PLA-3157, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule Not Needed & Will Not Serve to Increase Commission Ability to Ensure Nuclear Plants Reliably Maintained

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule Not Needed & Will Not Serve to Increase Commission Ability to Ensure Nuclear Plants Reliably Maintained

ML20235T259
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	02/24/1989
From:	Keiser H PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR47822, RULE-PR-50 53FR47822-00025, 53FR47822-25, PLA-3157, NUDOCS 8903080213
Download: ML20235T259 (4)

Text

- --__ _ _ -

.m -- -

y ,

.v i

Q Pennsylvania Power & Light Company.

Two North Ninth Street

• Allentown, PA 18101 e 215/7706151$

FEB 2 : SM j (yh 0 89 FEB 27 P2 :45 Haroid W. Keiser - .

Senior Vice President Nuclear b

JJ [/

//0 Ok QFTe 215/770 4194 00LP, a - 1 -

N,y Mr., Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S;; Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch SUSOUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

.; PROPOSED RULE 10CFR50, ENSURING THE EFFECTIVENESS 0F. MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS

.FOR' NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 53FR47822 (NOVEMBER 28,=1988) REQUEST FOR COMMENTS PLA-3157 FILE R41-2

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted in response to the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for comments on the NRC proposed rule relative to the effectiveness of maint uance programs for nuclear power plants (53FR478.22) .

Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (PP&L) does not believe that the proposed rule is needed nor do we believe the proposed rule will serve to increase the Commission's ability to ensure that nuclear plants are reliably mainteined.

The majority of. nuclear plants in this country currently do have effective maintenance programs. This fact is reflected by high availability and capacity factors, low numbers of trips and safeguards actuations, and high maintenance and surveillance SALP ratings. Additionally, performance-based maintenance programs are beginning to make significant improvements in maintenance activities. Promulgation of a new rule at this time would create a significant diversion of' resources and potentially reduce current levels of safety. This position is in full agreement with the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) position on the proposed rule.

The NRC action relative to promulgation of a new rule is inconsistent with and undernines the self-improvement initiatives that industry has been implementing as well as the programs of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operaf: ions (INPO). PP&L believes that if a standard is to be prepared for maintenance within the industry, INPO should have the lead responsibility.

The-I1PO " Guidelines for the Conduct of Maintenance" could be used as the base document, with some modifications. We believe this document is written at the 8903080213 890224 PDR PR g

PDR SO S3FR47822

FILE R41-2 PLA-3157-Mr. Samuel J. Chilk appropriate level of detail. Utilities have already assessed their programs against INPO guidelines. Implementation of the INPO Guidelines would not ~

require drastic changes to improvement actions already planned by each utility.-

We are concerned with the NRC's failure to demonstrate that promulgation of the propesed rule will markedly improve the quality of maintenance. In fact,

.we are concerned that the proposed rule may actually result in a decline in existing maintenance-initiatives. In fact, the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), its staff, and its consultants.have advised against such a rule on much the same basis.

Industry experience with other regulatory requirements that.have~directly affected operations indicates to PP&L that promulgation of the proposed maintenance rule has the potential to negatively impact safety by redirecting -

the industry's focus of improving maintenance to that of satisfying an as yet undefined regulatory standard. We also believe this lack of definition opens the potential to inconsistent applications by individual inspectors and NRC regions.

We do not believe the two years to develop and fully implement the standard is reasonable. A minimum of one year will be devoted to development, leaving only an additional year to implement. If a methodology such as reliability centered maintenance is used to establish the basis for the maintenance program, it will require at least three to five years to complete the necessary analysis and implement the results.

We also do not feel a third party certification is necessary. Assessment of plant's program could be part of the normal INPO assessment and utility response to INPO.

Backfit Concerns With regard to the backfit issue, the Commission, in proposing the maintenance rule, has taken the position that the rule is exempt from backfit requirements-based on application of 10CFR50.109(a)(4) in that the rule is required to provide " adequate protection" of the public health and safety. The commission's backfit analysis purports to demonstrate that the rule will result in a substantial increase in the public health and safety and a positive cost-benefit ratio.

PP&L takes issue with the Commission's backfit analysis in two areas: (1) We seriously question whether the analysis supports the finding that the proposed rule satisfies the " substantial increase" and cost benefit tests, and (2) We question whether the commission has correctly applied the " adequate protection" exemption to the backfit rule.

The cost savings projected as a result of increased availability and reduced corrective maintenance requirements appear highly speculative and insupportable by historical data. A reanalysis of the NRC Regulatory Analysis was performed by KUMARC. Based or. this reanalysis, the proposed regulation

4 8

FILE R41 PLA-3157 l

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk l

will be very costly to the industry with questionable improvement in protecting the health and safety to the public. Industry and NRC studies reflect vast expenditures of capital and O&M dollars by the nuclear power industry to maintain and enhance equipment, facilities, and personnel. The results of these studies were not adequately reflected or utilized in preparation of the' safety and cost impact calculations in the regulatory analysis for the proposed maintenance rule. The NUMARC reanalysis determined the following:

o The cost / benefit will be a large net cost to the industry, o The uncertainty of the cost and benefit estimates are large.

o The NRC analysis severely understates the benefits of industry improvements to date.

o ' The NRC has underestimated the best estimate cost per plant.

PP&L, likewise, finds offsite exposure reductions projected by the Commission's analysis to be weakly supported.

The Commission fails to identify which of the " adequate protection" exceptions available under the backfit rule it is basing its position upon. In fact, it appears that none of the exceptions available are acceptable bases. The Commission's use of the term " adequate protection" would rule out reliance I upon 10CFR50.109(a)(4)i. Reliance on either 10CFR50.109(a)(4)ii or (a)(4)iii is inconsistent when viewed in context with prior commission statements on the intent of.these exceptions.

In general, the commission's rationale for applying the (a)(4) exceptions, is in conflict with arguments presented'in support of the backfit rule. A danger appears to exist which would create a precedent which would essentially negate the original purposes of the backfit rulemaking.

Industry Initiatives

. 1 Industry studies conducted in 1984 under the direction of the Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Committee Working Group on Maintenance and NRC studies conducted in 1985 (NUREG-1212) determined that maintenance programs and activities-in nuclear power plants were diverse and, in some cases, in need of. improvement. The industry has established positive initiatives in '

3 maintenance activities to address those areas needing improvement as reflected by the issuance of maintenance guidelines by INPO (INP0 85-038). These guidelines address all of the programmatic elements the Commission has identified in the proposed maintenance rule. PP&L, like other utilities, support the INPO Evaluation and Assistance Program as a means of reenforcing improvements in our approach to maintenance at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

p.

4 FILE R41 PLA-3157 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk PP&L believes that the industry is making excellent. progress in strengthening weaknesses through ongoing industry initiatives. We believe that the data collection, trending, and reporting requirements of the proposed' rule will~

significantly hamper further development and implementation of industry initiatives due to the resultant diversion of resources.

Conclusion PP&L. encourages the Commission to reconsider the issuance of a rule that we believe has the potential to negatively impact the proven success of current industry initiatives and the majority of current industry maintenance programs. Alternatives more in keeping with industry initiatives should be given extensive consideration before proceeding with the proposed rulemaking.

PP&L recognizes the Commission's intent to provide a rule.that would enhance industry flexibility in the implementation of maintenance programs. However, we do not understand the expectations and requirements that will ultimately be-provided.in the final rule and regulatory guide. We believe that further specificity is needed by the industry and'the NRC staff to ensure the adequacy.

of understanding and the appropriateness of the regulatory analysis that would demonstrate the need for the final rule.

PP&L is sensitive to its responsibility to provide safe and reliable energy.

We firmly believe that we and the industry as a whole have the expertise and demonstrated commitment to achieve the intent of the NRC March, 1988 Commission Policy Statement on Maintenance without the burden of unnecessary

.rulemaking.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

Very truly yours.

V H.W. Keiser cc: NRC Document Control Desk (original)

NRC Region I Mr. F. I. Young, NR.C Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. M. C. Thadani, NRC Project Manager Mr. Walt Smith, NUMARC St. Project Manager l

l L __- _- -- _ - _ -. -- --- -- -- --- - - - - - - - -