted under collective bargaining agreements..

CC At a minimum, the-NRC should hold workshopsion this topic as it is critically important to the ongoing resolution of this issue.

CD Same comment as CC. Also see our comments on A7..

CE The sharing of component failure data throughout the industry is essential to an effective performance based. maintenance program. .However, the role of regulation relative to such a program-must beLcarefullyLapproached. It would be counterproductive to place detailed regulatory requirements and the implicit record keeping associated with those requirements'on a program like NPRDS. This is an additional area where a workshop might be of substantial value.

~

CF to CK We support the views.of Commissioner Roberts. To conduct a responsible rulemaking proceeding, the NRC must consider the questions posed by Commissioner Roberts. If the NRC truly wishes to encourage industry to improve maintenance performance, then a less adversarial approach should be taken.

n 4 i

(

y --

. j I

l General comments on the Impact and Regulatory Analysis provided by the NRC.

In preparing the Impact-and Regulatory Analysis, the NRC references NUREG 1212 as its basis for their conclusions relative to the present state of {

industry maintenance programs. NUREG 1212 '

presents the results of HRC review of data relative to plant maintenance programs for the' period 1980 to 1985. During that period, several )

significant regulatory backfits were imposed on all plants and a substantial number of new plants were licensed. Prominent among the regulatory backfits were those associated with NUREG 0737, NUREG 0588, and 10 CFR 50 Appendix R. Taken  !

together, these regulatory backfits dramatically 1 increased the complexity of. plant operations and the overall scope of plant maintenance programs.

)

Additionally, the NRC revised the LER reporting rule (10 CFR 50.73) in 1984. This revision resulted in a greater number of events being reported to the commission. The discussion of NUREG 1212 makes no reference to the impact of regulatory backfits or the revision to the LER rule. Such consideration is appropriate whenever qualitative judgements are being made, particularly when those judgements are used as inputs to statistical analysis of data.

The NRC also references Draft NUREG 1150 in its calculations for expected reduction in exposure to the public. NUREG 1150 addresses severe accident consequences based on PRA results for 4 nuclear i facilities. It is unclear at this time whether the use of a draft document and the severe accident risk results is appropriate to this cost i benefit analysis. Additionally, it is not clear I whether plant specific component failure rate data was used in the performance of the PRAs referenced in NUREG 1150. If plant specific data was used, (

then a determination should be made as to whether l any of the referenced plants falls into the NRCs category of poor maintenance program plants. If both of the previous conditions are true, then the "2 to 5 times the risk" assumption used by NRC in the public risk calculation might be invalid.

5 4

- _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - _ ._ _- - __A

In the regulatory analysis, the NRC. identifies that NRC costs are those resulting from development of a regulatory guide and subsequent assistance to industry on the implementation of the guide requirements. They further state that-NRC I&E would audit licensee programs and that licensee submittals to NRR would not be required.

They do not however say whether the I&E costs for the plant audits is' included in their estimate.

i 6

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - -