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 Interpretation

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

ML20206N734
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/14/1998
From:	Keiser H Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-63FR52201, RULE-PR-50 63FR52201-00018, 63FR52201-18, LR-N980588, NUDOCS 9812210322
Download: ML20206N734 (3)

Text

. . . . - . .

DOCKETED UFWC December 14, 1998

% der j7 All :34 i

LR-N980588 ADL g Mr. John C. Hoyle i Secretary of the Commission agg g gggggg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 oROPOSED RULE N 50 pg Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff I

Comments on Proposed Amendment to the Maintenance Rule 63 Fed. Reg. 52201 (September 30,1998)

SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS DOCKliT NOS. 50-272,50-311 AND 50-354

Dear Mr. Hoyle:

On September 30,1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a proposed amendment to the Maintenance Rule,10CFR50.65, for public comment. This letter submits PSE&G's comments regarding the proposed amendment. In addition to these specific comments, PSE&G supports the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Maintenance Rule Implementation Clearinghouse (MRIC).

1 PSE&G agrees that adequate safety assessments should continue to be performed prior to removing equipment from service for maintenance. While we agree with the general principle behind this proposed rulemaking we are concerned that the proposed rule contains certain language that is open to interpretation. If broadly construed, the proposed rule could present a significant implementation burden without a commensurate increase in safety.

PSE&G's specific comments are as follows:

1. The proposed revision represents an expansion in scope of the risk 0 assessment requirements. Fully integrating all Technical Specification

! surveillance tests into the formal risk assessment process requires a significant level of effort without a commensurate increase in safety. This proposal may be viewed as resulting in a requirement to conduct continuous risk assessments.

9812210322 981214 PDR PR 50 63FR52201 PDR g 5 /O 1

. 3 k

Mr. John C. Hoyle 2 LR-N980588 l i

I

2. The proposed paragraph (a)(4) could be interpreted to require detailed risk assessments prior to any maintenance on all Maintenance Rule systems, structures, and components (SSCs). This would create a substantial additional burden, which rather than adding the benefit of increased safety, l may actually serve to remove the focus from the risk significant equipment. A l more appropriate approach may be to limit the requirement to perform risk )

assessments prior to maintenance to the high risk significant SSCs.  ;

3. The proposed wording of the revision would require that a safety assessment "shall be used to ensure that the plant is not placed in risk-significant configurations or that would degrade the performance of safety functions to an unacceptable level". This wording appears vague and open to interpretation. Our concern is that this increases the likelihood of inconsistent applications and regulation via the inspection process.

• Risk significant configuration - This terminology is not defined in the actual rule language, nor is there a common understanding of this language between the industry and NRC. This term appears to increase the focus on the PSA such that an over reliance on the PSA is encouraged. PSA should be a tool to complement the Technical Specifications and address the limitations of the Technical Specifications for dealing with conditions where multiple equipment is out of service.

• Degrade the performance of safety functions to an unacceptable level-

" Unacceptable level" is open to interpretation.

. In addition, the definition of maintenance activities is open-ended and subject to varying interpretations.

In conclusion, we support the NRC in the endeavor to ensure that adequate safety assessments are conducted prior to removing equipment from service for maintenance. However, we are of the opinion that the proposed rule, as written, would not achieve the anticipated goals. We suggest that the proposed rule be withdrawn. We also suggest that the NRC continue to work with NEl to adopt a risk-informed Maintenance Rule, which includes wording that is clearly defined and mutually understood. The required detail and rigor of the safety i

assessments within a risk-informed Maintenance Rule should be proportional to

Mr. John C. Hoyle 3 LR-N980588 the risk-significance of the SSC. These requirements should also be clearly defined and mutually understood prior to implementation of the rule.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revision and request your careful consideration of the issues.

Sincerely, Original signed by Harry Keiser Public Service Electric and Gas P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 I

1 l

l

[

i l .4 I

n ~t~, ,