ML23151A480

PR-050 - 58FR15303 - Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants

ML23151A480
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/22/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-050, 58FR15303
Download: ML23151A480 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 03/22/1993 PR-050 - 58FR15303 - MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PR-050 58FR15303 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:

PR-050 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:

MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

58FR15303 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

03/22/93 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 05/06/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

EXTENSION DATE:

I I

18 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 58FR33993 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 06/23/93 NOTES ON PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES SIGNED BY THE EDO.

FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

JJ.i.:ATUS

.. RULB TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-050 RULE TITLE:

MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:

SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

03/15/93 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER:

SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

06/09/93 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: JOSEPH J. MATE CONTACT2:

MAIL STOP: NLS-129 PHONE: 492-3795 MAIL STOP:

PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-050 (58FR15303)

DATE DOCKETED 03/29/93 04/26/93 05/03/93 05/03/93 05/03/93 05/03/93 05/03/93 05/05/93 05/05/93 05/06/93 05/07/93 05/07/93 05/10/93 05/11/93 05/11/93 DATE OF DOCUMENT 03/15/93 04/23/93 04/27/93 04/27/93 04/29/93 04/30/93 05/03/93 04/30/93 05/05/93 05/05/93 05/04/93 05/04/93 05/06/93 05/06/93 05/04/93 In the Matter of MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE COMMENT OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (N. J. LIPARULO) (

1)

COMMENT OF ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION (ROBERT C. MECREDY, V. P.) (

2)

COMMENT OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (MARK 0. MEDFORD, V. P.) (

3)

COMMENT OF SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY (J. D. WOODARD) (

4)

COMMENT OF WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION (BART D. WITHERS, PRESIDENT) (

5)

COMMENT OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (J. T. BECKHAM, JR.) (

6)

COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (M. L. BOWLING) (

7)

COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (THOMAS E. TIPTON) (

8)

COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (D. W. EDWARDS) (

9)

COMMENT OF MARVIN I. LEWIS (

10)

COMMENT OF CONSUMERS POWER (DAVID P. HOFFMAN, V. P.) (

11)

COMMENT OF TU ELECTRIC (J. S. MARSHALL) (

12)

COMMENT OF FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (R. E. GRAZIO) (

13)

COMMENT OF ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY (R. F. PHARES) (

14)

DOCKET NO. PR-050 (58FR15303)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 05/12/93 05/06/93 COMMENT OF NORTHEAST UTILITIES (E.A. DEBARBA, VICE PRESIDENT) (

15) 05/14/93 05/06/93 COMMENT OF BOSTON EDISON (W.C. ROTHERT, GENERAL MANAGER) (

16) 05/17 /93 05/06/93 COMMENT OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (GEORGE A. HUNGER, JR., DIRECTOR) (

17) 06/21/93 06/09/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

DOCKET NUMBER p PFt0P0SED RULE..!.!!~-----

(5of ~ 15303) oocKEiEO USNi1,C

• ci

.1\\1 21

°1 '5

~ 7 NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150 - AE55

[7590-01-P]

Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants

~,;* -

j AGENCY

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission {NRC) is amending its regulations for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance programs at commercial nuclear power plants. The current regulations require that nuclear power plant licensees evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities at least annually.

This amendment changes the time interval for conducting evaluations from a mandatory once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

July 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of comments received on the proposed rule may be inspected and copied for a fee at the Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street, NW.

{Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the environmental assessment are available from Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone:

(301) 292-3795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Col11llission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3795.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31324) the NRC published the final rule 11 Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (§ 50.65).

The final rule, which will become effective July 10, 1996, requires commercial nuclear power plant licensees to monitor the

\\

effectiveness of maintenance activities for-safety-significant plant equipment in order to minimize the likelihood of failures and events caused by the lack of effective maintenance. Section 50.65 (a)(3} requires nuclear power plant licensees to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their maintenance activities on an annual basis.

An industry consensus guidance document and a regulatory guide to provide an acceptable methodology for implementing the final rule are expected to be published by June 30, 1993.

2

Discussion Since the Maintenance Rule was published in July 1991, two events have occurred that led the Commission to reconsider the annual evaluation requirements in § 50.65(a)(3).

First, in the Summer of 1991, the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) Steering Group was formed to develop an industry guide for implementing the Maintenance Rule~- While developing the guide, the Steering Group suggested to the NRC in a public meeting held on February 26, 1992, that instead of annual assessment req~irements, the NRC should consider assessments based on a refueling cycle interval. The NUMARC Steering Group stated that:

(1)

Significantly more data would be available during refueling cycles than is available on an annual basis; (2)

Key data from some surveillance tests can only be obtained during refueling outages and is not available on an annual basis; and (3) Adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after such an evaluation would be typically perfonned after a refueling outage.

The NUMARC Steering Group further added that the evaluation process is a time consuming activity and that with limited data available, the annual evaluation would not provide for meaningful results. With only limited data, changes to maintenance programs will likely not be made because there would not be sufficient information available for spotting trends or doing trend analysis.

Second, the NRC conducted a regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome regulations and published a final rule on 3

August 31, 1992 (57 FR 39353) that amended several regulations identified by its Convnittee to Review Generic Requirements {CRGR).

One of those amended regulations was 10 CFR 50.71 {e) {Final Safety Analysis Report Updates) where the frequency of licensee reporting to the NRC was changed from annually to once per refueling cycle.

The change was made because the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since a majority of design changes and major modifications were performed during

.;~..

refueling outages.

In addition, ft had no adverse impact on the public health and safety and reduced the regulatory burden on the licensees.

The Commission is now chan~ing the required frequency of maintenance activity evaluations from annually to once per refueling outage.

Evaluation of data collected over the period of a refueling 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 depending on whether the annual assessment coincides with the refueling outage.

Furthermore, evaluations of data accumulated over the period of a refueling 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.

The Commission understands that a normal frequency of refueling outage ranges from 15 to 18 months; however, the conditions may vary from plant to plant.

In order to ensure that an indefinite period of time does not occur between maintenance evaluations, the CofTlllission is establishing an upper limit of*24 months between the maintenance evaluations. This would address 4

those licensees that have extended their refueling cycle beyond 24 months for any reason including numerous short outages or extended shutdown periods.

Although the Cormnission believes that it is generally the case that maintenance evaluations will be more effective if conducted in conjunction with refueling outages, licensees would still have the option of conducting them more frequently.

In light of the above discussion, the NRC is changing the requirement

~~

for evaluation of the overall effettiveness of maintenance activities to be performed once per refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.

Summary and Analysis of Public Comments On March 22, 1993 (58 FR 15303), the NRC published a notice of the proposed rulemaking for public comment.

The comment period expired on May 6, 1993.

The NRC received 17 comments on the proposed rule. All of the co11111ents except for one favored the change identified in the proposed rule. The conunents on the proposed rule came primarily from public utilities with comments also received from a public utilities representative and a private citizen. The NRC has identified and grouped all comments into six broad issues.

For each broad issue, the NRC has included a summary of the corrments received and their resolution as follows:

1.

Comment.

One commenter stated that the proposed change in the rule would unfairly require nuclear plants on an annual refueling cycle to perform twice as many evaluations as plants on a 24-month cycle.

The conunenter believes*that the NRC should consider a fixed maximum period of 2 years and 5

give the utilities the latitude to manage the timing of the evaluation within that framework.

Response.

The intent of the proposed modification of the maintenance rule is to allow sufficient flexibility in the scheduling of Maintenance Programs evaluations so that the additional information available from the refueling activities could be factored into the evaluation. The refueling cycle has also been adopted as the basis for FSAR updates. It is recognized that those licensees w1to refuel more frequently will have to conduct these activities more frequently than others. The Conunission believes that this is neither an undue burden nor one that is outside the control of

+

the licensee to impact by reducing the frequency of refueling.

2.

CoDJ)]ent.

Some collll1enters stated that, as a result of the verification and validation program to test the proposed industry guidelines, it was determined that several systems are neither risk-significant nor able to be monitored for perfonnance by currently known plant level performance criteria. Some commenters believe that these systems have no public health or

~

safety significance and that they should be exclud~cft::sfrom the scope of the p

rule and the rule modified accordingly.

Response.

The suggestion to change the scope of the rule to exclude those systems that have no public health or safety significance or that have no current plant level perfonnance criteria is clearly beyond the scope of the rule, and cannot be considered at this time.

However, if, as a result of any further verification and validation programs, changes to the rule or regulatory guidance are warranted, the NRC will consider such changes at that time.

6

3.

Convnent.

One co11111enter stated, *one of the clear lessons learned from the recently completed verification and validation program is that the major expense of the rule's implementation will be the detailed documentation (for NRC audit purposes) of perfonnance monitoring...* ".

Response.

The documentation developed by a licensee in response to 10CFR5O.65 is that level which the licensee detennines necessary to support the program developed by the licensee to monitor perfonnance of a structure, system or component.

The purposi<<if this rule modification is not to address the level of documentation required for NRC audit purposes. It is merely to' provide more flexibility in the timing of Maintenance Program evaluations.

t

4.

Comment.

One commenter stated that nThe NRC is mesmerized by a suggestion ~Y NUMARC (Nuclear Management and Resources Council), to extend the annual assessment of plant maintenance from an annual schedule to a refueling outage schedule.n The co111110nter further stated that the extension does not provide an improvement in safety and may help hide maintenance that was improperly deferred.

Response.

As stated earlier, the NRC decided to make the proposed change in the assessment requirement for the following reasons:

(1) Evaluation of data collected over the period of a refueling cycle will provide a substantially better basis for detecting problems in degraded performance of SSC's and weakness in maintenance practices; (2) 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 depending on whether the annual assessment coincides with the refueling outage; and 7

(3) Evaluation of data accumulated over the period of a refueling 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.

In addition, adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after such a revie~ and evaluation would be typically perfonned after a refueling outage.

Periodic evaluation of maintenance activities is a time consuming process and with limited data available, the annual evaluations not conducted in conjunction with a refueling wourca,**not provide for as meaningful a result.

These conclusions have been reached based on the NRC's independent assessment.

Therefore, the corrmenter incorrectly implies that the NRC simply accepts NUMARC's suggestions without independent review and consideration.

Another reason for changing the annual assessment of plant maintenance concerned a change made by the NRC in August of 1992.

As part of the regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessary burdensome regulations, the NRC revised the frequency of licensee reporting of the Final Safety Analysis Reports from annually to once per refueling cycle. This change was made because the NRC believes that the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since the majority of the design changes and modifications were made during refueling outages. This was not a rationale relied *upon by NUMARC and further contradicts the corrmenter's view that the NRC accepts the suggestions of NUMARC without independent consideration.

In summary the Comnission disagrees with the commenter's view that the extension does not improve safety. The change in requirements will improve the quality of assessments by ensuring that each assessment will include a 8

review of all maintenance activities conducted during the refueling cycle including the refueling outage.

5.

Comment.

One conunenter stated that effective maintenance is an ongotng duty and need and that allowing licensees to put off monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance from annually to 18 to 24 months sends the wrong message that the NRC does not care about safety.

Response.

The NRC agrees that effective maintenance is an ongoing

~*

duty and need.

The NRC does not abree, however, that the rule change allows licensees to put off monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance.

Section 50.65 (a)(l) which is not being changed, requires licensees to monitor

~

the performance ~r conditions of SSC's against licen~ee-established goals, in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these SSC's are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. It also requires appropriate corrective action to be taken when the performance of the SSC does not meet established goals. The only thing that is being changed is the frequency of the periodic evaluation of the maintenance program.

The NRC does care about safety and it does not agree with the conrnenter that changing the evaluation cycle sends the wrong message to the industry. The NRC believes that this additional flexibility will not result in any increase in risk to public health and safety, and in fact, should result in a more effective maintenance and improved plant safety.

6.

Comment.

One of the commenters stated that the amendments' maximum time period of 24 months would be restrictive for those plants planning to increase their refueling cycle to 24 months.

The commenter explained that the Standard Technical Specification, Revision 0, retains the option for performance of surveillance requirements within 1.25 times the interval 9

specified and thus, could extend the refueling outage interval of plants with a 24-month refueling cycle by upwards of 6 months. Accordingly, the refueling cycle for these plants would not meet the maximum time period of 24 months allowed by the amendment. Another corrmenter stated that this rule could be further improved by the elimination of the requirement for a specific time interval.

Response.

The NRC believes that it is necessary to assure that maintenance effectiveness is perl~ically assessed and that this period is not unacceptably long nor indefinite. Thus, a balance was necessary between obtaining the improved reviews \\ssociated with assessments conducted during refueling outages and the extended or indefinite periods associated with plants with.extended plant cycles or experiencing extended plant shutdown or outages.

In weighing this balance, the Convnission established an upper limit of 24 months between maintenance evaluations in order to obtain improved evaluations for the majority of the plants having a frequency of refueling cycle from 15 to 18 months, and yet not allow maintenance effectiveness to continue without being assessed for periods in excess of 2 years. The NRC does not agree that the rule could be improved further by elimination of the requirement of a specific time interval.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has detennined that, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Connission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, is not a major Federal action that 10

significantly affects the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required.

The final amendment does not require any change to nuclear power plant design or require any modifications to a plant.

Nor does the rule change the scope of the maintenance rule or affect the nature of the activities to be performed, e.g., monitoring, corrective action, and assessments of compliance.

The final rule change only extends the time period for performing evaluations of the effectiveness of licensee~*maintenance program from at least once a year to at least once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months.

The extension should not result in ~ny significant or discernible reduction in the effectiveness of a licensee's maintenance program; rather the change will increase the meaningfulness and quality of the maintenance evaluations.

For these reasons, the Convnission finds that the final amendment will not result in any significant increase in either the probability of occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an accident and therefore concludes that there will be no significant effect on the environment as a result of the amendment.

The environmental assessment is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the environmental assessment are available from Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 492-3795.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends the information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

11

These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0011.

Because the rule relaxes existing requirements related to the assessment of maintenance activities, the public burden for this collection of information is expected to be reduced by 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the coli;Eittion of information.

Send co11111ents regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission, Washington, DC, 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has considered the costs and benefits of the final rule. With respect to benefits, the amendment will allow those licensees who choose to exercise the option to perform evaluations of their maintenance program in conjunction with refueling outages but no less frequently than every 24 months.

The Commission believes that this additional flexibility will not result in any increase in risk to the public health and safety, and may result in a more effective maintenance and improved plant safety.

12

Under the rule, the frequency of periodic assessments would change from annually to at least once per refueling cycle but not to exceed 24 months.

Because most refueling outages normally occur in the 15-to 18-month range, the time between periodic assessments assuming a 16-month average would be increased by about 33 percent. Therefore, the licensee staff hours to accomplish a periodic assessment under the proposed rule would be reduced from approximately 460 staff hours to about 310 staff hours per plant.

This would save the licensee appr~imately 150 staff hours per plant. There are no additional changes in costs to be incurred by the NRC.

The foregoing constitutes the regulatory analyfis for this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Nuclear Regulatory Co111Tiission certifies that, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects only the operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of *small entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to-this rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for 13

this final rule because this amendment does involve any provisions which would impose backfits as determined in 10 CFR 50.109.

14

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as ami~ed, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552, 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.

PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1.

The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, ~ec. 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. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 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 issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 15

50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat, 955 (42 U.S.C. 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 50.54 also issued 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 U.S.C. 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 alsB'. issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237).

2.

In§ 50.65, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:

§ 50.65 Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants.

(a)

(3) Performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities shall be evaluated at least every refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.

The evaluations shall be conducted taking into account, where practical, industry-wide operating experience. Adjustments shall be made

.~

where necessary to ensure that the objective of preventative failures of structures, systems, and components th.rough maintenance is appropriately balanced against the objective of minimizing unavailability of structures, systems,* and components due to monitoring or preventative maintenance.

In 16

performing monitoring and preventative maintenance activities, an assessment of the total plant equipment that is out of service should be taken into account to determine the overall effect on performance of safety functions.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this <?-- day of June 1993.

~;--:.....

-l,

-For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

for Operations.

17

955-65 CHESTERBROOK BL VD.

WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 (2 15) 640-6000

• 93 MAY 17 A10 :47

~:f*_,tlf_Ur '->uit-1hl< !y'lay 6, 1993 l!\\JLKL ! !NC.*, : L,, VIU

ik4NC~

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

Subject:

Gentlemen:

Philadelphia Electric Company Comments Concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rule 1 0 CFR 50, "Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" 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 tb comment on this proposed rule which would change the time interval for conducting evaluations of performance and condition monitoring activities and preventive maintenance activities from 9

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.

Very truly yours,

~-,.1t1. d,hW.., thJ.

~ IA. Hu~;;,r~~-Director Licensing Section JUL :i O tj':13 Acknowledged by card............................. -..

,$. NiJCl ::- ;: -. *::::~,:J 1 ** ~.,,..)fW CC'MM:SSIOt-.

DOG,\\:~~ w/~ ?< ~E;~';'.CE SfCTiOi*J Cf;=r:,~ ');,* TH~: *);::*:?1i~T!\\FlY c*;: *r: t: c*::1LI*. ;<]':*iJi~

~

BOSTON EDISON 25 Braintree Hill Park DOCKET NUMBER PB c O PROPOSED RULE...:...:: __

':J --

{_ S ~ F-µ /5 30'!J)

Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 W. C. Rothe rt General Manager Technical Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch

• 93 MAY 14 P 3 :Q 0 u F '* : :..

... *. :_ ~, < ~ t ~ \\ t

~iJi:Y~. It-I'; '

,; I 'I! f May 6, 1993 BECo Ltr.93-060 Docket No. 50-293 License No. DPR-35

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 every 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:

"Evaluation of data collected over the period of a refueling 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 depending on whether the annual assessment coincides with the refueling outage.

Furthermore, evaluations of data accumulated over the period of a refueling

~ycle, 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 Commi ssion 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.

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card............. *-*M--

~~(; s-s::'u/;~~:) ::--1

• J. J{'

),CV1:~*---;~. ::;.-~-~ _!._.., *~ :--.:::)

N0:.l.J:J; :J.1,,','-~::: *;,_.\\;* ! * * *:. :~ 1

'JOISS;vH*~o~, /,t.01. *ti.'~ ~--~~1: * ~ :..-:.): t* *s*r:*

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.

For 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 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.

JDK/ba l cc:

4//~--e~

r W. C. Rothert Mr. Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Rd.

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

c*OCKET NUi rnER p PROPOSED RULE-=--:.:.....;5::;...... __

C£rfR1s30J}

'NORTHEAST UTILfflES General Offices* Selden Street, Berlin, Connecticut

~

;

::c;;,";::r~~:~::*ccoMPANY P.O. BOX 270

[]IJ.]

THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT ANO POWER COMPANY NOOTHEASfUTILITIESSfRVICECOMPANY HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141 -0270 NOOTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY

( 203) 665-5000 Secretary of the Commission Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

May 6, 1993 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)

The purpose of this letter is to provide the NRC with Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company ( CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) comments on a proposed rule regarding "Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants. "111 The 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, CYAPCO and NNECO have reviewed the proposed rule and offer the following comment.

CYAPCO 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.

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

JUL 3 0 1993 0S342l REV. 4-88 Acknowledged by card............................. __

("". ~:.:,:;

\\ Ci' t.; *'u

\\.

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

The changes proposed in the notice wi 11 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 Executive Vice President BY:

c!3e._

~

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. 1 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, and 3

'\\

DOCKET NUMBER R PROPOSED RULE p S0--.._ *

(sr Ff< 1~303)

ILLIN915 NWER Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 10CFR50.65 May 4, 1993 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch U-602132 L30-93(05 - 04 )LP lA.120 Illinois Power Company

_. l t\\ i moton Power Station U::iN {e.o. Box 678 Clinton, IL 61727 Tel 217 935-8881

• 93 MAY l1 Ali :13 8)

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 Maintenance 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 from both operating and refueling periods will provide a better basis for assessing the effectiveness of maintenance activities.

RFP/nls cc:

NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager NRC Resident Office, V-690 Sincerely, i?t4ting Regional Administrator, Region III, USNRC Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety JUL J.

Acknowledged by card............................. _

DOCKET NUMBER PFL.*i OSED RULE PR 5 tJ

(~tr f({,~.30~

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

20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 fW9ffl 3121 P 7 :2 0

,~ttl' r *--

t... "

!J1JCK1 l tN'. *,

i 1 \\ii[:!

!'*r<i\\NL**

Re:

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

58 FR 15303, March 22, 1993, Request 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 from 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.

truly yours, REG/MSD/dmb an FPL Group company Licensing JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card.... --~

William J. Cahill, Jr.

Group Vice President Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE.~~ 5~ --

[ f Y F-f2-lt;3PV 1UELECTRIC Log File#

Ref. #

TXX -93205 10185 10 CFR 50. 65

• 93 MAY 10 P 3 :26

,-,H-1.*: 'Jr ~r;K t i1"1<'.

t,'oc*Kr [ 'iNC -.,~ "\\((.\\,\\Cf May 6, 1993

~~ANL~

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

In the Federal Register notice the NRC is proposing to amend the 10 CFR 50.65 time interval for 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, TU Electric believes that the rule could be improved further by the elimination of the requirement of a specific time interval.

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 evaluation s, there i s more fle xibility in the allocation of limited resources.

The elimination of a prescriptive time interval i s con si stent with the ongoing "NRC Program for Elimination of Requirement s Marginal to Safety".

JUL :; 0 djJ Acknowledged by card............................. _..

400 N. Olive Street L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201

TXX -93205 Page 2 of 2 TU 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.

CBC/vld Sincerely, William J. Cahill, Jr.

By,~~

J~all Generic Licensing Manager

DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE 573-* --

consumers Power POWERINli MICHlliAN'S PROliRESS (St" f t'c. 15 'JO 3)

General Offices: 1945 West Parnall Road, Jackson, Ml 49201 * (517) 788-0453 Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN:

Docketing and Service Branch David P Hoffman

• 93 MAY ~e:~:Qsis

,jf-i !L :,r ;~\\,II( T!,r< I

,()CKU ING.', - t I\\ Vi!-

!

i; i1 t, NV*

RE:

SUPPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL MAINTENANCE RULE, "REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" By notice in the Federal Register (58 FR 15303) dated March 22, 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a proposed amendment to the Final Maintenance Rule, "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.

~

BIG ROCH POlnT nuclear Plant JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card................ *-**--

A CMS ENERGY COMPANY

.,. ;,~,-

s/~L/.!lJ ___ _

T-1;~\\:.1,... ~. **: -

-- I ----~-

"'r.**. t. *.*.,.,_., '

- - - -=t

'\\l:J,J,

'. _ _ *_,,.,.-*;_ '*:,:.,J _J ____ -:-_.,.,.

Mo*i_v~.,. "

1

~.: -* -~/]T kJS, fJ/)[Z

!"I,*

'~,., *

....,,_Jg,_rG"-'-~~::..~"7-- - - 1.S-j J.

Spe"*'I t !B:. **..... t

• _b_~t..e..,~ -----==--

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."

David P Hof~--

Vice President Nuclear Operations

DO,\\{(:~ MU~J;~ER PR 5Yf-- -

PRO?

ED Ru E (srP-R 15303) r1ucl'\\L; rn USNHC

'93 MAY -7 P4 :03 Mc:,1*r*viri I. LE*~*Jis, 7801 Roosevelt Boulevard f3u i te 62 The Honorable Ivan Selin USNRC Washington, D. C. 20555 Dear Chairman Selin; Phila., PA 19152

( 21 ;.:i) 6f~lf*-157<'+

,jf'.!U (:r :.::.C1{1: TI\\K'f QljCl,L:,r,p; *,. \\ i-i, / !Cf:

' h l N(,i i a

Pl(0a<c:;e accept thesF: c:c,mments c,r, the Pr*opc*SE*d Rule for*

W nitoring the effectiveness of nuclear power plant maintenance(10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AE55.)

The NRC is mesmerized by a suggestion by NUMARC to extend the annual assessment of plant maintenance from an annual schedule to a refueling schedule. This extension would not provide any improvement in safety and help to hide maintenance which was improperly 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 Mosbaugh gave up his lifelong career to bring to light the deficiencies in maintenance at Vogtle.( See enclosed page from Gainsayer, POB 9574, Atlanta GE 30306, dated Spring 92.)

Maintenance problems led to the accident at TMI2 well before the advent of any refuelinq outaqe.

A

• -,y r*ecE?nt \\t :i.o 1 at ion!:~

i. nvo J ve dt:-?-f.i c :i.enc :i.E,s vii :i. c:h,,,ier*e ~,nqo i n;~J

~

- months and even years.

Effectiveness 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 message 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 the effectiveness of maintenance.

I wish that I could say, Rer tfully submitted, I

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card............................. _N

Newsletter for GANE -

Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Spring/Summer 1992 Truth on Trial in Georgia F

or a week i~ March 1992, the N~tional How close are vou fo Labor Relatmns Board heard testnnony I *

~'----""~,+1-....1_

between Allen Mosbaugh and Georgia Nuclear Plant Vogtle?

--+~_L'J"!l!'!:>'4-_:;~~~,

Power Company.

A Allen Mosbaugh, formerly third-high-W est manager of Plant Vogtle was fired by Georgia Power in October 1990 after blow-ing the whistle on safety concerns at the nuclear plant At issue with the Labor Department is whether Mr. Mosbaugh was fired legally or not For almost a year Mr. Mosbaugh worked within "the system" at Vogtle from his position of command to address and correct unsafe procedures at the nuclear plant. As his efforts were thwarted and ran into dead-ends, it began to look to him as if the safety violations were deliberate and ordered from a level above him. He began using con-cealed tape recorders to gather evidence.

During the period that he was taping, Geor-A.gia Power's cavalier attitude towards safety actually put the plant within five hours of a meltdown.

Mr. Mosbaugh testified that before he began the secretive taping, he checked ex-tensively for state or federal laws or any company policy which would prohibit such activity. Finding none, his concern for the public health and safety led him to gather evidence that the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission would find convincing enough to intervene-since Mosbaugh' s power as a manager it was obvious to him was not enough to change Georgia Power's course at Vogtle.

Georgia Power for its part produced no evidence that the taping, the reason they give for terminating Mosbaugh, is against any law. The whole thrust of their argument is that secretive taping is against the rules of polite society and an invasion of Mosbaugh's co-workers' privacy.

Georgia Power has never heard some of the 276 tapes which Mos-baugh ended up giving to the NRC.

The NRC has been conducting exten-sive investigations at Vogtle since September 1990 and has already cited and fined Georgia Power for numer-ous violations.

So -

while Mr. Mosbaugh has sacrificed his job.311d possibly his career in an effort to protect the pub-lic from Georgia.Power's careless attitude towards safety, and.Georgia Power argues endlessly that his con-cerns have no basis and he was rude to tape his colleagues -

the NRC continues its investigation of Plant Vogtle.

MOSBAUGH TESTIFIES Mr. Mosbaugh did not put his job on the line lightly. Although the Labor Depart-ment will not rule on the validity of his concerns (that is for the NRC to deal with) the technical safety issues figured heavily into Mr. Mosbaugh's testimony.

From October 1989 until May 1990 Allen Mosbaugh reported directly to the plant's general manager, George Rockhold.

It is during this time that Mr. Mosbaugh began to see risk-taking beh~1vior in the company's policy decisions.

Mosbaugh expressed particular con-cern for strict observance of"reportability" requirements, a variety of requirements specified by the NRC in the Code of Fed-eral Regulations for reporting events re-lated to plant safety. Requirements set up by the NRC were being violated because Burke County Chamber ol Commerce decisions were made to "stay on schedule" as opposed to safety. The reportability re-ports are analyzed in Washington. "If a plant is making lots and lots of these reports that plant may be viewed as a problem. If it is not making any of these reports, it might more be considered to be a better, well run plant," Mosbaugh observed.

Mosbaugh served as assistant plant support manager for Vogtle. He also served as vice-chairman on V ogtle' s Plant Review Board (PRB). The PRB was established to review issues arising at the plant and to advise the general manager on all matters related to nuclear safety. It was in this position that Mosbaugh first became aware of an incident that should have been, but was not, reported to the NRC. The incident continued next page GANE

• P.O. Box 857 4

• Atlanta, GA 30306

• 404/378-GANE

Truth on Trial continued from previous page occurred in October 1988 and had to do with certain dilution valves that had been opened during the "mid-loop" of a nuclear refueling.

At mid-loop, the fission control rods are fully employed in shutting down the reactor and the reactor coolant is reduced to one-third its normal level in the reactor vessel. At this critical time borated water is used for the coolant. Since boron prevents a fission reaction it compensates for the reduced water flow. Opening the "dilution valves" for the addition of any other chemi-cals or any other purpose can result in the addition of demineralized water to the bo-rated coolant in the vessel, thereby dimin-ishing the controlling capability of the bo-rated coolant Technical Specifications (tech specs) require that these dilution valves be shut at all times during the "mid-loop" interval.

Mosbaugh stated that opening of the dilu-tion valves in mid-loop put the plant in an "unanalyzed" and therefore unsafe condi-tion. The Westinghouse manual contained no formal technical analysis to show what reactions would occur within the reactor vessel under these conditions.

"... I continued to gather the facts on what had happened, and so I got control logs and shift supervisor logs... and what I found out is these valves had been opened on four different occasions.

"The first two occasions that they had been opened on, the reactor coolant system was not technically at mid-loop. On the second two occasions that they had been opened, the reactor coolant system was at mid-loop as indicated by the log entries in the main control room log," Mosbaugh testified.

At about this time, Mosbaugh heard rumors that the operations staff had refused to open the dilution valves during the inter-val in issue, that they had been overruled by their management, Skip Kitchens, and that Mr. Kitchens had opened the valves him-self. Mosbaugh now believed that Skip Kitchens had deliberately violated the tech spec in October 1988 and was faced with the knowledge that this constituted crimi-nal conduct Mosbaugh was flabbergasted. In 20 years working in the nuclear power indus-try he had never encountered a willful vio-2 GAINSAYER lation of tech specs. Not only that, but Georgia Power did not report the violation to the NRC, thus breaking another law. It was his attempts to deal with this violation that aroused his suspicions that these deci-sions were deliberate and from a very high level of management After several weeks deliberation Mos-baugh stepped into the unknown and be-came a whistleblower. He mailed a de-tailed, anonymous report of his concerns to the NRC, even using gloves to ensure that the tip-off would not be traced back to him.

The NRC responded with a prompt on-site investigation of the October 1988 valve incident, questioning people at the plant and gathering relevant documents. It was in the succeeding weeks that Mosbaugh would decide to begin tape recording conversa-tions on the job at Plant Vogtle. Mosbaugh was appalled to hear a licensed supervisor suggest intentional violations of tech specs if necessary to conclude a refueling outage more promptly. He ended up filing two additional anonymous charges with the NRC concerning safety violations by Plant Vogtle management.

Whenanear-meltdownoccurred,again during refueling, in March 1990, Mosbaugh stepped up his clandestine investigatian.

This accident is the now-notorious incident when a fuel truck backed into a switch-yard power pole and Unit I lost all power to its safety systems for almost 45 minutes. Not only did the incident reinforce to Mr. Mos-baugh that the company held unhealthy attitudes towards safety, but in the NRC-utility dialogue that always ensues from a serious incident at a nuclear plant, he wit-nessed high officials falsifying information about the reliability of the back-up power systems at the plant At the time he was still on the Policy Review Board (PRB) at the plant, and he was able to alert his Board colleagues to the error. They drafted an accurate report, which was pre-empted by top-level Georgia Power officials.

Mosbaugh felt it was time to file his first whistleblower compaint with the De-partment of Labor when he was removed from the PRB in June 1990. A week later he also signed a confidential agreement with the NRC. He still continued with his secret audio tape recording activities, not even telling the NRC.

Always given high marks in his perfor-mance reviews -

he received the first average rating of his career. Mosbaugh was more certain than ever that he was sus-pected of having gone to the NRC and was subjected to overt hostility and suspicion from his superiors. They talked frequently of a lack of teamwork and communication, and suggested he was the cause of inharmony between the department staff managers.

In August 1990, Mosbaugh' s position in the company was downgraded, in Sep-tember he was barred from the worksite and finally in October 1990 he was fired. Dur-ing the 18 months since Mosbaugh was fired from Vogtle he has endured three bouts with Georgia Power over his labor case. The first two were decided in his favor and this hearing was prompted by Georgia Power's appeal to administrative court He has also entered a 2.206 "show cause" petition with the NRC. A "sho'A cause" petition puts Georgia Power in thS position of defending their license to oper-ate a nuclear plant given the many allega-tions of wrongdoing. Meanwhile, the NRC continues to investigate the safety viola-tions using Mr. Mosbaugh' s taped evidence.

Georgia is very fortunate to have a danger-ous nuclear threat come under close scru-tiny and has Allen Mosbaugh to thank for taking personal risk to make it happen.

-GleM Carroll and Steve Watkins EPILOGUE-Since this issue of the GAIN-SAYER has been held up so long, this case has had some major developments. Admin-istrative Judge Robert Glennon issued his final order on the labor hearing against Allen Mosbaugh. In a dreadful precede-he says that Mosbaugh went too far in his taping activities. The basis of the decision as given in the judge's order is a sequence of events which is inconsistent with the record. Mr. Mosbaugh is appealing this latest decision with the new Secretary of Labor. We trust Judge Glennon is enjoying his new appointment in Florida. It is our hope that Mr. Mosbaugh will see justice prevail in this case and we express our appreciation that he has persisted in bring-ing these important issues to light.

On the NRC side where the investiga-tion of allegations of criminal misconduct by managers of Vogtle and Southern Nuclear Operating Company is conducted

-the NRC has completed its investigation and passed the case on to the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice where a grand jury is inves-tigating for possible prosecution of crimes against the safety of people in Georgia.

SPRING/SUMMER 1992

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission May 5, 1993 FYC 93-010 SPS93-040 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule:

"Monitoring the Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants"

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Effectiveness (58FR15303) of 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 and provides engineering and licensing services to nuclear power plants in New England.

These 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 Effectiveness 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 JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card.................... "....... _

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 address

system, the auxiliary house boiler, or the freeze protection system seems unnecessary.

The Federal Register notice which published the maintenance rule noted that "... given the period allowed for implementation, 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 performance monitoring as well as failure cause determinations and corrective actions, modification of this aspect of the rule appears to be one of these necessary "adjustments".

Given the current impetus toward cost-effective regulation by the 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 significant 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 Team Inspections had found entirely acceptable in their 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 difference in their respective scope definition has been identified (see SECY 93-049) as the EOP criteria.

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

Sincerely yours, D. W. Edwards Director, Industry Affairs OWE/sf

Thomas E. Tipton Vice President & Director Operations, Management and Support Se1Vices Division NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street, NW

• Suite 300

• Washington, DC 20006;3706 MIIV -5 p 5 :1 O (202) 872-1280 93 1111 1 May 5, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Docketing and Service Branch Proposed Revision to 10 CPR 50.65, Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants 58 Fed. Reg. 15303 (March 22, 1993)

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

In the Federal Register notice the NRC is proposing to modify 10 CPR 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 INlJMARC 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.

JUL 3 o 1993 Acknowledged by card........................... "_

]j.~. *.:: :, '. :. *:*-:.: ~: f, :v"Y CCMiAIS"IOt-.

t.:~.: :,.. *, : -~ :*,W,8!:. -~~T !0N

(;~ :c.,.. ~* -~H~:. S':~;f-<T.~R '(

c* i,.: ccw,1,ss:0N "cs'**'~ * "' **9 1

• \\., h l.... I

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 comment on the proposed rule change.

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

TET/WJH:sp

00~\\~ET NUMBER PR S O pr 8~03 7.:D HULE...!.,!,:_.;:;;....--

( 5~

(<.. I 5J O :3)

J:::,Nr<C

• 93 HAY -5 P J :16 April 30, 1993 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE Serial No.

NL&P/RBP 5000 Dominion Boulemrd Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 (j)

VIRGINIA POWER 93-195 MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE 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, M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Programs cc:

Mr. Ron Simard Director, Industry Relations and Administration Division Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street, N. W.

Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006-2496 Adm I JUL 3 O 1993 ow edged by card......................... "........

I C,

-~ "8-Q.. O

Georgia Power Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 877-7279 DOCKET NUMBER PR r O PROPOGEu RULE,_;;;_;.;;;__~---

( 'i~ FR. I 5 30J7}

,,;,;ic~

(i)

May 3, 1993 *93 MA{ _}

P 1 :3~ eorgia Power J. T. Beckham, Jr.

Vice President - Nuclear Hatch Project the southern electnc system Docket Nos.

50-321 50-424 50-366 50-425 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

~-

' \\

I,, ' I

.11Ch-7 :..,

1r*

I;, 11-.:1 1<1 Comments on Proposed Rule HL-3262 ELV-05412 "Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (58 Federal Register 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, JTB/JDK JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card............... _...... " __

Georgia Power <<\\

700775 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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.

K. N.

D. s.

u. s.

s. D.

L. D.

B. R.

HL-3262 ELV-05412 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington 1 Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch Hood, Licensing Project Manager - Vogtle Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Region II Ebneter, Regional Administrator Wert, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle Page 2 DC

L'L'L t'.L I LU USNHC {f)

• 93 MAY -3 P2 :27 Bart D. Withers President and

.,~.:*11,~ :,;: -~.

I i{1,;\\R~,

ouc*~; i i°ik-* *°' ~-r.,:v 1f;f

~p.t\\tJ;"'l:

Chief Executive Officer Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C.

20555 April 30, 1993 WM 93-0061

Reference:

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

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482:

Comments on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.65(a) (3), the Maintenance Rule Gentlemen:

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 months.

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 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".

JUL 30 ~

Acknowledged by card................. "...... ~~..... "

P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS 66839 / Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/HCN ET

U.S. r~* !~l [:,*~. ~:::1:,U~A-:*0~v COMMISSIOt-.

v:~1,,'._ i *'.:: ~ SERVIC'E bECTION Ct=r*i.,.= ci= THE Sf CRETARV C-f THC CCMMISSION Docu:nc,t S!afi:tics rL-nc~. '; DriH __ Lf~ /_,_O_)q_3 ___ _

-0pi:.,*.. Viuc-::;\\,2,j __ _ _._ _ ____ _

M.:I C,;,u) r: p;.,ju* :..d....._ ____ _

Sp.:.ci~* c i ~*.01 fl.:r" J?Jj p'()fls

. M.~-t-ec

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.

BDW/jan cc:

w. D.

J. L.

G. A.

w. D.

Johnson (NRC)

Milhoan (NRC)

Pick (NRC)

Reckley (NRC)

Very truly yours, Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 868-5086 J. D. Woodard Vice President Farley Project

• 93 NAY -3 p 2 :27 Southern Nuclear Operating Company 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 the southem e/ectnc@

"Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (58 Federal Register 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 accordance with the request for comments, Southern Nuclear Operating Company is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC.

Should you have any questions, please advise.

JDW/JDK Respectfully submitted, JUL 3 0 1993 ----.....

Acknowledgod by card... --..-."

.l_ili. l~!,Cl Cl.:; RfGIJl.ATORY COMMISS!Ot't f;(:<.:i<i.l '.i\\'J & S!:P.VlCE SECTION o;-:;:1r,1: 0,-: THE SECRETARY OF THc COMMISSION

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company R. D. Hill, Plant Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. D. C.

G. F. Wunder, Licensing Project Manager, NRR U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator G. F. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector Page 2

DOCKET NUMBER PR r O PROPOSED RULE~ ;__.] __ _

IIID csrt=-tz 15303)

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 April 27, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

• It r ! !

• _ *

• r

'r,

~

j '* t

~\\JLl\\i i!llci ',

t I' I( f G)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 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.

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

Sincerely, Mark O. Medford Vice President Technical Support JUL :So 1993 Acknowledged by card......... _,_,,,...... _

$.S. f,11,:u::~r; ?'.:GljLATCiW CCMMISSIOr.

o~c.-.::,:N'; & iEliVICE SECTiON O!*V:~E GF THE SECRE:TARY OF lHE COMMISSION

[)e,cument Statistics

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 April 27, 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 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

vl ~\\:.i L~-

1 U')Nr~C ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER N. Y. 14649-0001 ROBERT C. MECREDY Vice President

• 93 NAY -3 P 4 :09 TELEPHONE Cinna Nuclear Productio n 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 AREA CODE 716 546-2700 April 27, 1993 10 CFR 50. 65, Monitoring the Effectiveness Nuclear Power Plants of Maintenance at (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 in response to that notice by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (licensee of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant).

In the Federal Register 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 A goals and preventive maintenance activities from once every year W (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.

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card................ --....... _

Very truly yours,

• fb.~,1/

1.3. NUCU:Af1 ~i?GU~AfORY COMMISSIOI\\

COCl<E i"HIIS & ::.'.ERVICE SECTION OfTlC~ OF Tt;£ SECRE:TARY 0:: THE COMMiSSION

oocKcT NUMBER PR 50 PROPOSED RULE..!..!!:....::.------

( S ~ f R / S 30 J)

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Energy Systems

.,c t.: L ~ Lt_i

'J:iNi<C

• 93 nPR 26 A'1 :17

• ET-NRC-93-3871 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Box 355

(!)

Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15230-0355 Mr. Samuel J. Ch ilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch April 23, 1993

Subject:

Proposed Rule Change, 10 CFR 50.65, "Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants (58 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.

N. J. iparul, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities MAY 111993 Acknowledged by card.................. ::.. ::~

0756C-MDB-l:120392

\\

\\

U.S. fl:UCt.fAl1 SEC! iU\\1CRY COMMISSIOt-.

O:Y: l~t fr\\'.G ~ Si:RVICE SECTION Off it~:: Of THE SECRETARY 0f THE COMMiSSION Document Statistic~

Copies Recei\\/Od __ ~=------

Add'I Ccpiss r":t;C1Cdt.:ccd _2 Special Disi(li:;1,on (L-:r.iJ

""""'--,j~-,..,.,JP,...jj-r-~=---

M<l-6

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE Pl 5 O (SrFf2 15:303)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150 -

AE55 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance programs at commercial nuclear power plants.

The current regulations require that nuclear power plant licensees evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities at least annually.

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.

S /6 {'i3 DATES:

The comment period (expires 45 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register).

Comment received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments submitted and received on or before this date.

P5 :32 ADDRESSES:

Mail written comments to the Secretary, u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to:

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal Workdays.

Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L street NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3795.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 10, 1991, (56 FR 31324) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published the final rule, "Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," (S 50.65).

