JPN-89-008, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants

ML20235T341
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point, FitzPatrick, 05000000
Issue date:	02/27/1989
From:	Brons J POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR47822, RULE-PR-50 53FR47822-00040, 53FR47822-40, JPN-89-008, JPN-89-8, NUDOCS 8903080245
Download: ML20235T341 (7)

Text

_ _ - - - - - - -- _ _ - _ --

, 7

~. vam n--

- 2.

maum 00CKET i! UMBER

?ROPOSED RULE, *- DR@**2 lh (6VM')8&:cw xc

1. > NewWrkPbwer 89 FEB 28 P5 :46 sea" c :< " .

& Authority-February 27, 1989 .--

JPN-89-008 .

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

" Ensuring the Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs for Nuclear Power Plantsu

Reference:

1. NRC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 53 FR 47822, dated November 28, 1988.

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The New York Power Authority has reviewed and evaluated the notice of proposed rulemaking requiring licensees to strengthen maintenance activities. This letter provides the Authority's comments on the proposed rule.

NUBARG (Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group) reviewed the proposed rule for its conformance to the Backfit Rule. NUMARC (Nuclear Management and Resources Council) performed a review of each requirement of the proposed rule. The Authority, a member of both NUBARG and NUMARC, strongly endorses their positions and comments. This letter provides additional comments which reflect the Authority's serious concern about the negative impact of the proposed rule on our plants.

The Authority agrees with all of the Commissioners that effective maintenance is important to safety. The Authority is totally committed to provide nuclear power safely and reliably and is firmly dedicated to excellence in plant operation. On August 3, 1988, I presented a synopsis of the very extensive and growing maintenance programs at the Authority's plants as part of a NUMARC presentation to the Commissioners. These programs, which cover both safety and non-safety related equipment, demonstrate the Authority's commitment to effective maintenance without the burden of an unnecessary regulation. As will be discusssed in the remainder of this letter, the Authority believes the proposed rulemaking will seriously jeopardize the effectiveness of these programs.

B9030B0245 890227 []

PDR 53 47022

The proposed rule is based on what the NRC admits is a limited examination of nuclear power plant maintenance programs.

The Federal Register Notice states, "A limited NRC examination of nuclear power plant maintenance programs has found a wide variation in the effectiveness of these programs." Judging the entire industry on a non-specific review and limited examination is neither a justifiable nor a rational basis for rulemaking.

At worst, according to NRC testimony, some 10 to 25 percent of operating plants have a " maintenance problem." However, data such as NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)  ;

reports indicate that these percentages are no longer accurate.

Industry initiative has decreased the number of " problem" plants significantly. Even assuming the appropriateness of generically addressing a " problem" existing at a few facilities, the regulation would adversely affect plants with good programs.

Furthermore, the regulation would not improve the " effectiveness" of maintenance at those plants which the Commission believes to have a problem.

This can be simply illustrated. The proposed rule identifies communications between maintenance, operations, and management to be an important element of an effective maintenance program, on a conceptual level, the Authority could not agree more with the NRC. Most successful utilities document communications between maintenance, operations, and management with varying degrees of formality. They achieve results through teamwork, ability, and coordination. For most of these well-performing plants, however, the inspection and enforcement process would require increased documentation. This would divert resources that are now devoted to doing maintenance and improving performance. Moreover, the imposition of unnecessary formality may well decrease the performance of some plants which are functioning ~very effectively without it.

4 The proposed rule also incorporates the word " documented" which is the cornerstone of Inspection and Enforcement. The very subjective word " effective" is also used. The Inspection and Enforcement process has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to judge effectiveness based on overall performance. Instead, effectiveness is demonstrated by copious administrative procedure and documentation. During the inspection process, a single error i becomes the basis for extracting commitments.from licensees for procedural revisions or increased documentation, which do not necessarily result in programmatic improvements.

For those plants which need improvement, it is equally unlikely that the propocod regulation would achieve its intent.

The inspection and enforcement process would impose documentation and performance standards. These standards would probably have been patterned after those used at another facility, e.g., a better performing plant. Thus, the poorer performing utility would be forced to adopt practices which were effective in a different or a hypothetical organizational setting. To the j

contrary, unregulated industry initiatives recognize that teamwork and coordination can neither be regulated nor imposed.

Instead, such industry initiatives work with the abilities, strengths, and specific weaknesses found at a particular plant. l This is clearly what the Commissioners intend. Overall industry statistics indicate that industry initiative is working and working well. The proposed regulation and the' inspection and enforcement process would not work nearly as well.

Licensees are committed to correct weaknesses and strengthen operation with the goal of improving safety and reliability.

Each utility allocates resources for this purpose.

Prioritization of resource application is uniquely established by each utility using input from self-assessment, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) evaluations, and the NRC. The NRC, through processes such as SALP, inspections, bulletins, etc., has many ways to influence and direct utility priorities. ,

I The proposed maintenance rule would cause redirection of many of the existing programs simply to demonstrate compliance with the rule. This would not achieve the desired result of increased safety and reliability. Some Commissioners and senior NRC staff have stated that the rule should have no effect on most plants which are doing well in maintenance. Such a view is very naive.

Like many utilities, the Power Authority has commenced significant maintenance improvement programs. The implementation of this rule, at best, would parallel the existing improvement programs. At worst, it could negate these programs by redirecting resources from resolution of identified problems to i data gathering and analysis. Both the NRC and INPO encourage  !

self-initiated improvement programs; however, utilities cannot afford to expend resources on self-initiated efforts if these resources are later redirected due to different NRC philosophies or mandates. This is an important concern that should be addressed prior to issuing this rule.

This rulemaking neglects aggressive maintenance initiatives undertaken by the industry in recent years. These include INPO l accredited training programs, INPO Maintenance Self-Assessment, increased data bases, and EPRI publications which provide guidance for maintenance programs. All of these indicate the importance and pricrity the industry pleces on maintenance.

These initiatives contribute to improvements in capacity factors, SALP ratings, radiation exposure, low level radwaste generation, forced outage rates, and scrams. The NRC's " limited examination" should be expanded to consider these initiatives.

The Federal Register Notice states that the proposed rule codifies and standardizes previously existing requirements, both explicit and implicit. It also says that the existing requirements are contained in plant Technical Specifications, Safety Analysis Reports, and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B. This contradicts the position stated earlier in the Notice that the proposed rule is based on safety concerns. If this rule is

necessary for safety, it must contain requirements not defined elsewhere. If the requirements do exist elsewhere, then codification will not improve maintenance. If existing requirements are not being met, the NRC should take appropriate action, rather than use the non-compliance as an excuse to promulgate new rules.

The industry uses INPO guidelines to develop maintenance programs. Recognizing the broad variations in existing maintenance programs, a maintenance guideline must be relatively generic. A general description of necessary elements should be provided, but implementation details should be left to individual utilities. The emphasis should be placed on meeting the intent.

Guidelines should not force a utility to change a working program solely for the purpose of standardization. INPO guidelines meet these criteria for a useful guideline. They allow utilities to meet their intent using any appropriate means. Performance objectives and goals, as well as management involvement, are specified to ensure continuing trends of performance. The notice of proposed rulemaking calls for comment on the development of a maintenance standard. If the NRC does not have a standard in hand, how was an objective determination made that maintenance practices are generally deficient? Without guidelines, the NRC cannot determine whether compliance has been achieved. The proposed regulation will impact safety negatively by redirecting maintenance efforts to meet an undefined standard. To make matters worse, each licensee and each individual NRC inspector will interpret this " standard" differently.

It is unclear whether the proposed rule is a final rulemaking, or whether it is first in a series of rules to be promulgated. In the section entitled, " Expectations for Maintenance Standard," the Notice states, " Follow-on rulemaking is envisioned which would build on the bases established in this rule and would define those validated measurable quantities or indicators that could credibly become the basis for regulatory attention or action in the future...." On the other hand, the backfit analysis states, "The proposed maintenance rule would be a final requirement." The Authority cannot commit resources and develop reasonable schedules for maintenance improvement without a stable regulatory environment. The confused and ill-defined objective of the rule makes rational planning impossible.

The backfit analysis also states that the proposed rule advances the goal of having a comprehensive set of regulations defining what is needed for adequate protection. However, based on previous discussions on the meaning of " adequate protection,"

this implies that "an undue risk" currently exists. ~ The Power Authority emphatically agrees with Commissioner Roberts that this is clearly not the case and should not be implied.

The Authority fully endorses Commissioner Roberts' comments as published with the proposed rule. In particular, the Authority agrees with his question, "What are we trying to

accomplish with this rule that cannot'more effectively and innovatively be accomplished without a regulation?" This question remains unanswered. The. Authority believes that the intent of the framers and proponents of the rule is being accomplished without a rule. Further, the innovation which has provided the significant and measurable improvement in overall performance indicators is cited in the NUMARC response.

The Authority strongly supports Commissioner Roberts' reservation about including " balance of plant" systems in the rule. NRC authority to regulate " balance of plant" equipment which is irrelevant to public health and safety is questionable.

Performance. improvements to equipment in this category relate more to plant availability and are inappropriate for regulatory action. The Authority has comprehensive and effective maintenance programs for " balance of plant" equipment. Overall industry statistics indicate that this is true for most utilities. All utilities, however, will be set back in their efforts as they attempt to deal with individual inspector determinations of what is meant by a documented program for all structures, components, etc. within the protected area.

The NRC has stated that, "The economic impact of the proposed requirement on licensees should be negligible." This statement is at best naive, and at worst specious. The NRC clearly indicates that it is not convinced that costs are negligible when it says, in the same paragraph, "The Commission requests cooperation of informed sources in order to develop further details and verification of this analysis," (emphasis added). The Backfit Rule requires that the costs of implementation be justified in light of the substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety. The NRC has not adequately determined the costs in light of the request for assistance in developing the details and verification for their analysis.

In the midst of ongoing industry efforts, the NRC is proposing a rule of expansive scope, providing no definitive criteria or standards, and proceeding on a schedule so accelerated that a reasonable amount of time to review and comment is not available. Industry efforts would be arrested and resources reallocated to demonstrate compliance with a rule when the NRC has no objective method for measuring maintenance effectiveness.

Since the NRC does not intend to require formal submittal and approval of the maintenance program, compliance would be determined through audit and inspection. Both utility personnel and NRC inspectors would have to rely on experience and engineering judgement to determine compliance. In view of the proposed rule, which provides no guidance, this is a blueprint for disaster.

The NRC is embarking on a rulemaking adventure similar in

many ways to others in the past. The FitzPatrick plant is well into its second 10 year Inservice Testing (IST) interval. Yet, the equipment covered by the IST Program is still in dispute between the industry and the NRC, even though the rule specifically references ASME codes which define equipment subject to IST. The NRC recently indicated that a new generic letter would be issued to clarify the rule - years after it became effective. The maintenance rule is likely to be worse.

Fire protection is another area where the regulatory process was similar to that being employed in the maintenance rule. The industry was upgrading fire safety to existing NRC requirements when the NRC issued Appendix R. Appendix R did not supercede previous requirements but added to them. The industry-wide efforts to comply resulted in numerous requests for exemption and substantial confusion as to what constitutes compliance. Years after the rule took effect, exemption requests were still being submitted to the NRC. The intent of the rule to increase safety was nearly defeated by the regulatory process of imposing the requirement.

Environmental qualification is yet another example of a rulemaking process which resulted in industry-wide confusion.

The industry was in the process of upgrading equipment qualification when the rule was issued. The industry undertook massive efforts to achieve compliance. However, there were widespread difficulties determining what was adequate to demonstrate compliance with the rule. In addition, there were substantial disagreements as to what documentation was adequate to prove compliance to inspectors.

In these cases, without clear and uniform guidance for achieving and measuring compliance, resources are wasted and, therefore, unavailable for true increases in safety. Litigation, the number of violations and enforcement actions, and the number of issues unresolved in the above mentioned areas, are indicative of deficiencies in the rulemaking process when it is undertaken in an irresponsible fashion. The maintenance rule is broader in scope than these others, yet even less reason and thought is going into the process to develop it. The fact that guidance will be developed in parallel with the rule is a rulemaking approach that has consistently failed to achieve the desired results. If the NRC will not adopt a more reasoned approach to maintenance, history is destined to repeat itself.

Above all, ongoing efforts which are producing real improvements in safety will be diverted to demonstrate that improvements are being made. There will be a real and negative impact on those plants aggressively pursuing maintenance improvements. Both of the Authority's plants will be among those negatively impacted.

The Power Authority appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. The Authority does not believe that

y---- - - - - -

3- . ..

y w;:

e

, 'l[ 3 4-L g ..the: proposed.rulegwould' help ensure that plants-are2 safely and reliably-maintained.' The.NRC should: reconsider ~ issuing ~this-rule,1since it: could. jeopardize industry initiatives and adversely' affect current-industry maintenance. programs.

Should you or your staff have any questions regarding:this matter, please'. contact.Mr. J. A. Gray,'Jr. of my staff.

Very truly yours, ub.. [ 4 h.

John'C.EBrons Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation

'" .s

.f , .

cc:- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale. Road' King of.Prussial~PAl19406 -4 6 x Office.of the Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1136-Lycoming, NY: 13093

, @& Mr.: David E. La-Barge

.N

' Project Directorate I-1 Y ' Divission of : Reactor Projects - I/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop:14~B2 ,

Washington, D.C. 20555

'Mr. Joseph-D. Neighbors, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate'I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Mail Stop 14 B2 Washington, D.C. 20555 Resident-Inspector's Office

. Indian Point 3 ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 337 4 Buchanan, NY 10511

- _ _ . _ ________ _ - _ _ _ _-__-__- __ - ____ _ _ ____ _ -__ _- _ __ _ - _ __ - -_-_-___ - - _ _ ___ __ - _ _