|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARLR-N980595, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr LR-N980588, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation ML18106A8811998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That Discussion Contained in SECY-98-061 Should Be Included in Draft NUREG ML18106A8731998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633 Re Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protetive Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That NUREG Should Provide Balanced Discussion on Benefits & Risks of Use of Ki LR-N980284, Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-19911998-06-12012 June 1998 Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-1991 LR-N980149, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis ML18102B4361997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Opposing NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Tests or Experiments). Util Endorses Comments Submitted by Nuclear Energy Inst ML20132A8961996-12-0606 December 1996 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50, NRC Draft Ps on Restructuring & Economic Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ML20084H9251995-06-0202 June 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Change in State Cooperative Agreements Program Concerning NRC Intention to Reduce Scope of Work.Believes That NRC Should Maintain Environ Monitoring Program & Find Other Ways to Reduce Duplicative Svcs ML20134K5021995-02-24024 February 1995 Transcript of 950224 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re C Vondra.Pp 1-136 ML20134K4511995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re Plant.Pp 1-93 ML20134K4791995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re V Polizzi.Pp 1-115 ML20134K4971995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re L Reiter.Pp 1-64 ML20080G8321995-02-0606 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & low-power Operations for Npp.Encourages NRC to Reevaluate Regulatory Analyses in Light of Higher Costs.Concludes That Addl Rules on Shutdown & Low Power Operations Not Necessary ML20077L8631995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal.Util of Belief That Proposed Rev Reflect Positive Effort Towards Establishing Regulatory Process Requirements for Continued Operation of Nuclear Facilities ML20132B2281994-08-0202 August 1994 Transcript of 940802 Enforcement Conference in Salem,Nj W/Salem Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor Involved in 940407 Event ML20067C1591994-02-17017 February 1994 Comments on NUREG/CR-5884 Re Analyses of Decommissioning for Ref PWR Power Station ML20056G4121993-08-31031 August 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 2.206 Process ML18100A5591993-08-26026 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Whistleblower Protection ML20126F2721992-12-21021 December 1992 Comment Endorsing Positions & Comments of NUMARC & BWROG Re Draft GL, Augmented Inservice Insp Requirments for Mark I & Mark II Steel Containments,Refueling Cavities & Associated Drainage Sys ML20095B2411992-04-10010 April 1992 Comment on Draft NUREG-1449, Shutdown & Low-Power Operation at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Us ML20091Q8661992-01-31031 January 1992 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1022,Rev 1, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73,Clarification of NRC Sys & Guidelines for Reporting ML20072T2421991-04-11011 April 1991 Comment Re Proposed Change to 10CFR50.55A Re Inservice Testing of Containment Isolation Valves.Proposed Rule Should Be Revised to Allow Plants within Last 12 Months of Current Interval to Substitute Deferred Rv Shell Exams ML20011E4861990-02-0707 February 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR71 Re Compatibility of Pu Air Transport Regulations W/Iaea Stds.Supports EEI-UWASTE/NUMARC Comments to Be Provided to NRC by 900209 ML20248D2831989-09-28028 September 1989 Notice of Appearance.* Advises That Author Will Enter Appearance in Proceeding on Behalf of Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q2661989-09-26026 September 1989 Establishment of Aslb.* Board Will Comprise of Mb Margulies, Chairman & Oh Paris & Fj Shon,Members.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 890926 B13367, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,50,60,70,72 & 150 Re Preserving Free Flow of Info to Commission.Nrc Made Wise Choice to Not Impose Any Obligation on Private Parties to Include Affirmative Statement in Employment Agreements1989-09-20020 September 1989 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,50,60,70,72 & 150 Re Preserving Free Flow of Info to Commission.Nrc Made Wise Choice to Not Impose Any Obligation on Private Parties to Include Affirmative Statement in Employment Agreements ML20248C8751989-09-13013 September 1989 Response to Order Modifying Licenses & Order to Show Cause Why Licenses Should Not Be Revoked.* Requests Hearing on Issues,Including Funds for Equipment.Supporting Info Encl ML20246C7141989-08-18018 August 1989 Order to Show Cause Why CPs CPEP-1 & CPEP-2 Should Not Be Revoked & Requiring Licensee to Notify Commission at Least 30 Days Before Taking Possession of Any Classified Equipment ML20245G0721989-08-0303 August 1989 Comment on Draft Reg Guide, Assuring Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors. Recommends That NRC Recommendation on Trust Agreement Wording Be Deleted or NRC Should Grandfather Existing Trusts Such as for Plants ML20248B6201989-08-0202 August 1989 Comments on Draft Reg Guide, Assuring Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors. NRC Should Permit Use of Potential Tax Refund as Source of Decommissioning Funds ELV-00674, Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50,72 & 170 Re Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. 10CFR72.6(c) Should Be Revised to Provide for Storage W/O ISFSI Requirement1989-07-0707 July 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50,72 & 170 Re Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. 10CFR72.6(c) Should Be Revised to Provide for Storage W/O ISFSI Requirement ML20246H8141989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ELV-00679, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components. Agrees W/Numarc Comments Provided to NRC on 8906261989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components. Agrees W/Numarc Comments Provided to NRC on 890626 ML20246K4801989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20246D8811989-06-30030 June 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20245D2481989-06-16016 June 1989 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50,72 & 170 Re Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. NRC Must Consider Provision in Rule to Permit Indiscriminate Storage of Spent Fuel at Reactors ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20245J0191989-04-14014 April 1989 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20244B3241989-04-10010 April 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20247A2971989-04-0404 April 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246M2771989-03-20020 March 1989 Decision.* Affirms Board Decision LBP-89-05 Granting CP & OL to Licensee.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890321 B13113, Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units.... Util Recommends Rule Be Revised to Incorporate Addl Flexibility in Considering Age of Diesel1989-03-0808 March 1989 Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units.... Util Recommends Rule Be Revised to Incorporate Addl Flexibility in Considering Age of Diesel ML20246N9471989-03-0808 March 1989 Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9 Re Selection Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants ML20236B4641989-03-0808 March 1989 Comments on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Reg Guide Does Not Provide Flexibility JPN-89-008, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants1989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants B13136, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule on Maint Will Not Improve Maint in Plants Nor Improve Safety or Reliability of Plants.Proposed Rule Much Too Vague1989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule on Maint Will Not Improve Maint in Plants Nor Improve Safety or Reliability of Plants.Proposed Rule Much Too Vague ML20235T3581989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Util Endorses Comments Filed by NUMARC & Nuclear Util Backfitting & Reform Group.Rule Fails to Provide Basis for Determining Effective Maint Program ML20235V8541989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Util Committed to Goal of Achieving Improved Reliability & Safety Through Better Maint ML20235T1861989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, Extension of NRC Authority to BOP Portion of Plant & Misapplication of Adequate Protection Std of Backfit Rule 1998-09-15
[Table view] Category:PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES & PETITIONS FOR
MONTHYEARLR-N980595, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr LR-N980588, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation ML18106A8731998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633 Re Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protetive Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That NUREG Should Provide Balanced Discussion on Benefits & Risks of Use of Ki ML18106A8811998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That Discussion Contained in SECY-98-061 Should Be Included in Draft NUREG LR-N980284, Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-19911998-06-12012 June 1998 Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-1991 LR-N980149, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis ML18102B4361997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Opposing NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Tests or Experiments). Util Endorses Comments Submitted by Nuclear Energy Inst ML20132A8961996-12-0606 December 1996 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50, NRC Draft Ps on Restructuring & Economic Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ML20084H9251995-06-0202 June 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Change in State Cooperative Agreements Program Concerning NRC Intention to Reduce Scope of Work.Believes That NRC Should Maintain Environ Monitoring Program & Find Other Ways to Reduce Duplicative Svcs ML20080G8321995-02-0606 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & low-power Operations for Npp.Encourages NRC to Reevaluate Regulatory Analyses in Light of Higher Costs.Concludes That Addl Rules on Shutdown & Low Power Operations Not Necessary ML20077L8631995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal.Util of Belief That Proposed Rev Reflect Positive Effort Towards Establishing Regulatory Process Requirements for Continued Operation of Nuclear Facilities ML20067C1591994-02-17017 February 1994 Comments on NUREG/CR-5884 Re Analyses of Decommissioning for Ref PWR Power Station ML20056G4121993-08-31031 August 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 2.206 Process ML18100A5591993-08-26026 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Whistleblower Protection ML20126F2721992-12-21021 December 1992 Comment Endorsing Positions & Comments of NUMARC & BWROG Re Draft GL, Augmented Inservice Insp Requirments for Mark I & Mark II Steel Containments,Refueling Cavities & Associated Drainage Sys ML20095B2411992-04-10010 April 1992 Comment on Draft NUREG-1449, Shutdown & Low-Power Operation at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Us ML20091Q8661992-01-31031 January 1992 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1022,Rev 1, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73,Clarification of NRC Sys & Guidelines for Reporting ML20072T2421991-04-11011 April 1991 Comment Re Proposed Change to 10CFR50.55A Re Inservice Testing of Containment Isolation Valves.Proposed Rule Should Be Revised to Allow Plants within Last 12 Months of Current Interval to Substitute Deferred Rv Shell Exams ML20011E4861990-02-0707 February 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR71 Re Compatibility of Pu Air Transport Regulations W/Iaea Stds.Supports EEI-UWASTE/NUMARC Comments to Be Provided to NRC by 900209 B13367, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,50,60,70,72 & 150 Re Preserving Free Flow of Info to Commission.Nrc Made Wise Choice to Not Impose Any Obligation on Private Parties to Include Affirmative Statement in Employment Agreements1989-09-20020 September 1989 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,50,60,70,72 & 150 Re Preserving Free Flow of Info to Commission.Nrc Made Wise Choice to Not Impose Any Obligation on Private Parties to Include Affirmative Statement in Employment Agreements ML20245G0721989-08-0303 August 1989 Comment on Draft Reg Guide, Assuring Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors. Recommends That NRC Recommendation on Trust Agreement Wording Be Deleted or NRC Should Grandfather Existing Trusts Such as for Plants ML20248B6201989-08-0202 August 1989 Comments on Draft Reg Guide, Assuring Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors. NRC Should Permit Use of Potential Tax Refund as Source of Decommissioning Funds ELV-00674, Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50,72 & 170 Re Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. 10CFR72.6(c) Should Be Revised to Provide for Storage W/O ISFSI Requirement1989-07-0707 July 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50,72 & 170 Re Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. 10CFR72.6(c) Should Be Revised to Provide for Storage W/O ISFSI Requirement ELV-00679, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components. Agrees W/Numarc Comments Provided to NRC on 8906261989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components. Agrees W/Numarc Comments Provided to NRC on 890626 ML20246H8141989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20246K4801989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20246D8811989-06-30030 June 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20245D2481989-06-16016 June 1989 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50,72 & 170 Re Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. NRC Must Consider Provision in Rule to Permit Indiscriminate Storage of Spent Fuel at Reactors ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20245J0191989-04-14014 April 1989 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20244B3241989-04-10010 April 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20247A2971989-04-0404 April 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants B13113, Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units.... Util Recommends Rule Be Revised to Incorporate Addl Flexibility in Considering Age of Diesel1989-03-0808 March 1989 Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units.... Util Recommends Rule Be Revised to Incorporate Addl Flexibility in