The final rule, which will become effective July 10, 1996, requires commercial nuclear power plant licensees to monitor the effectiveness of maintenance activities for safety-significant plant equipment in order to minimize the likelihood f

of failures and events caused_by the lack of effective maintenance.

Section 50.65 (a) (3) requires nuclear power plant licensees to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their maintenance activities on an annual basis.

An industry consensus guidance document and a regulatory guide to provide an acceptable methodology for implementing the final rule are expected to be published by June 30, 1993.

Discussion Since the Maintenance Rule was published in July 1991, two events have occurred that lead the Commission to reconsider the annual evaluation requirements in S 50.65(a) (3).

First, in the Summer of 1991, the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) steering Group was formed to develop an industry guide for implementing the Maintenance Rule.

While developing the guide, the Steering Group suggested to the NRC in a public meeting held on February 26, 1992, that instead of annual assessment requirements, the NRC should consider assessments based on a refueling cycle interval.

The NUMARC steering Group stated that:

(1)

Significantly more data would be available during refueling cycles than is available on an annual basis.

(2)

Key data from some surveillance tests can only be obtained during refueling outages and is not available on an annual basis; and J

(3)

Adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after such an evaluation would be typically performed after a refueling outage.

The NUMARC steering Group further added that the evaluation process is a time consuming activity and that with limited data available, the annual evaluation would not provide for meaningful results.

With only limited data, changes to maintenance programs will likely not be made because there would not be sufficient information available for spotting trends or doing trend analysis.

Second, the NRC conducted a regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome regulations and published a final rule on August 31, 1992 (57 FR 39353) that amended several regulations identified by its Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR).

One of those amended regulations was 10 CFR 50.71 (e) (Final Safety Analysis Report Updates) where the frequency of licensee reporting to the NRC was changed from annually to once per refueling cycle.

The change was made because the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since, a majority of design changes and major modifications were performed during refueling outages.

In addition, it had no adverse impact on the public health and safety and reduced the regulatory burden on the licensees.

The Commission is now proposing to change the required frequency of maintenance activity evaluations from annually to once per refueling outage.

Evaluation of data collected over the period of a refueling 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 depending on whether the annual assessment coincides with the refueling outage.

Furthermore, evaluations of data accumulated over the period of a refueling 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.

The Commission understands that a normal frequency of refueling outage ranges from 15 to 18 months; however, the conditions may vary from plant to plant.

In order to ensure that an indefinite period of time does not occur between maintenance evaluations, the Commission is proposing the establishment of an upper limit of 24 months between the maintenance evaluations.

This would address those licensees that have extended their refueling cycle beyond 24 months for any reason including numerous short outages or extended shutdown periods.

Although the Commission believes that it is generally the case that maintenance evaluations will be more effective if conducted in conjunction with refueling outages, licensees would still have the option of conducting them more frequently.

In light of the above discussion, the NRC is proposing to change the requirement for evaluation of the overall effectiveness of maintenance activities to be performed once per refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:

The commission has determined that, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the

\\

I Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required.

The proposed amendment does not require any change to nuclear power plant design or require any modifications to a plant.

Nor does the rule change the scope of the maintenance rule or affect the nature of the activities to be performed, e.g., monitoring, corrective action, and assessments of compliance.

The proposed rule change would only extend the time period for performing evaluations of the effectiveness of licensees' maintenance program from at least once a year to at least once.every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months.

The proposed extension should not result in any significant or discernible reduction in the effectiveness of a licensee's maintenance program; rather the change would increase the meaningfulness and quality of the maintenance evaluations.

For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment will not result in any significant increase in either the probability of occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an accident and therefore concludes that there will be no significant effect on the environment as a result of the proposed amendment.

The environmental assessment is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L street NW.

(Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

Single copies of the environmental assessment are available from Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone:

(301) 492-3795.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends the information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 u.s.c. 3501 et seq.).

This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

Because the rule will relax existing recordkeeping requirements, the public burden for this collection of information is expected to be reduced by 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> per licensee.

This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining tne data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), u. s.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has considered the costs and benefits of the proposed rule.

With respect to benefits, the proposed amendment would allow those licensees who choose to exercise the option to perform evaluations of their maintenance program in conjunction with refueling outages but no less frequently than every 24 months.

The Commission believes that this additional flexibility will not result in any increase in risk to the public health and safety, and may result in a more effective maintenance and improved plant safety.

Under the proposed rule, the frequency of periodic assessments would change from annually to at least once per refueling cycle but not to exceed 24 months.

Since most refueling outages normally occur in the 15-to 18-month range, the time between periodic assessments assuming a 16-month average would be increased by about 33 percent.

Therefore, the licensee staff hours to accomplish a periodic assessment under the proposed rule would be reduced from approximately 460 staff hours to about 310 staff hours per plant.

This would save the licensee approximately 150 staff hours per plant.

There are no additional changes in costs to be incurred by the NRC.

The foregoing constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifies that, if promulgated, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule affects only the operation of nuclear power plants.

The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required.

The proposed amendment to the interval for evaluating the effectiveness of maintenance activities by licensees is considered a relaxation from the existing requirement and does not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as determined in 10 CFR 50.109.

Further, the option of conducting an annual review as provided by the current rule would be retained.

Because there are no new requirements or procedures imposed on licensees by this proposed rule, it does not impose a backfit.

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

• For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 u.s.c. 553, the ~C is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.

PART 50 -

DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1.

The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 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, 22~2); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 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 issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat.

939, as amended, (42 u.s.c. 2138).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 stat, 955 (42 u.s.c.

2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Ap~endix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued 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 U.S.C. 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 Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 stat. 955 (42 u.s.c~ 2237).

2.

In§ 50.65, paragraph (a) (3) is revised to read as follows:

S 50.65 Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants.

(a)

(3)

Performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities shall be evaluated at least every refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.

The evaluations shall be conducted taking into account, where practical, industry-wide operating experience.

Adjustments shall be made where necessary to ensure that the objective of preventative failures of structures, systems, and components through maintenance is appropriately balanced against the objective of minimizing unavailability of structures, systems, and components due to monitoring or preventative maintenance.

In performing monitoring and preventative maintenance activities, an assessment of the total plant equipmE:nt that is out of service should be taken into account to determine the overall effect on performance of safety functions.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this L!:f...!!.day of March 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Convnission.

for Operations.