ML20024H068
| ML20024H068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/17/1991 |
| From: | Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024H065 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 9105210087 | |
| Download: ML20024H068 (4) | |
Text
.-. _ _
j' [, ),. gp m.sg UNill D ST ATI $
'g NUCLLAH H0GULATORY COMMISSION g,
- - l ADVISollY COMMITTEL oN l(I ACTOlt SAFLGUAllDS g,
c WASHING 10N, D. C. 70%$
%g f
a..**
April 17, 1991 The lionorable Kenneth M.
Carr chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
SUBJECT:
STAFF EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MAINTENANCE RULEMAKING During the 372nd mooting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, April 11-13, 1991, we discussed with the NRC staff their -current evaluation and recommendations on maintenance rulemaking for nuclear power plants. Our Maintenance Practices and Procedures Subcommittee met with the staff on this matter on April 10, 1991.
During these meetings, we had the benefit of comments by a representative of NUMARC and also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
Given the industry initiatives and the improving trend in industry maintenance practices, we agree with the staff's recommendation contained in SECY-91-XXX that the Commission not proceed with rulemaking
- but, instead, issue a
final Policy Statement on maintenance.
We do,
- however, have a number of comments and recommendations on the version of the staf f's proposed final Policy Statement on maintoaance that we reviewed.
BACKGROUND We have commented previously on a maintenance rule in our reports of September 13, 1988 and April 11, 1989.
While we agreed that a good maintenance program is necessary to ensure safe and reliabic nuclear power plant operation, we opposed the promulgation of the various proposed rules and their accompanying regulatory guides.
We presanted arguments to support our view that this proposed rulemaking was likely to be counterproductive to improved nuclear power plant maintenance practices.
It appeared to us that these practices were continuing to improve as the result of substantial industry initiatives that had been in progress since INPO was established in 1980.
We also believe that the Commission's emphasis on maintenance over the past several years has served to stimulate this progress.
In our April 11, 1989 report, we commented that the scope of the proposed rule and its accompanying regulatory guide was excessively 9105210087 910430 FOR ACRS GENERAL PDR
- - ~ _
- _~
The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr
/
Apri1 17, 1901 broad and suggested a reevaluation of current regulationc to determine where overall regulatory emphasis (not just maintenance but all facets of regulation) should be placed on balance-of-plant systems.
We also suggested, based on our discussions with the staff, including the Office of the General Counsel, that improve-1 ments could be of fected f or the f ew plants with " poor" maintenance programs by enforcement of existing regulations.
In our report of October 12, 1989, we commented on a propoced revision to the Commission's March 23, 1980 Policy Statement on nuclear power plant maintenance.
We recommended that this revised Policy Statement not be issued, but that the staf f obtain addi-tional public and industry comments and continue to monitor industry improvement efforts in order to determine if a rule or Policy Statement was really needed.
By doing so, the staff would gain additional information that would be helpful in defining scope and content for a rule or policy statement.
We also expressed concern regarding the staff's proposal that an enforcement policy be adopted wherein escalated civil penalties would be imposed for violations where maintenance was the root caune.
We pointed out that this might cause licensees to divert resources from other important safety-related activities with a not negative impact on
- cafety, j
The Commission issued this revised Policy Statement on December 12, 1989 but requested the staff to inform the Commission of public
)
i comments received relative to the escalated enforcement policy that was included in the Policy Statement.
The staff, in SECY-90-094 dated March 15, 1990, provided this information and recommended that the escalated enforcement policy be rescinded. The commission has not yet acted on this recommendation.
Tlid_STAFP'S CURREllT MAINTENANCE IWl&M&lg((G_PACEAGE At this time, the staff is in the process of preparing a SECY document presenting itu recommendations.
A final position has not been reached, and our review and comments are based on a draft
- version, marked up to reflect the staff's responses to prior reviews by the CRGR and senior staff management, and further revisions proposed orally by the staff during our meeting.
The staff addresses the need for a maintenance rule and recommends 3
that no rule be promulgated.
Instead, the staff recommended that the Commission. should issue a revised. Policy Statement that emphasizes the need for licensees u complete the ongoing efforts to develop and continue to maintain ef fective maintenance programs.
The proposed SECY also describes the staff's plan for monitoring industry programs.
Further, the staf f during our meeting proposed its intention to recommend recision of the present enforcement policy of escalating civil penalties for violations resulting from poor maintenance practices.
_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _.. _ _ _.- _ _ _._. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ - _ _., ~,_
The Honorable Henneth M.
Carr 3
April 17, 1991 AG11.lYAINAT191LsLU11CL-21-XXX e
We are in agreement with the staft's assessment that the industry has made considerable improvement in the quality of nuclear power plant maintenance over the past coveral years.
This is indicated by the results of maintenanco team inopoc-
- tions, reinspections, and improving trends in performanco indicators and SALP ratings.
We are impressed by ongoing industry initiativos and commit-monts to Iurther improve nuclear power plant maintenance.
These include the issuance of INPO 90-000,
" Maintenance Programs in the Nuclear Power Industry," which is a compila-tion of INPO's maintenanco performar.co objectives and critoria.
The staff has reviewed INPO 90-000 and concluded that it is an acceptable industry maintenance program document delineating nocoscary program o.lomonts.
We agree that this document providos appropriato guidance to a utility manager on how to achieve the objectivos required for a good main-tenance program.
The draf t Policy Statement, under " Maintenance Definition and Process," provides a compilation of "activition and supporting functions that should be considered in a maintenance program."
This compilation comes from the staff's draft performance based regulatory guido and the Commission's current Policy Statomont. The listing unos language generally similar to but different from that of INPo 90-008.
We recommend that this section of the Policy Statement either be doloted or revised to agroo with INPO 90-008 in order to avoid confusion as to the Commission's views.
e The draft Policy Statomont, in the last paragraph under
" Position," describes those structures, systems, and ccm-ponents (SSCs) that licenscos should include in their main-tenanco programs.
We have two concerns with the language of the dra't SECY document.
First, we believe that the scope envisioned for balanco-of-plant SSCs is overly broad.
The staff told us that it has prepared revised wording to limit the scope for balance-of-plant SSCs to only those SSCs that could directly result in conditions adverso to safety.
This revised wording appears to be acceptable.
Our second concern is the absence of explicit lan.guage to require the inc1*Joion in the scope of licensee's maintenanco programs of those non-saroty-related SSCs that are important to the mitigation of sovoro accidento.
We recommend that the Policy Statement be revised to include thoso prograns.
P e
The staff told us that it plans to recommend that the maintenance escalation factor, which was made a part of the enforcement policy in the revised Policy Statement published
The lionorable Kenneth M.
Carr 4
April 17, 1993 on December 8,
1989, be rescinded.
As discussed above, we disagreed with the original establichment of this escalation factor in our report of October 12, 1989.
We agree with the staff that the mainter?ance escalation factor should be rescinded.
The staff plans to continue to monitor the effectiveness of e
licensee maintenance programs, as described under " Future Actions" in the draft Policy Statement.
This monitoring j
activity appears to be appropriate for the purpose.
Sincerely, l
David A. Ward Chairman i
References:
1.
SECY-91-XXX (Draft), Memorandum for the Commissioners from James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, Subjects i
Staff Evaluation and Recommendation on Maintenance Rulemaking i
(Predecisional), transmitted by memorandum dated March 14, 1991 from James H. Sniczek, fluclear Reactor Regulation, to R.
Fraley, ACRS 2.
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Il4PO 90-008, Revision 01,
" Maintenance Programs in the Nuclear Power Industry,"
dated March 1990 (Proprietary) 3.
SECY-90-094, Memorandum for the Commissioners from James M.
Taylor, Executive Director for Operations,
Subject:
Public Comments Received Concerning the Enforcement Policy Revision Involving Maintenance-Related Root Cause, dated March 15, 1990 (Predecisional)
. - - -.