ML20033F015
| ML20033F015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/15/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Rogers NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033F016 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003150265 | |
| Download: ML20033F015 (2) | |
Text
....
UNITED states NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasenwovow.e.t.secos f
\\
FEB 181000 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Cosmissioner Rogers FRON:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Resp 0N$t TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
$UBJECT:
REGARDIN8 SECY g0-016, 'COMPAR!$0N OF MAINTENANCE INDICATOR WITH MAINTENANCE TEAM IntPECTION' 1990, in which you requested This memorandum responds to yours of January 23information rosarding the status of industry interest i the proposed indicator.
The areas in which you expressed an interest are actively being pursued in the Heintenance Indicator Demonstration project. For plants in the demonstration project when the plant's staff has described the maintenance program indicator trend over time ' In another case, where the plant staff has perceived an igrowing trend in maintenance over time, the proposed indicator shows,a corresponding improving trend.
The Maintenance Indicator Demonstration Project is providing an excellent and forum for discussion of plant specific data maintenance practices,have been viable methods to measure maintenance effecIiveness. Six meetings held to date involving utility and NUMARC participants. The licensees in Industry this project have basa responsive in supporting participation. ion managers, planners, stat participants have included maintenance managees,d performance enal sts. Two staff and saintenance engineers technicians, an more meetings are scheduled for, late February at trend tulf and Mi 1 stone.
The Maintenance Indicator Demonstration Project has engendered fresh thinking on the part of the staff and the uti)ities about measurin maintenance he relationship of the indicator to Reli bility Centered effectiveness, Maintenance (RCN methodo1 ies is being explored since two of the participating utilities are in ust RCN 110ts. The RCM approach to maintenance is one area ned to that highlights, the i dustry' views that the NRC indicator should be desi{o to be consistent with the plant s a preach to saintenance and direct 1 usab n general, the licensees acknowl es the identify maintenance problems.
value of a component failure-based indicator. but are ccacerned with too such The industry has emphasis on any sin le seasure of maintenance parformance.the staff's proposed indicator as questioned the suit bility of characteritin ey view a component failure indi.
a " maintenance effectiveness indicator.'
that includes recess indicators cator as one of a potential set of indicators,ir overall indi ators. This is such as corrective maintenance backlog and the consistent with the staff's approach that process indicators should be used in the management of the maintenance process, and a failure-based indicator is a E PNV
~ 7 --
' Ceamissioner Rogers
-2*
. useful way to measure paintenance effectiveness. The demonstration project is proving to be a Hghly efficient and effective method to identify and understand industry concerns on this issue.
- The form of a component failure-based indicator is impcetant to the industry, especially to the site maintenance managers. Their environment causes them to think in terms of usin indicators to diagnose problems and formulate Ty ically,d maintenance process but feels accountable forthe maintenance corrective action.
define elements of the broad 1 anything labeled 'meintenance." The proposed indicator is prograse6 tic by and is premised on the broad view of maintenance ss outlined in tw design NRC policy statement and industry guidelines. However, this view of maintenance and the current configuration of tw indicator do not satch up in a practical with traditional maintenance line organisations at the sites. Thus,it way,be difficult for plant staffs to benefit in a direct way from the proposed may indicator in its current fom. Variations of the indicator to make it more useful for plant staffs such as including component scopes consistent with RCM programs, and calculating the changes in failure rate by component type, f-as well as by system. are being pursued. The potential channes to the form o the indicator will be the subject of the next full meeting of the demonstration project working group.
The third meetieg of the full working group is scheduled for March 8.g. This meeting will provide a forum for integrating results from the individual site sessions, identifying key issues related to the use of the proposed indicator, discussing possible modifications to the indicator, and outlining any industry alternatives. The results of the Maintenance Indicator Demonstration project one by the industry and one by will likely be documented in two brief reports,his working meeting will be the AE00 staff. We currently anticipate that t followed by a final wrap-up meeting after these reports have been drafted.
Efforts to further validate the indicator are continuing through the demonstration project and through the ongoing review of operational information. In the discussions with participating utilities, differing views on the nexus of some indications to maintenance effectiveness emerged. However, the ability of the indicator to provide a useful trend in progrannatic maintenance performance is being observed. AE00 is considering variations of the indicator in title and calculationaltechniques,toseeifatechnicalconsensusonavIableapproach to monitor the effectiveness of the maintenance program can be achieved.
Original 81gned gp James $8P8411Arlst Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Care Commissioner Roberts Conaissioner Curtiss Conunissionee nemick i
en-o n e e
._, s,,. n
.,.., e e.,, n nn
.x n
.c n