Considering Age of Diesel ML20236B4641989-03-0808 March 1989 Comments on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Reg Guide Does Not Provide Flexibility ML20246N9471989-03-0808 March 1989 Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9 Re Selection Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants JPN-89-008, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants1989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants B13136, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule on Maint Will Not Improve Maint in Plants Nor Improve Safety or Reliability of Plants.Proposed Rule Much Too Vague1989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule on Maint Will Not Improve Maint in Plants Nor Improve Safety or Reliability of Plants.Proposed Rule Much Too Vague ML20235T3581989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Util Endorses Comments Filed by NUMARC & Nuclear Util Backfitting & Reform Group.Rule Fails to Provide Basis for Determining Effective Maint Program ML20235V8541989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Util Committed to Goal of Achieving Improved Reliability & Safety Through Better Maint ML20235T1861989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, Extension of NRC Authority to BOP Portion of Plant & Misapplication of Adequate Protection Std of Backfit Rule ML20235T7391989-02-23023 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants ML20235N8531989-02-14014 February 1989 Comment Supporting Chapter 1 Re Policy Statement on Exemptions Below Regulatory Concern.Policy Development for Criteria for Release of Radioactive Matl Needed for Development of Consistent Waste Mgt Practices ML20235L5921989-02-0606 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule on Chapter 1 Re Proposed Policy Statement Exemptions from Regulatory Control.Extreme Care Will Be Needed in Establishing State Role Both in Developing Rule & in Subsequent Implementation ML20195H0331988-11-21021 November 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program Which Includes Random Drug Testing.Util Strongly Favors 180- Day Period for Implementation of Rule & 360-day Implementation Period for Random Drug Testing ML20206M5321988-11-21021 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re fitness-for-duty Program JPN-88-063, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Util Has Constitutional Concerns Re Proposed Random Testing Which Should Be Fully Addressed Prior to Rule Being Promulgated.Endorses NUMARC & EEI Comments1988-11-18018 November 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Util Has Constitutional Concerns Re Proposed Random Testing Which Should Be Fully Addressed Prior to Rule Being Promulgated.Endorses NUMARC & EEI Comments ML20195H0111988-11-18018 November 1988 Comment Supporting NUMARC Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Fitness for Duty Program Which Includes Random Drug Testing ML20205Q1501988-10-28028 October 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NUREG-1317, Regulatory Options for Nuclear Plant License Renewal. Safety Sys Functional Insps & Configuration Mgt Programs Support Renewal Basis as Opposed to Relicensing Process ML20205Q2061988-10-28028 October 1988 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM 50-52 Re Exemption of Financial Qualifications of Applicants from Review of OL Applications.Petition Presents No Compelling Reason to Amend Current Rules ML20205Q6661988-10-27027 October 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re NUREG-1317, Regulatory Options for Nuclear Plant License Renewal. Endorses NUMARC Nuplex Working Group Comments,Including Use of Licensing Basis at Facility When Renewal Application Submitted 1998-09-15
[Table view] |
Text
y - - - . -_ __
.m :
J.
DOCKETMUMBER
-r:0 POSED RULE, gpW4- q Ag : 3(3 hO x ' (6%[f V]8$&
PCC KETED Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey O'80T8C Nuclear Department
.g
., r r ,
00 6,' . I February 24, 1989
- NLR-N89035 Mr. S. J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MAINTENANCE RULE SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS DOCKET NOS.'50-272, 50-311, AND 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company comments on the subject proposed rule are attached for your consideration.
We have also reviewed the NUMARC comments'sent to the NRC and we fully endorse the NUMARC position.
Additionally, we have reviewed and are'in agreement with the dissenting view point expressed by Commissioner Roberts. We believe that the points raised by Commissioner Roberts related to:
- 1) The extension of NRC authority to the BOP portion of the plant.
- 2) The promulgation of the formal rule making without regulatory guidance on implementation requirements.
- 3) The possible misapplication of the adequate protection standard of the backfit rule.
should be addyessed, in detail, as part of any final rule making package.
Sincerely, 8903080185 890224 ?
^[M 53N47822 PDR Man ge Licensing and Regulation Attachment The Er.ergy Peccie As/0
(
95-2!EB <50% !2 85
_y _.
I o5
.]
I Mr. Samuel J. Chilk- 2/24/89 C Mr. J. C. Stone Licensing' Project Manager - Salem Ms. K.'Halvey Gibson Senior Resident Inspector - Salem j
Mr. C. Y. Shiraki Licensing' Project Manager - Hope Creek Mr. G. W. Meyer Senior Resident Inspector - Hope Creek Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator
' Region I Ms. J. Moon, Interim Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental-Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 U.S. NRC Document Control Desk
)
l
y e
ATTACHMENT Paragraph Comments AH -The NRC fails to quantify.the number of plants whose maintenance programs are deficient but instead chooses to use generalizations and-qualitative judgements in assigning risk contribution. To support the demonstration required to invoke the " adequate protection" exemption of 10 CFR 50.109 a more quantitative.
analysis should be undertaken. . The question that comes to mind is simply, Is the industry as a whole being punished for problems at a relatively small number:of plants.
AI As stated'in' Commissioner Roberts dissenting opinion, the authority of the NRC:to regulate balance of plant equipment which is irrelevant to the protection of the public health and safety, is questionable. .-The NRC should confine.its rulemaking to those systems where inadequate maintenance poses an undue risk to the public.
Performance improvements.beyond this-barrier relate more to plant availability. Extending the rulemaking process into this area exposes the NRC to potential conflict of interest criticism. ,
1 AJ It is our position that useful generic maintenance 1 performance indicators (MPI) have not been identified as yet. Generic MPI(s) is necessary to assure that future comparisons of plant versus=
industry performance can be accomplished-from a common baseline. Additionally, care must be taken to develop appropriate indicators while minimizing the necessary record keeping requirements to support them. .
AM Formal rulemaking with its implicit enforcement sanctions does not constitute " encouragement",
coercion is perhaps a more appropriate word. )
AN If this is an NRC conclusion, then why the mandate to provide an industry standard by September 1989?
In our opinion, this schedule does not reflect an informed decision based on the present status of 1
l
I i
y industry initiatives. Performance based maintenance programs are only starting.to get off the ground. To try and force fit an existing trial program to all plants could be a complete disaster.
AO WeLagree that rulemaking should be-directed-towards specifying the_NRC's expectations, however; given the absence of even a draft-regulatory guide, we fail to:see'how this; goal is, satisfied. The'very generalized guidance provided' g' in the following sections does not provide
' sufficient information on which to develop a satisfactory standard. In this respect, we' fully...
agree with Commissioner _ Roberts comments relative to delaying the issuance of a proposed. rule until-such time _as the NRC develops the necessary draft regulatory guide.
~AP~ We~believe that the best thing the NRC could do at this point is to begin an open dialogue-with the industry, similar to that'which resulted in.the succe'ssful resolution of the Station Blackout issue. Our experience tells us that type of process best serves all parties involved'without placing an undue burden on licensees or placing.
the public at risk.
AT It is our_ position that the: schedules mandated by the commission'for the preparation of an industry standard and subsequent. industry implementation are unrealistic. If forced to adhere to the schedules identified,.it will be impossible to take full advantage of lessons learned from initiatives presently under evaluation. The end result would likely be a product that is not sufficiently specific to address NRC expectations and which, if implemented by industry, would necessitate substantial revisions at a later date to reflect lessons learned when'present initiatives are complete.
AV See our comments on AI.
AU to BB The attributes identified are to general in nature to provide a clear insight into NRC expectations.
Again, we recommend that the NRC withdraw the 2 .
1 proposed. rule-until such time as a draft regulatory guide is available.
BQ See our comments on'AM. -
BS It is appropriate to'have third party certification of maintenance programs, similar tog that. presently provided for licensee training'.
programs.- Although INPO would' appear to be-the-obvious choice, the NRC and industry should solicit code / standards groups for interest and/or participation.
, BU' It is~ appropriate that the industry develop a Maintenance Standard, and a commitment.to do so-should be made. However, a strong caveat.should be placed on that commitment relative to the schedule for development.
BY The Standard.should. identify key requirements but be general enough to allow flexibility in how to meet these key requirements.- There is no'one right way to accomplish a maintenance program. 'z, upgrade. To force fit a proscriptive approach could well result in disaster. What works well at one utility might well fail at another.
BW No, see our previous comments on AT.
BX As'previously stated, we support third party audit and certification of maintenance programs.
BY As we have stated previously, the industry can and should develop a standard, however, the present schedule is unrealistic. Given the tone of this paragraph, NUMARC must take a hard line relative to the schedule.
BZ Statements in this paragraph are contradictory.
Implicit in the invocation of the " adequate protection" standard for exemption from the provisions of a full backfit analysis, is the conclusion that a significant threat is presented to the public health and safety. Further, the NRC claims that the proposed rule only " codifies and standardizes" present regulation.
CA The rule should be limited to those systems / components that can lead to safety system 3
b^
r challenges through transients and scrams. Also see our comments on AI.
CB Recent. revisions to the NRC enforcement policy-provide. specific' sanctions which NRC may apply-directly to licensee personnel. To the extent that individual accountability is lui issue, a reference to those provisions of 10:CFR 2 relating to individual enforcement actions should be sufficient. It is' inappropriate for the NRC to insert itself into licensee disciplinary programs; which are conducted under collective bargaining agreements..
CC At a minimum, the-NRC should hold workshopsion this topic as it is critically important to the ongoing resolution of this issue.
CD Same comment as CC. Also see our comments on A7..
CE The sharing of component failure data throughout the industry is essential to an effective performance based. maintenance program. .However, the role of regulation relative to such a program-must beLcarefullyLapproached. It would be counterproductive to place detailed regulatory requirements and the implicit record keeping associated with those requirements'on a program like NPRDS. This is an additional area where a workshop might be of substantial value.
~
CF to CK We support the views.of Commissioner Roberts. To conduct a responsible rulemaking proceeding, the NRC must consider the questions posed by Commissioner Roberts. If the NRC truly wishes to encourage industry to improve maintenance performance, then a less adversarial approach should be taken.
n 4 i
(
y --
. j I
l General comments on the Impact and Regulatory Analysis provided by the NRC.
In preparing the Impact-and Regulatory Analysis, the NRC references NUREG 1212 as its basis for their conclusions relative to the present state of {
industry maintenance programs. NUREG 1212 '
presents the results of HRC review of data relative to plant maintenance programs for the' period 1980 to 1985. During that period, several )
significant regulatory backfits were imposed on all plants and a substantial number of new plants were licensed. Prominent among the regulatory backfits were those associated with NUREG 0737, NUREG 0588, and 10 CFR 50 Appendix R. Taken !
together, these regulatory backfits dramatically 1 increased the complexity of. plant operations and the overall scope of plant maintenance programs.
)
Additionally, the NRC revised the LER reporting rule (10 CFR 50.73) in 1984. This revision resulted in a greater number of events being reported to the commission. The discussion of NUREG 1212 makes no reference to the impact of regulatory backfits or the revision to the LER rule. Such consideration is appropriate whenever qualitative judgements are being made, particularly when those judgements are used as inputs to statistical analysis of data.
The NRC also references Draft NUREG 1150 in its calculations for expected reduction in exposure to the public. NUREG 1150 addresses severe accident consequences based on PRA results for 4 nuclear i facilities. It is unclear at this time whether the use of a draft document and the severe accident risk results is appropriate to this cost i benefit analysis. Additionally, it is not clear I whether plant specific component failure rate data was used in the performance of the PRAs referenced in NUREG 1150. If plant specific data was used, (
then a determination should be made as to whether l any of the referenced plants falls into the NRCs category of poor maintenance program plants. If both of the previous conditions are true, then the "2 to 5 times the risk" assumption used by NRC in the public risk calculation might be invalid.
5 4
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - _ ._ _- - __A
In the regulatory analysis, the NRC. identifies that NRC costs are those resulting from development of a regulatory guide and subsequent assistance to industry on the implementation of the guide requirements. They further state that-NRC I&E would audit licensee programs and that licensee submittals to NRR would not be required.
They do not however say whether the I&E costs for the plant audits is' included in their estimate.
i 6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - -