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 Vague
| ML20235V796 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1989 |
| From: | Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR47822, RULE-PR-50 53FR47822-00053, 53FR47822-53, B13136, NUDOCS 8903100336 | |
| Download: ML20235V796 (12) | |
Text
' a 4
' PROPOSED RULE <
{G3$5 NORTHEAST UTILETIES o.nor.i Ome.. . som.e semien. Conn.cticut 1 "I *= P.O. BOX 270
- N"""""'"""
HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 L ' J ""O 0"E%~.,"
(2mg5-5png -2 A9 :46 February 27,jll8!i- ,
Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 B13136 Re: Federal Register Vol. 53, No. 228, November 28, 1988 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Comments on Proposed Rule Effectiveness of Maintenance Procrams for Nuclear Power plants On November 28, 1988, the NRC published in the Federal Register, Vol . 53, No. 228, a proposed rule on ensuring the effectiveness of maintenance programs for auclear power plants. The public comment period on the proposed rule originally expired January 27, 1989, but was subsequently extended 30 days by the NRC, to expire February 27, 1989. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the NRC on the proposed rule on behalf of Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPC0) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO). CYAPC0 and NNEC0 remain committed to the goal of achieving and maintaining improved reliability and safety at our nuclear power stations through an effective maintenance program. CYAPC0 and NNEC0 have maintained a continuing extensive effort to analyze maintenance issues and to develop overall guidelines that identify the essential elements needed ir. our mainte-nance programs. Utilizing our maintenance expertise, and working with NUMARC, INPO, EPRI, and others, we believe we have been able to focus our emphasis on specific areas of need and maintain effective and continually improving maintenance programs.
CYAPC0 and NNEC0's maintenance policy is to not only continue our present efforts, but to implement new efforts that prove to be beneficial. We remain committed to continue to work with the NRC to review the existing programs as well as the need for additional programs or specific efforts that we believe may assist in sustaining our goal of enhanced reliability and safety. How-ever, we believe that a rule on maintenance will not improve maintenance in our plants nor improve the reliability or safety of our plants. Proceeding with rulemaking at this time, in light of the many industry-sponsored initia-tives and continuing improvements in this area, will impose a burden on the 8903100336 890227 PDR
[
N 53N 47822
p.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B13136/Page 2 February 27, 1989 industry requiring significant resources to administer and will have an overall adverse effect on the reliability and safety of the nuclear industry ,
as a whole. Our own experience shows that only 13 percent of our maintenance work orders are safety-related, and the institution of this proposed rule would directly impact the remaining 87 percent, requiring significant addi- '
tional resources and adversely impacting the whole program.
In support of the above, CYAPC0 and NNECO are providing specific comments on the 12 topics identified by the NRC in the Federal Register notice. These l comments are provided in Attachment 1. Further, we endorse the comments being filed by NUMARC on this rulemaking.
CYAPC0 and NNEC0 do not believe that development of a maintenance standard is required because such standards already exist within the industry. Industry efforts have led to the development of, and a commitment by the industry to, a number of very important initiatives aimed at improving maintenance at nuclear power facilities. These include the accreditation of training programs for maintenance personnel, our endorsement of the INP0 Maintenance Guidelines, self-assessment for our maintenance programs against the Maintenance Guide-lines, and most importantly, focusing management attention to correct identi-fied weaknesses in any of our programs. The promulgation of a rule will not g accomplish what can more effectively and innovatively be accomplished without a regulation.
Even if we agreed that establishing a rule on maintenance was a good idea, the proposed rule as written is much too vague. Exactly what would be required under this rule will not be known until the regulatory guide or other guidance documents are finalized. Also, the proposed rule would have the NRC regulat-ing maintenance on all systems, structures, and components regardless of their '
impact on radiological health and safety. This is an inappropriate intrusion into the balance of plant (B0P). In addition, the proposed rule fails to meet the exception criteria of the backfit rule (10CFR50.109(a)(4)) and requires a backfit analysis. In our view, " adequate protection" in the maintenance area is currently assured. Thus, a backfit analysis is required to support promulgation of this rule. The backfit analysis offered by the Commission fails to support promulgation of the proposed regulation. We refer you to and endorse the comments filed by the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group in this regard.
Finally, the NRC has stated that the maintenance programs in existence at approximately 80 percent of the industry's nuclear power plants are adequate and that the effects of a maintenance rule on these plants would be negligi-bl e. We judge it inappropriate to establish a new regulation to address concerns with a few " problem plants" which would unnecessarily burden the better performers and which could actually stifle innovation and improvements.
The NRC Staff already has the tools and mechanisms in place with which to apply the necessary pressures to the problem plants to improve their programs. ,
In addition to the detailed information offered above and provided in the attachments, we believe it is important to offer a more global perspective
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B13136/Page 3 February 27, 1989 regarding the synergistic implications of a rule of this breadth and scope, particularly when considered in the context of other contemplated new Commis-sion requirements. We enthusiastically concur with the Commission's objective of assuring that maintenance activities receive the proper high priority at nuclear facilities. However, a rule which consists of the individual good ideas of hundreds of individuals or companies becomes overbearing and does not represent an efficient way to manage complex nuclear facilities.
CYAPC0 and NNEC0 have learned an important lesson during the past several l years. Previously, our Nuclear Engineering and Operations organization has expanded without limits in order to implement all new concepts and ideas. ,
Each of these ideas had merit when evaluated alone. Over time, however, too I many of these good ideas detracted from maintaining a focus on our basic ,
responsibilities. Today we never compromise safety, but neither do we adopt I each and every good idea that is advanced. Our experience during the last 18 months has proven that it is possible to operate safely, improve performance, and function effectively by prioritizing our workload.
We believe that there is an analogy here regarding the proposed maintenance rule. To prescribe detailed requirements in an area so complex and involved is to repeat a mistake which we have recognized via experience. We would encourage the Commission to reflect upon this perspective during its delibera-tions regarding the ongoing rulemaking.
We trust these comments will be given careful consideration, and we remain available to discuss this matter at your convenience.
Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Y v4J' E. J,Noczka //
Senior Vice President cc: W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant l M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. I G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 .
D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 l
l
\
- r. _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ , _ .__ _- __ , _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
i, Docket Nes 50-213~ .
50-245_
10-131 50-423-B13136 Attachment 1 Haddam Neck Plant
- Millstone Nuclear Power Station,' Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Comments on Proposed Rule Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs for Nuclear. Power Plants February 1989
Attachment 1 B13136/Page 1 February 27, 1989 Comments on Proposed Rule Effectiveness of Maintenance Procrams in Nuclear Power Plants In addition to comments on the content of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the NRC specifically solicited input on the following:
Soecific Comments
- 1. Is it appropriate for the nuclear power industry to develop a Mainte-nance Standard and, if so, would the industry develop such a Mainte-nance Standard?
Response
CVAPC0 and NNEC0 do not believe that development of a specific mainte-nance standard is required because such standards already exist within the industry. Industry efforts have led to the development of, and a commitment by the industry to, a number of very important initiatives aimed at improving maintenance at nuclear power facilities. These include the accreditation of training programs for maintenance person-nel, our endorsement of the INP0 Maintenance Guidelines, sel f-assessment for our maintenance programs against the Maintenance Guidelines, and most importantly, focusing management attention to correct identified weakness in any of our programs. We believe that the establishment of a rule will not accomplish what can more effectively be accomplished without a regulation.
In addition, the NRC has stated that the maintenance programs in existence at approximately 80 percent of the industry's nuclear power plants are adequate and that the effects of a maintenance rule on these plants would be negligible. We view it inappropriate to establish a new regulation to address concerns with a few " problem plants" which would unnecessarily burden the better performers and which could actually stifle innovation and improvements. The NRC Staff already has the tools and mechanisms, e.g., plant-specific backfits or orders, in place with which to apnly the necessary pressures to the problem plants to improve their programs.
Finally, to specifically address this issue. CYAPCO and NNEC0 do agree that if a specific maintenance standard were necessary, that it would be appropriate for the industry to develop it. However, we believe that this standard already exists, subject to future refinement as is the case with any program. Additionally, CYAPC0 and NNEC0 do not believe that promulgation of a maintenance rule will improve or enhance safety or reliability at our nuclear facilities and may in fact adversely impact reliability and safety.
]
l Attachment 1 B13136/Page 2 February 27, 1989
- 2. What level of detail should be included in the Maintenance Standard?
Response
The maintenance programs currently in place are dynamic programs that are continually revised and improved as weaknesses or innovations are identified. The current level of detail in the existing maintenance programs is adequate to meet the needs of today and will be modified as improvements are identified. Tb2 proposed rule would hava the NRC regulating maintenance on all systems, structures, and components regardless of whether they have a direct impact on radiological safety.
This level of detail goes well beyond what is necessary for the protec-tion of public health and safety. It is CYAPC0 and NNEC0's position that any regulation addressing systems, structures, and components which are not " safety-related" nor necessary for the continued protec-tion of public health and safety would be beyond NRC's mission and inappropriate.
- 3. Is two years a reasonable time to develop and implement a standard? '
Response
It is CYAPC0 and NNEC0's position that a reasonable standard already exists, INP0's Guidelines for the Conduct of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Stations, and is being appropriately implemented at our four nuclear units.
- 4. Is it appropriate for a designated third party to certify plant mainte-nance programs to comply with the Maintenance Standard?
Response
CYAPC0 and NNECO do not believe that it would be appropriate for a third party to certify that plant maintenance programs cnmply with a maintenance standard. INP0's program for operating excellence, with its associated reviews, evaluations, and guidelines, plus sel f-assessment of programs against industry standards, are the appropriate mechanisms to verify program adequacy.
- 5. The Commission plans to issue by November 1989, a Regulatory Guide establishing standards and criteria for determining what constitutes an effective maintenance program. If an acceptable industry standard is available in this time frame, the Commission will consider endorsing the industry standard in the Regulatory Guide.
Response
CYAPC0 and NNECO contend that the standards and criteria for determin-ing what constitutes an effective maintenance program are already
- l Attachment 1 B13136/Page 3 February 27, 1989 encompassed in existing guidance. The Commission has stated that it will issue a Regulatory Guide by November 1989 establishing its standards and criteria for determining what constitutes an effective 1
maintenance program, unless the industry can develop an acceptable standard in this time frame that the NRC could endorse. It is CYAPC0 and NNEC0's opinion that these currently exist and that the NRC should consider endorsing INP0's Guidelines for the Conduct of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Stations, or suggesting any improvement believed to be appropriate.
- 6. The Commission believes that the proposed maintenance rule should be considered under 10CFR50.109(a)(4) of the backfit rule which wculd exempt the maintenance rule from backfit requirements. The Commission requests public comment concerning the need for a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.
Response
It is CYAPC0 and NNECO's position that the implementation of the proposed rule requires a backfit analysis. The NRC appears to be stating that the proposed rule is exempt from a backfit analysis under 10CFR50.109(a)(4) because effective maintenance is necessary to main-tain adequate protection. CYAPC0 and NNECO agree that effective maintenance is a significant factor in ensuring that nuclear power plants are safe; however, we believe that this proposed rule is not necessary to achieve an adequate level of protection, since adequate protection is assured currently, and it could diminish rather than enhance the protection to the public. It appears that in citing 50.109(a)(4), the NRC is arguing that the rule is required to ensure adequate protection. Simultaneously, the NRC performed a backfit analysis which can only be relevant if adequate protection is already assured without the rule. This appears to be a major inconsistency.
In our view, the Commission should classify the proposed rule as a backfit and apply the standards of 10CFR50.109. Backfitting is defined by 10CFR50.109(a)(1) "as the modification or addition to . . . the design of a facility . . . or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules." Since the proposed rule contemplates new requirements, most, if not every, licensee will be forced to modify its programs, to some extent, to sati,fy the new requirements; notably with regard to balance of plant equipment. Furthermore, new procedures or modifications of existing ones would be mandated by the proposed rule. Therefore, the proposed rule satisfies the definition of backfit specified in the Commission's own regulations, and the standards of 10CFR50.109 should apply.
It is believed that the future use of nuclear energy in this country depends directly on future regulatory stability. This will require
l Attachment 1 813136/Page 4 February 27, 1989 1 1
1 adherence by the Commission to its own rules (particularly Sec-tion 50.109), which means that regulatory analysis should be developad with rigor and commensurate with the evaluations that the industry performs.
There is another aspect of the proposed rule that concerns us. The NRC presented a cost-benefit analysis but also indicated that it had preliminarily determined that the proposed maintenance rule could be implemented without a cost-benefit justification under the " adequate protection" standard. The difficulty with this rationale is that it necessarily presumes all United States nuclear plants are currently operating at a level below that " adequate protection" baseline until they improve their maintenance programs. This is not supported by data provided in the proposed rule or regulatory analysis, NUREG-1212, nor the more recent detailed specific maintenance inspections nor our own experience. If we did not believe adequate protection existed, we would not be operating our units.
The practical problem with this approach is that casual invocation of the " adequate protection" exception in effect creates a giant loophole in the backfit rule and could create a situation similar to the post-Three Mile Island period when plant upgrades were imposed by the NRC with little regard for their cost or whether they would actually achieve significant improvements in safety. As described in NUREG-0839, "A Survey by Senior NRC Management to Obtain Viewpoints on the Safety Impact of Regulatory Activities from Representative Utili-ties Operations and Constructing Nuclear Power Plant," published August 1981, the report concluded, "It is the finding, not withstanding the competence and good intentions of the staff, that the pace and nature of regulatory actions have created a potential safety problem of unknown dimensions." It is of concern that the " adequate protection" exception might be used by the NRC in this instance, and we believe the use of cost-benefit analysis in connection with the consideration of a maintenance rule is mandatory.
While it is agreed that effective maintenance is required to ensure the health and safety of the public, we do not believe that the NRC has ~
demonstrated that the current industry practices are inadequate to meet the required health and safety standard.
Additionally, the NRC has exercised and continues to exercise its regulatory enforcement prerogative. The application of the rule to all g,lant equipment expands regulatory authority beyond equipment that is clearly safety-related and, as such, should not be exempted from a careful and thorough regulatory analysis and justification.
The NRC's summary of the proposed maintenance rule explains that the rule is required in order to enhance safety. The unavoidable implica-tion of the Commission's statement requesting comment as to the need
Attachment 1 B13136/Page 5 February 27, 1989 for a backfit analysis is that present maintenance programs do not adequately protect the public. It is believed that conclusion is incorrect; certainly the NRC has failed to substantiate it.
In addition, CYAPC0 and NNECO have serious concerns regarding the following points.
- a. The NRC does not mention which of the three categories of 50.109(a)(4) they consider relevant.
- b. The NRC's value impact analysis is highly speculative and has insufficient basis,
- c. The NRC's reliance on plant availability in the value impact analysis is questionable.
- d. The NRC has repeatedly stated that their concerns with maintenance are limited to a small percentage of plants. Since the area of concern is a limited population, why promulgate a rule affecting all plants? If the maintenance performance at most plants is satisfactory, efforts needed to comply with the proposed rule would not be cost justified.
- e. Overall, the proposed rule suffers from being excessively vague.
Exactly what would be required is not known until the regulatory guide or other guidance documents are finalized. It is extremely difficult to provide meaningful comments on a rule without the accompanying implementation documents.
- 7. The Commission bel'ieves that the inclusion of balance of plant equip-ment in the proposed maintenance rule is necessary and proper. The Commission requests public comment concerning what limitation, if any, should be placed on the final maintenance rule.
Response
CYAPC0 and NNECO contend that only systems, structures, and components that are safety-related and required for the protection of public health and safety would be candidates for inclusion in any rule, including maintenance. We cannot agree with a rule that would have the NRC regulating maintenance on all systems, structures, and components regardless of their impact on radiological safety. Such a proposition appears inconsistent with the NRC's mission under the Atomic Energy Act.
- 8. The Commission desires to establish criteria within the maintenance ,
rule which would form the basis for determining when a maintenance I program is fully effective. The Commission requests public comment 4
1 QI Attachment 1 B13136/Page 6 February 27, 1989 concerning the need for such criteria, the form of such . criteria, and the criteria themselves.
Response
CYAPC0 and NNEC0's existing maintenance programs emphasize training, accountability, and performance of jobs done right the first time. We agree that individual worker accountability plays an important role in an effective maintenance program; however, we do not believe that " work ethics" can be effectively regulated.
9./10. The Commission desires to ertablish criteria within the maintenance rule which vould form the basis for determining when a maintenance program is- fully effective. The Commission requests public comment concerning the need for such criteria, the form of such criteria, and the criteria themselves. Are performance indicators that are being used by industry, may be used in the future, or have been used in the past, appropriate candidates as quantitative measures of maintenance effectiveness?
Response
NNECO and CYAPC0 believe that performance indicators are useful in assessing the overall effectiveness of plant operation. Maintenance performance indicators are effective for assessing the maintenance aspects of plant operation but must be viewed in conjunction with all other aspects of plant operations. To that end, the effectiveness of maintenance performance is a prominent factor in each of the following performance indicators used by NNECO and CYAPC0 to assess overall plant performance. The parameters used to assess overall performance include the following:
(1) Capacity factor (2) SALP ratings (3) INP0 evaluation rating (4) Number of automatic trips (5) Forced outage rate (6) Heat rete (7) ALARA implementation (8) On-site power source availability (9) Lost work day incidence rate (10) Radwaste reduction In addition, the following information is trended in the " Northeast Utilities Quarterly Performance Monitori g Report," which has periodi-cally been provided to the Commission and the Staff:
(1) Capacity factor (2) Forced cutage rate
l l
l l
l Attachment 1 l B13136/Page 7 February 27, 1989 I
(3) Unplanned reactor trips (4) Plant design change request status (5) Collective man-rem exposure j (6) Total skin and clothing contaminations j (7) Production Maintenance Management System (PMMS) indicators 1 (a) Preventative maintenance percentage (b) Corrective maintenance backlog indicator (8) NE&O contractors The mechanism of diagnostic monitoring has been addressed by our
" Maintenance Self-Assessment" review of maintenance history. The recommendations from this review included the need to formalize the administration of a maintenance history program. Currently, CYAPC0 and NNECO are working on this effort with results expected in June 1989.
The above-listed parameters are used to assess overall unit perfor-mance. In most cases, maintenance is a contributor to the overall value of a parameter. CYAPC0 and NNEC0 management have taken action affecting maintenance based upon the changes in a parameter. Examples include various personnel changes and the initiation of a procedure upgrade program. These indicators, in combination with other PMMS indicators, provide effective feedback for decision making.
- 11. Should an industry-wide component failure reporting system, e.g.,
NPRDS, be used by all plants in order to support the sharing of generic maintenance experience and facilitate monitoring of maintenance effec-tiveness?
Response
As stated previously, CYAPC0 and NNECO contend that only systems, structures, and components that are safety related and required for the protection of public health and safety should be candidates for inclu-sion in any rule on maintenance. Since NPRDS already addresses safety-related equipment and activities, the development of another industry-wide component failure reporting system is not required and would be redundant.
- 12. Commissioner Roberts provided his views and opposition of the proposed rule. Comments are requested on his views.
Response
Concerning Commissioner Roberts' views on the proposed maintenance rule, CYAPC0 and NNEC0 strongly agree with the majority of his assess-ment. CYAPC0 and NNEC0 believe that to promulgate a rule on mainte-nance would be counterproductive to the goal it would be attempting to
_______ ___________-__- _ D
l .. . . ,.
l Attachment 1 l B13136/Page 8 )
February 27, 1989 i l
achieve. Our own experience shows that only approximately 13 percent of our maintenance work orders are safety-related, and institution of this proposed rule would directly impact the remaining 87 percent l
nonsafety-related items with no evidence that safety would be enhanced.
This certainly would not be cost-effective and would require signifi-cant resources to maintain and would create a~ burden that could have adverse impacts on the program as a whole, diminishing rather than enhancing the protection of the public.
The NRC, through the Regions, already has the authority to enforce compliance in the maintenance area, as can be attested to by cases whe're the NRC has taken regulatory action in various forms. A rule on maintenance will not increase the regulatory effectiveness of maintain-ing protection of the public health and safety.
Finally, CYA.PC0 and NNECO are committed to improving and maintaining the highest standards of maintenance for our nuclear facilities. In addition to programs such as the INP0 guidelines on maintenance, other industry codes and standards, such as 0&M (12) of ASME, exist to ensure that proper control of maintenance is achieved. We are committed to continue to work with the NRC to review the existing programs as well as the need for additional programs or specific efforts we may both agree may assist in reaching our goal of enhanced reliability and safety. We believe a rule on maintenance would be counterproductive and would stifle the current climate that encourages achievement and allows the industry and Staff to work together to achieve the highest levels of performance and safety.
1
_____m_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - - - - -