ML19332C846

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 891005 Meeting W/Numarc Re Issues Concerning NRC Endorsement of Industry Std Maint.Outline of Meeting Agenda & List of Meeting Attendees Encl
ML19332C846
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/15/1989
From: Morris B
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To: Beckjord E
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
NUDOCS 8911290071
Download: ML19332C846 (3)


Text

,

7 7y,

(1 10 ~)

I

>R EIO h

1 UNITED STATES g

lJ 8

-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

n r,

e WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 p

NOV 1'S 1989 n

MEMORANDUM FOR: Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research r

FROM:"

Bill M. Morris, Ditector, Division of. Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

MINUTES OF MEETING WITH NUMARC TO DIsr.USS ISSUES RELATED TO NRC ENDORSEMENT OF AN INDUSTRY STANDARD MAINTENANCE A meeting between staff members of NRC and NUMARC was held on October 5,1989.

The meeting was requested by NUMARC to obtain a better understanding of the issues thtt would need to be addressed in preparing an industry standard on maintenance suitable for endorsement by the NRC. A list of attendees is included in Enclosure 1. is an'out111.e of the meeting agenda and, as such, will serve as m#utes of-the meeting to be placed in'the NRC public document r3om.

The-NRC representatives stated that the issues identified at the meeting did not represent an official position of the NRC and that in order to obtain such a_ position, a formal request should be made to +.he Chairman or the EDO.

The NUMARC representatives indicated that they expected to have a decision by November regarding their plans for development of a standare f or maintenance.

l h22/ A M7 %

Bill M. Morris, Director Division of Regulatory Applications.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

(

Enclosures:

-1.

List of Attendees 2.

Meeting Agenda / Minutes y

cc:

J. Tcylor E. Jorlan L;

T. Novak T. Murley J. Sniezek M. Williams L

J. Roe S. Jreby k

T. Gody iPDR 9

)

h i1

~ 8911290071 891115 i'

FDR REVOP ERCNUMRC 1

P(M

. ~. -.,

,.... e f[g qw. g7

' ' -,s

,.,,1 r)r.

4

(

cj

.1

,s,-

j',.- {.3 s -14 ; '.,

4 ' J 1:

1 t 1

l -

a

.j

' W-

.. ig

pdy
,

' ATTENDEES - 10/5/89-NUMARC/NRC MEETING-i we, v

t y v.

m.

.* N.UMARC:

=,..

0,-J JJoe' Colvin ;

i T

? Tom Tipton" 1

Walt Smith.

'I I

Warren Hall.

s o g

9;,.

-1 i

NRC.

i

' Bill Norris1 ll

'.t-1 Mark Williams.

. Tom King

')

F 4

. Tony'Gody' g

.4 t

I e

t I

$.; I i

,i f

,3,.

s

,f-

'l

.1 I

l J

r y

I 1

l 1

5 14'

'+'.,/ 'i'-

, m[ '

74 j

3-m j

r

~

Items Discussed with NUMARC Ragarding an Industry Standard for Maintenance 1)-

Any proposal from NUMARC for an industry standard should address the following general issues:

  • will-all. licensees commit to its use?
  • when would it be f ully implemented?

how will compliance be verified (initially and long term):

-NRC inspection?

-INP0 accreditation?

-other?

  • how should NRC approve or endorse it:

-policy statement?

-R. G.7.

-other?-

  • would industry commitment only be good if there is no rule?

y

  • what action will be taken if standard is not met by one or more licensees?

2)

.In a final decision regarding the acceptability of the INP0 guidelines as the basis for an. industry standard, the.following issues would need to be addressed:

L L

  • would the~ guidelines be made a public document and subject to NRC and L

public review (this includes all the other INP0 docun. ants referenced I

therein) on'a schedule to support a-Commission decision in early 1991?

' what' scope of SSC's would be covered-(how would B0P be considered)?

I

' would the level of performance be c1carly stated:

L

-clear performance goals?

-deterministic req'ts?

-other?

  • how-would methods for measuring performance be stated?

' what flexibility would licensees hsve to decide what criteria apply (i.e., shoulds vs. shalls)?

  • how would-the following be treated.

-root cause determinction?

-monitoring, feedback, corrective action?

L 3)

Process and schedule for developing an acceptable standard:

when. submitted.for review?

review schedule / plan?

I

.