ML18037A132
| ML18037A132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17056C371 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-IIT07-776-91, CON-IIT7-776-91 NUREG-1455, NUDOCS 9305070278 | |
| Download: ML18037A132 (4) | |
Text
FRON NOTA T I ON VOTE
RESPONSE
SHEET SAMUEL J CHI L Ki SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION CHAIRNAN ZECH cc:
Stello Taylor F~I:
t",uriey, gag
~~a~kov')ch, ggR TRehp)
SUBJECT:
INTERIM POLICY STATENENT ON NAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR PORER PLANTS APPROVED X >/<<~e>t DISAPP ROVED NOT PARTICIPATING ABSTAIN REQUEST DISCUSSION CONNENTS:
See attached sheet.
PDR 8 9ii03i ADOCK 050004i0 PDR YES NO SI6NAT z7 ZZ DATE ENTERED ON "AS" NRC SECY FORM NAY> 1987
CHAIRHAN ZECHtS COMMENTS ON SECY-87<<3l4 This paper represents an outstanding effort by the staff to carry out the Coamission's prev1ous guidance in the development of our maintenance
- policy, However, my exper1ence since our vote on this issue indicates t e need to do even more than we previously contemplated.
Therefore, I fully d
th crescents and pr oposed modification of the maintenance policy statement by Coarnissioners Carr and Rogers, except as discuss ed below.
I agree w1th Coaeissioners Roberts and Bernthal that the comments of the Ad 1
C ittee on Reactor Safeguards
{ACRS) should be carefully weighed in for mulating our requ1rements for ma1ntenance.
- Howeve, g
I a ree with C
1 1
s Carr and Rogers that we should not delay issuance of a policy omn ss oners statement on maintenance pending receipt of ACRS cosine nts.
I would direct the staff to schedule public workshops on the Haintenance Policy and Proposed Imp'lamenting Rulemaking issues to solicit ear'ly public and re~elated industry participation in the formulation of a proposed maintenance ru e.
I would also ask the staff to keep the ACRS informed of their progress.
The ACRS should consider monitoring one or more of these workshops as a
art of their review activities.
SECY should assure coordination between the staff and the ACRS such that the Comnission will receive the timely benefit of ACRS comments as we consider the staff's proposed maintenance r ule. Additionally, the recent strong INPO initiatives regarding upgrading maintanence practices should be thoroughly examined.
Mith respect to Comnissioners Carr and Rogers coament on maintenance inspections, I believe the staff should proceed with plans to 1mplement professional maintenance inspections using highly qualified specialists.
nd the staff for their vigorous approach to this important issue which can contribute to improved sa ety o p
f of o erations.
In order to maintain h
ld focus on momentum in this area.
I believe this 1nspection initiative s ou ocus on developing the criteria we need to implement a final maintenance rule by ins ectin maintenance practices at both good and poor performing plants.
I auld hope t a s propo h t th1 sed approach would further raise the consciousness of the industry to improve reactor maintenance practices and shou p
p ould re are the staff to inspect and enforce our new maintenance requirements when those requireaents become effective.
The staff should also continue to actively develop industry consensus on the standards for maintenance.
The Comnission's f1ve year plan should be adjusted accordingly.