ML20034D457
| ML20034D457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1992 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Rogers, Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034D458 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR15303, RULE-PR-50 AE55-1-005, AE55-1-5, NUDOCS 9208240134 | |
| Download: ML20034D457 (22) | |
Text
..
,s he CC - 1 i /,. %'o, P0g UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00 5
(
wAsHmotow. o. c.rosss
(.
\\,...../
July 30, 1992 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Chairman j
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Cur?.iss l
Commissioner Remick l
Commissioner de Planque FROM:
James M. Taylor l
l Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE FOR 10 CFR PART 50.65 (THE MAINTENANCE RULE) l In SECY-92-229 dated June 25, 1992, the staff described its intended approach l
for providing guidance to licensees for implementing the requirements of.the maintenance rule. The approach was to endorse an industry consensus guidance document, " Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (NUMARC 93-01) if revisions to the document could be agreed upon between the staff and NUMARC in three key areas:
1.
Clarification of guidance for " performance criteria,"
(
2.
Identification of specific criteria for determination of risk-significance of SSCs, and 3.
Improvement of guidance concerning root cause analysis.
The Commission approved this approach in a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated l
July 17,1992.
i A staff working group was established as described in SECY-92-229 and held nine public meetings, with NUMARC representatives during the period from.
June 18 through July 10, 1992. During these meetings detailed comments were provided by the members of the working group, staff consultants, and industry.
consultants regarding specific details of the NUMARC guidance document. The, enclosed docuaent, NUMARC 93-01 Revision 2A, dated July 9,1992 is the result of the combined' effort.
~
The NRC Steering Group has reviewed the enclosed guidance documeat and has determined that it provides an acceptable n,ethod for implementing the provisions of the maintenance rule. Th.e revised guidance document adequately addressed the key areas cited above (letter from J. Sniezek (NRC), to T. Tipton (NUMARC), dated July 17, 1992, copy enclosed).
NUMARC intends to test the provisions of the guidance document in a verification and validation (V&V) program involving a number of nuclear power plants. The staff will actively participate in the V1V program. The guidance document may be further modified as a result of the V1V process or the formal
(.
review process including CRGR, ACRS and public comment.
hd j
JA Y
l
~
~
The Commissioners i' r
'/
One possible change : ) 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3) has been identified involving the i
frequency of program evaluations. The rule would be changed from requiring annual evaluations to a frequency of every refueling outage (not to exceed 24 months). This change would be recommended in a future Commission paper along with any others that might be identified through the V&V process or the regulatory review process (CRGR, ACRS, public comment, etc.).
Final endorsement of the industry guidance document by the NRC will be implemented in accordance with the formal regulatory guide development and review process, including review by ACRS, CRGR, and public comment.
i Original Signed By:
James M.Tapor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Enclosures-i 1.
NUMARC 93-01, rev. 2A 2.
J. Sniezek to T. Tipton dated July 17, 1992 cc: SECY OGC 1
'!!\\
lj us
)
Distribution See attached list t
ED0f[
ROS:AC 1
GGran 42ek JTaylor 07/4r 0
/92 07/30/92 "0FFICIAL RECORD COPY" DOCUMENT NAME:
G:MEMDCRMN.199 3
DISTRIBUTION:
s/
EDO r/f DEDR r/f GGrant C. Ader NLS 324 H. Alderman P-315 R. Baer NLS 302 P. Baranowsky MNBB 9112 F. Cherny NLS 302 4
K. Connaughton 16 H3 R. Correia 10 D18 M. Dey NLS 169 E. Doolittle 16 H3 i
T. Foley 10 A19 G. Grant 17 G21
~
C. Heltemes NLS 007 D. Hickman MNBB 9112 C. Johnson NLN 316 T. King NLS 007 1
H. Malsch 15 B18 i
E. McKenna 16 GIS W. Minners NLS 007 G. Mizuno 15 B18 4
T. Murley 12 G18 T. Novak MNBB 3701 pr P. O'Reilly MNBB 9112 C. Petrone 10 A19 4'
B. Richter NLS 129 J. Roe 10 H5 O. Rothberg NLS 302 W. Russell 12 G18 N. Saltos 10 E4 J. Scarborough 16 H3 A. Serkiz NLS 314 L. Shao NLS 007 J. Sniezek 17 G21 M. Taylor 17 G21 S. Treby 15 B18 D. Trimble 16 H3 A. Vietti-Cook 16 GIS J. Yora NLS 217B G. Zech 10 A19 9
1% E CC-l '
31306 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No.132 / Wednesday. July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations P D R FOR FuRTHE:: sNFORMATION CONTACT:
activities which require taking program for ensuring sustained Diane Hinckley Assistant Chief equipment out of service, licensees performance in the maintenance area.
Inspector. Immigration and should assess the total plant equipment On May 25,1990, the Commission Naturalization Service. 425 I Street, that is out of service and determine the approved these criteria and advised the NW., room 7123. Washington, DC 20536, overall effect on the performance of staff that additional factors which may telephone number (202) 514-2725.
safety functions.
influence the Commission in Dated:luly2 net.
EFFECTIVE DATE:The final rule will determining the need for maintenance Gene McNary, become effective July 10,1996. However, rulemaking were:[1] The ability to Commissioner.1mmigmtion and the information collection requirements enforce maintenance programs or Natumlization Service.
contained in 10 CFR 50.65 are not standards:(2) the presence of a
[FR Doc. 91-18345 nled 7-G-91: 8:45 am]
effective until the NRC publishes the strengthened commitment by the Office of Management and Budget industry to monitor equipment (OMB) clearance in the Federal Register. performance to identify problematic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
cornponents, systems. and functions, to NUCLEAR REGULATORY Robert Riggs, Office of Nuclear conduct root cause analysis, to track COMMISSION Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear corrective actions. and to feedback Regulatory Commission. Washington, information mio the maintenance 10 CFR Part 50 DC 20555, (301) 492-3732.
pmgram; and (3) provision of a i
RIN 3150-AD00 suPPt.EasENTARY INFORMATION:
mechanism by which the NRC could verify the effectiveness of the program.
Monitoring the Effectiveness of
Background
On May 23.1990, the Commission 1988 (53 FR 9430)' the directed the staff to develop a second Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants On March *t
- [blished a final Policy proposed rule that would be reliability-AoENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Statemer)
Jaintenance of Nuclear based. In addition, the Commission Commission.
Power Plams. In the Policy Statement, directed the staff to develop two ACTsON: Final rule.
the Commission stated that it expected pmcedural approaches for to publish a notice of proposed implementation of a rule.The first
SUMMARY
- "Ihe Commission is amending rulemaking and provided the general implementation approach, which its regulations to require commercial framework for the proposed rule. On allowed licensees to use an alternate nuclear power plant licensees to monitor November 28,1988 (53 FR 47822), the NRC approved maintenance standard, the effectiveness of maintenance Commission published a notice of was incorporated into both rules. The activities for safety significant plant equipment in order to minimize the proposed rulemaking to require second approach was to include commercial nuclear power plant conceptual considerations for likelihood of failures and events caused licensees to implement a maintenance application of a maintenance rule only
)
by the lack of effectNe maintenance.
program to reduce the likelihood of to licensees exhibiting poor perfonnance The Commission believ,es that, to failures and events caused by the lack in the maintenan'ce area.
maintain safety. It is necessary to j
monitor the effectiveness of of effective maintenance. In support of in SECY-91-110 dated April 26.1991, this rule, the Commission published a the staff reported the results of the maintenance. and take timely and draft regulatory guide on maintenance staffs evaluation of the need for appropriate corrective action, where necessary, to ensure the continuing on August 17.1989 (54 FR 33988) for maintenance rulemaking. The evaluation effectiveness of maintenance for the public comment. On December 8,1989, was based upon an assessment of lifetime of nuclear power plants.
the Commission issued a revised policy licensee progress against the four particularly as plants age.The final ule statement on maintenance (54 FR 50611)
Commission-approved criteria and the requires that licensees monitor the that stated the Commission's intention additional factors identified by the performance or condition of certain to hold rulemaking in abeyance for 18 Commission.The staff also presented j structures, systems and comprents months while it monitored industry for Commission consideration options L (SSCs)againstlicensee-estab'shed initiatives and impmvements and to.
and recommendations pertaining to:(1) assess the need for rulemaking in the The issuance of a final policy statement
- goals in a manner sufficient tJ provide maintenance area at the end of the 18 (2) the issuance of a final" process-reasonable assu
- mee that those SSCs month period.
oriented" rule and accompanying will be capable of performing their On April 13,1990. in response to a regulatory guide, based upon the jntended functions. Such monitoring Commission request, the staff forwarded November 1988 proposed rule, the would take into account industry. wide the following four proposed criteria to August 1989 draft regula tory guide, and operating experience. Where monitoring be used in determining the need for public comments received on both the proves unnecessary. licensees would be maintenance rulemaking:
proposed rule and draft regulatory permitted the option of relying upon an Criterion 1--Lic'ensees have guide:(3) the issuance of a proposed appropriate preventive maintenance effectively implemented an adequate
" reliability-based" rule and
-program. Licensees will be required to maintenance program or are committed accompanying draft regulatory guide: (4) evaluate the overall effectiveness of their maintenance programs on at least to and proceeding towards this goal.
the application of a maintenance rule Criterion 2--Licensees exhibit a only to poor performers.
en annual basis, again taking into favorable trend in performance related account industry-wide operating to maintenance.
Need for a Rule experience, and adjust their programs Criterion 3-Licensees are committed The Commission's determination that where necessary to ensure that the to the implementation of a maintenance a maintenance rule is needed rests first prevention of failures is appropriately performance standard acceptable to the on the conclusion that proper balanced with the minimization of NRC.
maintenance is essential to plant safety.
tunavailability of SSCs. Finally, in Criterion 4-Licensees have in place As discussed in the Regulatory Analysis performing monitoring and maintenance or are committed to an evaluation and the BacEt Analys:s for this rule.
__,, _ &W f%Gha&
M
^
1 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No.132 / Wednesday, July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31307 there is a c! car link between effective that a sufficient commitment by equipment availabihty is an important 5
maintenance and safety as it relates to licensees to a maintenance standard measure of maintenance effectiveness.
such factors as number of transients and approved by the NRC has not been Regarding the additional factors challenges to safety systerns and the received.
considered by the Commission in I
associated need for operability.
With regard to licensees having in determining the need for a maintenance -
availsbility and reliability of safety place or being committed to an wie, the Commission believes that there equipenent. In addition. good evaluation program for ensuring exists a need to broaden its capability to i
maintenance is also important in sustained performance in the area of take timely enforcement action where providing assurance that failures of maintenance (Criterion 41, the industry.
maintenance activities fail to provide other than safety-related SSCs that through NUMARC. indicated that all reasonable assurance that safoty could initiate or adversely affect a licensees wi!! perform a comprehensive significant SSCs are capable of trcnsient or accident are minimized.
assessment of their maintenance performing their intended furirtmn With Minimizing chat!enges to safety systems programs against the performance regard to the presence of a strengthened i
is consistent with the Commission's objectives of INp0 90-008. Rese one-industry ccmmitment im Monitor defense-in-depth philosophy.
time assessments were to be conducted eqmpment performance to identify Maintenance is also important to ensure over a four year period. Addidonally, problematic components, systems and 1
j that design assumptions and margins in periodic INp0 evaluations which functions to adact root cause the original design basis are either include the maintenance area wi!I analyss,- a tuck cective acumsand maintained or are not unacceptably continue to be performed.fiowever, the 1
to feedback information into degraded. Therefore, nuclear power Commission believes that the industry's plant maintenance is clearfy unportant largely programmatic assessments and maintenance programs, the Commission i
in protecting the public health and evaluations oflicemaa maintene has determined, based upon the l
safety.
programs will not alone suffice. Insteast weaknesses identified by the MTIs and The results of the Comnussion's the Cammission believes that the the)ad of suifierent commitments by I
Maintenance Teera Inspections (hfT!s) effectiveness of maintenance must be licensede'to a maintenance standard, mdtcated that licensees have adequate assessed on an ongoing basis in a thateddrtional regulatory attention to g
mamtenance pmgrams and have manner which ensures that the desired gp g.g exhibited an improving trend in pregram result, reasonable assurance that key implementation (Criterion 1). However, structures, systems, and components are the NRC could verify the effectreeness some common maintenance-related capable of perfonning their intended f maintaance pgrams, neh de weaknesses were identified, such es function,is consistently achieved.
---m the mdastrAan been inadequate root cause ana!ysis leading Further, them is a continuing need for able to develop overall performance to repetitive fa!}cres, lack of egnipment feedback of the results of such in ters which would readily provide performance trendmg, and the assessments and to factoe those results
"= indication of overall consideration of plant risk in the into programmatic requirements, where maintenance eHecoveness sj any given prioritization, planning and schedaling asseumni results indicate ineffectrve plant.Thus, the Comrmssion s i
of maintenance. In general. as evidenced maintenance.
c tie of these additnual also weighs ta favor of promulsatm{acbrs i
by plant operational performance data Considering the above points, the ga and the results of NRC assessments, the Commission is satis *aed that the rule 6at mques k monnuing and industry has exhibited a favoreble tmnd industry has been generally successful asse=nenW maintenance in meintenance performance (Criterion in bringing about substantial eHectneness. AMunah, 2).
improvement in maintenance programs.
consideration of these factors Iceds the With regard to licensee commitment Further, the improving trend estabfished Conunission to conclude that it is to an NRC-approved maintenance over the post several years has necessary for such a rule 2 bebde 4
performance standard (Criterion 3). the continued. However, the necessity foe requimments fw cwnedw acdon to industry, through NUMARC, ewmd ongoing resattserrerried assessments of addmsa instances dIseNeedu to the Commission its commitment,in maintenance effectiveness is indicated maintenance, amHeedback d de general, to the goal ofimproving by the fact that, despite significant results of annitoring and assessment performance in the area of maintenance. industry accomplishment in the areas of into hcensee maintenance programs.
The industry asserted that alllicensees maintenance prog am content and in consideration of the above, the are committed, by virtue of their implementation, plant events caused by Commission has determined that a membership in the industry-sponsored the degradation or failure of plant regulatory framework must be put in Institute for Nuclear Power Operations equipment continue to occur as a result place which provides a mechartism for (INPO). to meeting, or striving to meet, of instances of ineffective maintenance.
evahrating the overall continuing the performance objectives contained in Additionally, operational events have effectiveness of licensee maintenance INPO 90408, Maintenance Programs in been exacerbated by or resulted from programs, particularly as the plants s
i the Nuclear Power Industry."INPO 90-plant equipment being unavailable due continue to age. As noted previous!y.
008 is primarily a compilation of to maintenance activities. Under areas directfy related to this issue were i
preexisting objectives and criteria existing requirements and indastry identified as common weaknesses developed by INPO relating to maintenance initiatives, with relatively during the NRC's Maintenance Team maintenance. These objectives and few exceptions, the availabilities of Inspections.nese areas included l
cnteds largely relate to maintenance safety significant structures, systems, inadequate root cause analysis !ack of program content and programmatic and components are not routinely equipment performance trending, and mes: ares of performance. No written assessed.These events and lack of consideration of risk in the commitments were received from circumstances further attest to the need prioritization, plarming, and scheduling licensees and the industry-wide for ongoing results-oriented assessment of maintenance. He Commission commitment which was received was at of maintenance effectiveness since.
therefore concludes that a rule requiring I
best indirect. The Commission believes together with equipment reliability, that licensees monitor and assess the
.... %....,. v.. ov, o u.
a./ u eunesoay, July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations A
fectiveness of maintenance activities modifications "which may affect the
- necessary.
functioning of safety-related structures, functions of the structures, systems. and components (SSCs) described in in addition to all of the above systems, or components * * *
- The considerations. the Commission's Commission has previously interpreted paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)P) can be performed; and (2) for the SSCs conclusion that a rule requiring that the its rules and guidance as requiring described in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and effectiveness of maintenance be licensees to address the safety aspects (b)(2)[iii). failures will not occur which monitored is also predicated on the fact of certain SSCs in the BOP. For example, prevent the fulfillment of safety-that the Commission's curmnt 10 CFR 5034(g) requires applicants for regulations, regulatory guidance, and licenses after 1982 to evaluate their functions, and failures resulting in licensing practice do not clearly define facility against the Standard Review scrams and unnecessary actuations of the Commission's expectations with Plan [SRPj. NUREG-0830. The SRP safety related systems are minimized.
regard to ensuring the continued requires licensees to evaluate a number Where failures are likely to cause loss of effectiveness of maintenance programs of SSCs in the BOP (this is further an intended function, monitoring should at nuclear power plants. The discussed in the Commission's response be predictive in nature, providing early Conmission has many individualized to Question 7 in the summary of public warning of degradation. Monitoring requirements relative to maintenance, comments).
activities for specific SSCs can be including SSCs in the balance of plant Requirements and guidance for performance oriented (such as the (BOP), throughout the regulations. These monitoring maintenance effectiveness monitoring of reliability and include 10 CFR 50.34(a)[3)[i); 5034(a)(7);
and for taking corrective action when availabihty). condition-oriented 5034(b)(6) (i) (ii). (iii), and (iv);
maintenance is meffective should (parameter trending), or both. The 5034(b)[9); 5034(f)(1) (i), (ii), and (iii);
enhance the Commission,a capability to \\ results of monitoring are required to be 5034(g); 5034a(c); 50.36(a); 5036(c) (2),
take timely and effective action against evaluated against the licensee-(3) (5), and (7); 503Sa(a)(1); 50.49(b);
licensees with madequate or poorl established goals. Goals should be Y
50.55a(g); part 50. appendix A. criteria 1.
c nducted maintenance m order to estabbshed commensurate with an l-13.18,21,32,36,37.40,43.45,46.52,53; ensure prompt resumption of effective SSC's safety significance. Where part 50, appendix B. More generally.10 mamtenance activities.
available, the assumptions in and CFR 5034(b)(6)(iv) requires licensees to for these reasons, the Commission results of probabilistic risk assessments address their plans for the conduct of c ncludes that a rvgulation that requires (PRAs) or individual plant examinations i
" maintenance, surveillance, and au nuckar power pfant licensees to (IPEs) should be considered when periodic testing of stractures, systems, m nit r the effectiveness of establishing goals. The licensee is and components." However, there is no maintenance activities is warranted.
encouraged to consider analytical 3
guidance on exactly what these " plans The rule provides for contmued techniques, such as system i
for the conduct of maintenance" should emphasis on the defense-in-depth unavailability modeling studies which i
i include with regard to the monitoring of p e by inclu i sel cted P
may be usefulin developing goals; l
maintenance effectiveness.
however, such analyses are not The Commission's rules, guidance, the maintenance process, provides an required.
and practice also require clarification as enhanced regulatory basis igt inspection The purpose of paragraph (a)(2) of the
)
to what structures, systems, and rule is to provide an alternate approach components should be subject to rel te ss es p
d a f r those SSCs where it is not necessary maintenance requirements. Although strengthened regulatory basis for to establish the monitormg regime i 5034(b)[6)[iv) references maintenanceensuring that the progress achieved to required by (a)(1). For example, th,s for structures, systems, and date is sustained in th'e future.
provision might be used where an SSC.
i components" without further Description of Rule without preventive maintenance has qualification, the guidance in Regulatory inherently high reliability and Guide 1.70. " Standard Format and The objective of the final rule is to availability (eg., electrical cabling) or Content of Safety Analysis Reports for require the monitoring of the overall where the preventive maintenance Nuclear Power Plants-LWR Edition." continuing effectiveness of licensee necessary to achieve high reliability (Revision 3. November 1978)is silent on maintenance programs to ensure that:
does not itself contribute significantly to the scope of SSCs that the maintenance (1) Safety related and certain non-safety unavailability (e.g., moisture draina program should cover (see Regulatory related stmetures, systems and from an air sy..em accumulator). The Guide 1.70. section 13.5.2). Regulatory components are capable of performing Guide 1.70 also refers to Regulatory their intended functions; and (2) for non.
licensee is encouraged to consider the use of reliability-based methods for Guide 1.33. " Quality Assurance Program safety related equipment. failures will developing the preventive maintenance Requiremen's (Operation)." Regula tory not occur which prevent the fulfillment programs covered under this section of Guide 1.33, which implements portions of safety-related functions. and failures the rule; however, the use of such of 10 CFR part 50. appendix B. indicates resulting in scrams and unnecessary methods is not required.
m appendix A that " maintenance that actuations of safety related systems are can affect the performance of safety-mmimized. All references to the rule are The purposes of paragraph (s)(3) of related equipment should be properly to the new i 5045/
the rule are two-fold:(1) This provision preplanned and performed in Two approaches, which are requires that SSC performance or condition goals, performance or accordance with written procedures prescribed in paragraphs (a)(1) and condition monitoring. and preventive
- * * " The sample listing of (a)(2) of the rule, are provided for maintenance operations requiring arauring maintenance effectiveness.
maintenance activities implemented procedures also is limited to safety-The intention of paragraph (a)(1) of pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) related equipment. Regulatory Guide the rule is that the licensee establish a be evaluated in light of SSC reliabilities 1.70 also endorses industry standards monitoring regime which is sufficient in and availabilities. In the case of SSCs for nuclear power plant operations that scope to provide reasonable assurance treated under paragraph fal(1).
are limited to maintenance or that (1) intended safety, accident adjustments are to be made to goals.
monitoring, or preventive maintenance mitigation and transient mitigation requirements where equipment I,p
. ALMiL
. Federal Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday, July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31309 performance or condition have not met scrams and, where scrams due to return to treating the SSC under established goals. Conversely, at any equipment failures have been paragraph (a)(2).
time the licensee may eliminate problematic or where such scrams are monitoring activities mitiated m anticipated, choose to monitor those Paragraph (a)(3)--Assessing the response to problematic equipment amtiators most likely to cause scrams.
Cumulative Impact of Out-of-Service performance or industry experience 11 is not intended that this monitoring Equipment on Performance of Safety i
once the root cause of the problem has requirement duplicate activities Functions-Use of PRA b+en corrected or the adequacy of currently being conducted such as Assessing the cumulative impact of equipment performance has been technical specification surveillance out-of service equipment on the I
confirmed. In the case of SSCs treated testing, which could be integrated with, performance of safety functions. as eder paragraph (a)(2), adjustment of and provide the basis for, the requisite called for under paragraph (a)(3), is
(
preventive maintenance requirements level of monitoring. Consistent with the intended to ensure that the plant is not may be warranted where SSC underlying purposes of the rule, placed in risk-significant configurations.
availabihty is judged to be maximum flexibility should be offered to These assessments do not necessarily-unacceptable. SSCs treated under licensees in establishing and modifying require that a quantitative assessment of par.igraph (a)(2) v;hich experience one their monitoring activities.
probabilistic risk be performed. The or more maintenance-preventable Reliability and Availability of SSCs level of sophistication with which such 4
failures, should become subject to the Subject to Either Paragraph (a)(1) or assessments are performed is expected requirements of(a)(1)(see discussion (a)(2) to vary, based upon the circumstances below) or, where this is not feasible, may require other remedial action, such SSCs which are treated under involved.The assessments may range as modification or replacement paragraph (a)(1) may have formally anywhere from simple deterministic (2) This provision provides that the established reliability and availability judgments to the use of an on-line living planning and scheduling of maintenance g als against which they are explicitly PRA. It is to be expected that, over time, should consider the cumulative impact monitored. where goals of this nature assessments of this type will be refined i
of all equipment simultaneously out of are appropriate.In addition, and based upon technologicalimprovement service on plant safety.
,regardless of the nature of the and experience.
4 A regulatory guide providing an monitoring and goals estab%hed to Derivation of the FinalRule acceptable methodology for satisfy paragraph (a)(1). reliability and impirmenting this rule will be developed availability over the longer term must be The final rule is comprised of a subset by the NRC staff and issued for public assessed periodically pursuant to the of the aspects of the proposed comment. To permit ample opportunity requ rements of paragraph (a)(3). as part maintenance rule and its associated for licensees to comply with the five of ti;e evaluation of goals, monitoring draft regulatory guide, which were year implementation schedule specified requirements, and preventive issued for public comment on November i
10,1988, and on August 17,1989' in the rule, the regulatory guideis ma e expected to be available m final fonn abil y Ia a bility of respectively. The final rule includes only two ye:rs m the date this rule is SSCs which are treated under paragraph those aspects that are "results-E' "" 88 * *
(a)(2) are required to be considered oriented", including those addressing under the requirements of paragraph establishment of goals, monitoring and AdditionalGuidance (a)(3), as part of the periodic assessment assessment of maintenance Sc pc f Menitoring of preventive maintenance effectiveness, feedback and corrective requirements.
actions, and, in a more limited manner, it is not the intent of the Commission predictive and preventive maintenance.
to require a monitoring program so Paragraph (a)(2) is Not Intended To Be These aspects were detailed in extensive that it detracts from licensees.
Used To justify Continuing the Status Regulatory Positions C.3. C.S. and C.6 of ability to otherwise maintain equipment Quo, Where the Status Quo Is Not the draft regulatory guide and were the The extent of monitoring may vary fmm Effective in Ensuring Acceptable levels
,,ibiect of considerable public comment system to system depending upon of Availability and Reliability in response to Questions 3,9.10, and 11 system importance to plant risk. Some Under the terms of paragraph (a)(2).
posed by the Commission when it issued monitoring at the component level may preventive maintenance must be the proposed maintenance rule.These be necessary; however,it is envisioned demonstrated to be effective in comments are addressed in the that much of the monitoring could be controlling the performance or condition summary of public comments done at the system or train functional of an SSC such that the SSC remains accompanying the final rule. Details of level. For example, for less risk-capable of performing its intended the derivation are discussed below.
significant systems, indicators of system function. Hence, it is expected that.
reliability (where sufficient performance where one or more maintenance-Establishment of Coals and Afonitoring data exist) and availability may be all preventable failures occur on SSCs Section 50.65(a)(1) requires the that is n cessary.Some parameter treated under this paragraph. the monitoring of performance or condition trending, beyond that already required effectiveness of preventive maintenance of structures, systems, and components by NRC requirements to provide early is no longer demonstrated. As a result, (SSCs) against licensee-esta' lisited a
warning of degradation, may also be the SSC would be required to be treated goals.These requirements were drawn necess ry for critical components whose under the requirements of paragraph from the requirements of the proposed i
unavailability causes a system train to (a)(1) until such time as a performance rule,in ii 50.65(c)(1) and (2), and be unavcilable or whose failure is history is established to demonstrate elements (b) (1)(iii), (5). (10), and (17).
oth:rwise unacceptable. Rather than that reliability and availability are once The statement of considerations (SOC) monitoring the many SSC: which could again effectively controlled by an for the proposed rule also discussed the cause phnt scrams the licensee may established preventive maintenance process of establishing goals.
t choose to establish a performance regimen. Once such a demonstration has monitoring, and taking appropriate indicator for unplanned automatic been made. it would be acceptable to corrective action, see 53 FR 47825.
.313 n Faleral Regisier / Vol. 50. No.132 / Wednesday July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations Comments on appmpriate methods of subject to the proposed rule's Teaca Inspections identified weaknesses l
monitoring. the need for, fann of, and maintenance requirements.See in some licensees' maintenance possible kinds of effectiveness criteria, proposed rule. I 5(L65(b). The regulatory programs.it is expected that each and the use of performance indicators guide indicated the t the rule applies "to licensee wi!! assess 6ts pmgram and for component rehabfiity and all parts of the plant that could take appmpriate action to impmve those maintenancepfwee were si=edy ampact safe operation and areas where weaknesses were requested, see questens e and 20,53 FR security, including the BOP". See identified. h rule has a five year 47825. r-~nts ao criteria and Sections liL C1. t'am=wws on scope of implementation schedu!e with quantitative goals were also requested SSCs were se&icited in the SOC for the supporting regulatory guide in the Federal Registernotice prepnsed ruhe et Question 7 (53 FR at developraent and pmmulgation expected accompanying the publication of the 47825), and in the pmposed regulatory within the first two years. his schedule draft regulabry saide, see 54 FR 33933.
guide at Questma 2(see 54 FR 33983).
allows three years for licensee W draft regulatory gaide discussed As shownbythe above allof the development beyond the time that final goal set &g and mm=toring in secticas aigmficant pcovhm== of the final rule guidance is expected to be available.
C.11 C11 C.3A C4A4. C5.21 C513, were ps.pd in the proponed rule and C5.2.4. and C.E.
In the proposed mgulatory guide.The implementation and compliance with Consideration ofindustry-wide final rule is not a significant departure the rule is achieved through SSC operang expenenra under 150.S5(a)(1) from NRC proposals offered for pubIIc performance or condition monitcring against appmpriate licensee-established as well as 150.s5(a)(3) of the final rule comment except that, as noted, the final were anticipated by:(1) & preposed rule is a subset of those proposals. Since goals or, as an altemative, through the rule's discnssion of a draft NUREG all of the sienneats of the Anal mie were conduct of preventive maintenance that repod which surveyedmaintenance the subject of extenstre public cesament. has been demonstrated to be effective.
practices. 53 FR 478 4. [2} a these is me6 need to publish the feel rule Where the perfonnance er condition of recommendation in the SOC en-ni=
as a proposed rule forstin mm*
SSCm is determined to be unacceptable.
use of the NPEDS.if and (3) Queshns comment. As noted there will be further corrective action is required.
Addnionally, compl5ance is achieved to andII of the SOC. 53 HL 478:5.It comment on the mie's implementin8 through the periodic essessment of was also alluded to in section C513 of guidance. Cleady, given the period the regulatory guide, and discussed in allowed for haplementation, there ce" monitoring, goals, and preventive I
section C31 be adjustments made to the mle before maintenance activities to ensure that the CorrectiveAct. ion it beces effective should further objective of mWmeg SSC faibres is 4
deMopments so regmm being met, consistent with the objective h FM rde' - $$'s that of minimizing SSC unavailabihty due to conective act ta spense to Industry Programs monitoring arrd preventive maihw.
the results of momtormg and that at letst an annual evaluetmn of the The Commission encourages industry Summary of Pubbc Ceaumente uenitoring, goal establishment and initiatives and r==nne =Mity for problem identifics' tion and resolution.
The comment period for the pmposed conective aeten activities were presaged by the proposed rule's Several guidelmas exist in the industry rule closed February 27. 7989, and for (e.g INPO 90 00s. "Maintewooce 6e dran regulatory gcrde Octobed7 requirement in 150.65[c)(2) for programs in the Nuclear Power 1989 niny.five comments on the essessment the effectiveness of the Industry."lastitute of Nuclear Power pmposed rule were received during the maintenance pmgram and making Operations) that are directed toward fficial comment period and fifty-seven appropria te in:provements, Element providing performance objectives and were filed after the comment period (1){ii) of the proposed rule, and the criteria for effective maintenance cl sed.Thatpsixcuanenaswere regulatory guide's discussion on the programs. With regard to the received an the regula1ery guide. All functioning of the maintenance process, programmatic aspects of maintenance, cmnment letters were considered in e.g., sections C1 C13 and C14. C.31 C4. C51 and CA the Comma.dnn encourages the inhtry b ndation of the faal mk Comment to continue the development and letters were also canadered in arriving es&eA
.cnce improvement of such guidelines and to at the C===ession's decisions to revise Preventive maintenance, which is standardize recommendations and the arenmpanying seguietory guide to endorsed by I 50.55(aK2) of the fmal guidance for plant maintenance reflect the final rule's narrowed focas on i
rule, was one of the elements of the programs.In ecknowledgement of the resalts, to provide an opportmity for generally satisfactory state of pubh,c comument on the revised propesed rule, see 53 HI 47a28. Element 1(ii).h regulatory guide addressed maintenance programs, the final rule regulatory guide, and to issue hnal
]
preventive (also refened to as provides great flexibihty for the industry guidance wellin advance of the date "proactive") maintenance in sections to continue developing. improving and specified for rule implementation.
j C.2 and C4.61 implementing recommendations and Of the 92 comments on the proposed guidance concerning2naintenance rule,67 were filed by utilities n by Scope ofSSCs Sub/ect to Maintenance programs.h Commission encourages industry groups and trade associations.
i The scope of SSCs snbject to the final such activities, especially as they 4 by individuals. 3 by vendors. 3 by maintecance rule inchrica safety-related support improvements in the evaluation pubhc interest groups. 2 by Federal SSCs, and certem *non-safety" SSCs in of maintenance program effectiveness.
Agencies, and: 2 by state groups /
i the bop which raeet one or more of four Implementation and Cepliance individuals. Of the 30 comments on the specific criteria.See final rule.
The focus of the rule is on the results regulatory guide. 22 were filed by i 50.65(b). h matter af acnpe was utilities. 5 by industry and professional eddressed in the gW rule, which achieved through meintenance and,in groups.1 by State. 5 by corporations. 2 this regard, ie is not the intent of the rule by individuals. and 1 by a vender.m j
suggested that rJi SSCs in a nuclear that existing licensees necewarily Comruission is apprecietive of the time q
power plant. includmg these in the develop mew maintenance pregrams.
and effort expended bythose who balance of plard (bop) were to be liowever became theMeintenance submitted aA---ce is a x
.e %. 4f%"
- g-
Fed:ral Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday, July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31311 i
matter of considerable priority and commenters felt that a prescribed set of maintenance standard should be importance, and the views expressed in maintenance performance indicators published initially as a guide and not as the comments have been very helpful to (MPIs) cannot be used as the sole basis a rule that utilities should have the the Commission in its dehberation.
for evaluating the effectiveness of a prerogative to organize in the most Many comments came from individual maintenance program.
resource-effective manner their li:ensecs, but most supported the NUMARC believes that the existing approach to meeting the key comments prepared by the Nuclear regulations do not establish components of the standard.The Management Resource Council requirements similar to the proposed Commission could then evaluate (NUMARC).
rule, especially with regard to BOP experience under the regulatory guide to in summary, most of the commenters equipment. Therefore, licensees will be determine whether a rule is required.
on the proposed rule stated that there forced to modify their maintenance One individual was against a rule 2
was no need for a separate rule on programs to satisfy new requirements, because the industry has a good safety maintenance for nuclear power plants which means the standards of a backfit record and the rule would be costly and because (1) the NRC already has analysis (10 CFR 50.109) apply, an unnecessary burden on the industry.
regulatory authority and methods in NUMARC further stated that the The comments on the regulatory guide place to provide an overview of
adequate protection" standard of 10 raised many of the same issues as those maintenance program capability to CFR 50.109(a)(4) does not apply with comments associated with the proposed ensure adequate protection of the public regard to implementing the proposed rule. In general the issues addressed health and safety. (2) there has been no rule.They feel that this was not were the level of detail in the regulatory demonstration that the rule willincrease supported by data provided in the guide; the scope of structures, systems, public safety and it may actually proposed rule or the accompanying and components covered by the guide:
decrease safety by diverting industry regulatory analysis. They felt that the the criteria to be used to determine if a efforts away from maintenance to public risk reduction data used in the maintenance program is effective; the support activities directed toward regulatory analysis was outdated, that use of quantitative goals for determining demonstrating compliance. (3) good recent data by both the industry and the satisfactory level of performance for maintenance assessment indicators NRC should be used to evaluate public plant maintenance programs; the alrerdy exist for both industry and the risk reduction, and that the increased quantitative measures for such goals:
NRC, such as the Institute of Nuclear costs associated with implementation the usefulness of NPRDS data for Power Operations (INPO) performance were grossly underestimated.
assessing effectiveness of plant indicators Systematic Assessment of NUMARC further believes that maintenance programs; the usefulness of Licenste Performance (SALP) reviews.
industry objectives and programs are PRAs for plant maintenance programs; the NRC Maintenance Inspection consistent with the NRC expectations the timeliness of corrective actions: the Program, and Licensee Event Reports stated in the March 1988 Policy definition of maintenance; the (LER's), and (4) the industry already has Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear documentation of the technical basis of maintenance initiatives under way and.
Power Plants.NUMARC believes that a maintenance program; and the extent es a whole, the industry is improving in increased emphasis has been placed on of root cause analysis and feedback.
the maintenance area.
maintenance, improvements in These comments on the proposed rule M:ny commenters considered the performance and reliability have been were either repeated or expanded in the proposed rule unbounded in scope achieved, and therefore the commenters* responses to the 12 beccuse there are no limits established promulgation of a rule is now questions posed by the Commission in for the BOP. They were concerned that, unnecessary and unjustified.They the Statement of Considerations for the j
with such a broad and undefined scope, believe that the NRC should take action proposed maintenance rule.These the industry cannot assess the impact of against the few poor maintenance questions are listed below; and each the proposed rule.Therefore,it was performers, rather than promulgate a response contains a synopsis of the suggested that. at the very least, the rule across the whole industry.
public comment and the Commission final rule should be postponed until Two individuals, three public interest response for that particular question.
issuance of the regulatory guide.
groups, and two State representatives Where appropriate, the responses reflect NUMARC and most utilities were supportive of a maintenance rule the revisions to the final version of the commented that, without measures of but were not necessarily in total maintenance rule.The respunses also effectiveness stated in the proposed agreement with the way the rule was include consideration of the public rule, they did not know what formulated or how it should be comments received on the draft requirements or expectations would be implemented.ney believed that regulatory guide.
needed to implement the proposed rule nuclear power plant maintenance
- 1. Is it appropriate for the nuclear and determine regulatory compliance.
directly affects the health, safety, and power industry to develop a nere was concern that effectiveness, as economic well-being of the public and Maintenance Standard and,if so, would i
specified in the proposed 10 CFR that nuclear facilities not properly the industry develop such a 50.65(c),is a qualitative matter and maintained will be unsafe and Maintenance Standard?
4 subject to different interpretation by uneconomical, even with the best Comments-Most commenters feel i
both licensees and the NRC.There was design construction, and operation.
that another maintenance standard is atro concern that the lack of criteria ney believe that improper not needed. They believe that the describing adequate programs places a maintenance, even of components not guidelines developed by INPO provide burden on the industry and public to previously associated with safety, can the basic framework of a standard and assess what is needed for the broad have adverse safety consequences.
could be expanded to accommodate subject area defined in the proposed Furthermore, they believe that the NRC requirements.The Policy rule by the NRC and that the proposed superior performance of nuclear power Statement on Maintenance, existing rule establishes requirements for plants in other countries is attributed to industry standards, and the INPO specific program elements (10 CFR their maintenance pmgram. One State Guidelines for the Conduct of 50.65(b)) that are not defined. Most representative believes that the Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants
31312 Federal Resister / Vol. 56. No. n2 / Wednesday. July 10. 1991 / Rules and Regulntions
~
contain the iciarmatian needed to 2.What level of detail should be action.The regulatory guide will be ensure e!Iective maintemcc programs.
included in the Mamtenance Standerd?
revised to recect the nde's marmwer If a standard is to be developed, all Conunents-NUMARC and the focus on results and maint,enance utilities prefes a standard descloped by utilities bebeve that any meintenance program effectiveness, anc will cesen,be industry rather than by NRC with INPO guidelines or standard should previde a a m;eens for meeting the requzrements of or NUMARC tr=Lmg the lead.One general description of the mcessary 10 CFR 50.55 acceptable to the staff. The citizen's group stated that the NRC. nat elements of a socx! maintenance rule and regulatory guide combination the industry. shodd develop the program, but the details for will pmvide a framework for evaluating maintenance standard. No com:-itment implernentaEsa s,hould be left is the the continuing overall effectiveness of was received during the comment period indrvidual utility. The emphasis should mea -.locusing on the objective to develop a maintenrnce standard.
be on meeting the latent so ao not to of an effectis e maintenance program.
Response-The '.nnmission force a utility ta change a well working while si the same time permitting r
encouraged the industry to deselop a individual program solely for the liccasees broad descretion and maintenance standard laccaune the purpose of sin.ndardtzstion across the flexibility in the fonnulation and Comtrumm believed tha.t the industry.ne standard should have a implementauon of their individual development of a atandard wo.dd allow balaam af flexibilny and specificity to maintenance programs.
manmnm utdization of cu: rent indairy avoid vague criteria that will need to The rule does not require a momtoring initiatives bward developing and areas of varying interpretation and progra:n so broad in scope that it implementing e%chte maintenance dispute.The cu: rent industry detracts from a licensee's ability to programs and that Ticamee participation performance objectives, critada, and otherw+se maintain its equipment. The in the development of the e=nda-d guidelinea da=1T=4 by NO allow 6e extent of monitoring may very frorn would provide aWnnaf incennve and flexibility for individual utilities to sreet system to system depending upon responsibility for improving plant theinent cf de gdAAa= by meeting systemimportance to risk. Some meuanaea programs.In additina, the h crdada directly ocky other monitoring at the component bevel Inay Commission believed that the effort appropriata means. One utility feels that be necessary: however. it is envisioned would benefit from ind ntry's expertise it war.ld be counterproductive to that the majority of monitorwg could be in this area and thatit would be more develop a::ucunun atandard that could done at the system er teain functional 14ely that the mamienance practices potentially lower the level af level.%is ronibring req 6nent is not imo plants with good me*ance performance for the entise industry intended to duplicate actm es currently pregamswouldbecomepartof the when only a few ytants are experiencing being e-w which ces be Industry-developed m*anaee problema Another utility af awi that a integrated with, and prende the basis standard.
new rule or regulatory guidance will for. the requisite level of monitering. The On April 17.1990.NUMARC result in incr*amad documenta.tnon, Commission response to Question 7 has submined INPO E006.
- Maintenance decreased flexibility to change and further details on scepe andlevel of Progams in the Nuclear power adjust programs as conditiona or detail.
Industry " as the industry maintenance technology chnnen and decreased a ls two years a resseeable time to standard.The Commission reviewed incentive for the maintennoce staff to develop and implement a standarti?
this document and found that.with improve or enhance their maintenana Comrments-NUMARC and the minor modification.It formed a capability.nis could lead to a utilities feel that two years was enengh comprehensive desedption of the diversion of utility resourcesimm tima to develop a standard depending necessary attributes of a maintenance safety-relt.ted activities and increase on the scope of the bop SSCs and program. In a::knowledgement of this costs with mimmal benefits.
compeaents that need to be addressed.
document the generaHy favorable The enmmenters generally feel that They stated that the systematic
)
i results of the NRC's Maintenance Team any maintenance standard reqwrmg an evaluation of all SSCa as described m inspections regarding the adequacy of analysis of all SSCs for function and the p:oposed rule slane would require licensees' maintenanna progams, and objective was practiraily unattainable more than two years. Most of the the many other industry initiatives in and would signifirantly divert techmeal industry agrees that it would take two this area, the Cornmission revised the resources necessary for safe and years to develop the standard and three rule to emphasize the effectiveness er reliable operation of a nuclear plant.
to fwe years to implement it. One results of maintenance programs and de. with questionable benefit. Any citizen's group feek that two years is emphasize the pregammatic aspects of standards guidelines, or criteria should too long for developing md maintenance. Also,in acknowledgement be tailomd appropriately to the safety implementing a standard; one year of the generally satisfactory state of significance of the equipent being would be more appropriate.
maintenance pmgrams the final rule maintained and 6be functinn being Response-During the time' the provides gaat flexibility for the industry performed.
Commission held rulemaking in to continue developing, improving and Response-As'noted in the abeyance, the industry developed and implementmg recommendations and Commission response to Item 1. the final submitted INp0 93-008 to the guidance concerning mairdenance rule has been mnuied to establish a Commission. The Commission also programs.The Commission encourages frameworic % t evaluating the developed a regulatory guide that such activities, especially as they effectiveness of maintenance programs.
incorporated appropriate public support improvements in the evaluation As such, the rule descnhes the basic comments. Furthermore, the MTis found of mairJenance program effectiveness.
elements for measuring the effectiveness that licensee maintenance programs However. because the rule has been of maintenance and taking appropriate have improved, sod there are programs modified to de-emphasize programmatic corrective action where mainirnanna is for improving mainienance developed requirements of maintenance, the found to be ineffective.These elementa by the industry. Therefore, the Commission does not curtectly intend to include eMMino goals. monitoring Commist.ina believes that twoyears formally endorse an industry and assessment a dinat these goals, was arnyie tirse w deve4 med maintenance program standard.
feedback, and appropriate corsectwe implemans a -' "
+ - mta.e
. Federal Register / Yul 56. No.132 / Wednesday July 10. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31313 The Commission acknowledges that a guide. An industry commitment to of the generally satisfactory state of systemntic evaluation cf SSCs could develop a maintenar.ce standard, maintenance programs, the final rule require as much as two or more years.
consistent with the Commission's provides great flexibility for the industry Consequently, the final rule has a five schedule to issue a final regulatory to continue developing, improving and year implementation schedu!e winch guide by November 1989. would be implementing recommendations and allows et least three years for these necessary during this public comment guidance concerning maintenance evaluations beyond the time when final period.
programs. The Commission encourages guidance is expected to be available.
Comments-Most respondents believe such activities, especially as they
- 4. Is it appropriate for a designated that issuance of a rule without public support improvements in the evaluation third ptrty to certify plant maintenance comment on a regulatory guide was of maintenance program effectiveness.
programs to comply with the inappropriate. Many feel that the most liowever, because the rule has been Maintenance Standard; if so, would an important NRC document concerning modified to de-emphasize programmatic organization be willing to perform such maintenance wi!! be the regulatory requirements of maintenance. the certification?
guide and not the maintenance rule.
Commission does not currently intend to Comments--Of the comments that Industry feels that the current standards formally endorse an industry addressed this question, most stated as embodied in publications such as mainten.nce program standard.
th:t it would be inappropriate for the INPO 8548 are sufficient and that a ne Commission does not agree with NRC to delegate certification rule and regulatory guide ar*
commenters who suggested the issuance responsibility to a third party.&
unnecessary. SeveralindustrY of a regulatory guide without a rule.&
deg ee of opposition ranged from "not respondents said that they would be Commission desires to put forth necessary" to Ygorously opposed."
willing to participate with the NRC in requirements for evaluating the 4
Most coments stated that third party developing a standard but that the effectiveness of maintenance programs.
certification would be tenecessary November 1933 time constraint was including the issuance of implementing because existing measures that unrealistic. Several respondents gu. dance, to clarify NRC regulatory eccomplish this function such as appeared to feel that the proper way to -
purview and to provide additional m intenance ireticus andINPO upgrade maintenance would be by first enforceability.h revised regulatory I
evaluntions. Some comments indicated developing a regulatory guide and then a guide will reflect the narrower, results.
that INPO could perform certification rn!e if use of the guide indicated that oriented focus of the rula.& details for but not if a rule existed since that would such a rule was needed. If the current the conduct of activities supportag i
place INPO in the position of a industry standards were not enough.
maintenance will not be specified and regulator. One respondent clear!y stated most feel that the NRC has the should be developed by the licensee to th t INPO should net be aNewed to responsibility to deve!ap the regulatory ensure the adequate pt.rformance of perform maintenance certifications for guide, though the industry respondents plant equipment. Savrtal guidelmes tha NRC.
feel that they should have input to such exist in the industry (e,g INPO 90-008
, Response-!t was the Commission's a guide. INPO's position is that use of
.. Maintenance Programs in the Nuclear I
mtent to build upon industry initiatives INPO 85@8 es a basis for a regulatory Power Industry."lastitute of Nuclear to encourage good maintenance guide would be inappropriate.
Power Operations, and others sponsored practices and common standards. A Response-%e Commissbn believes by ANS ASME. and EPRI) directed certification process emainst a that, by clearly putting forth a standard
)
t maintenance standard by a third party for an effective maintenance pmgrarn in
^
r adations t effective was raised as an optica that would have one document. guidance and stability conduct of maintenance activities. h provided some degree of consistency would be provided to help ensure that industry is encouraged to contmue the and independence without rehevmg the nrainter.ance pregrams of all NRC of its regulatory responsibihty to licensed plants achieve and maintain a dd p d @vm hh oversee the process.
satisfactory level of effecth eness.The SUIdelines and to staalardize Because a viable third party Comnussion believes that the recormnendations and gudance for certification process was not offered by devekspment of a standard by industry plant maintenance programs.
l
- 6. The Commission believes that the the industry, the Commission is no would support industry's current longer pursuing this as an option.
initiatives toward devebpmg and proposed maintenance rule should be Additionally. as noted in Questron 1 implementmc effective maintenance considered under 10 CFR 50.209(a)(4) of j
because the rule has been modified to programs, and that stihty participation the backfit rule which would exempt the j
maintenance rule frorn backfit d> emphasize progrrunmatic in preparing a mai:rtenaam standard requirements of maintenance the would provide additional experim requirements based on the precepts that Commission does not currently intend to incentive, and responsibihty for effective maintenance is necessary to formally endorse an industry improving plant maintenance programs.
assure adequate pubhc protection and maintenance progra:n standard.
m Commission was encouraged by that the proposed rule codifies and
- 5. The Com-iuion plans to issue by NUMARC's submittal of INPO 90-000 as standardizes previously existing November 1980, a regulatory guide an industry maintenance standard. In Conunission requirements, both explicit estzblishing standards and criteria for acknowbedgement of this hat. the and implicit.in plant technical determirdng what constitutes an generally favorsble results of the NRC's specifications,lanses safety analysis eff:ctive maintenance pregram. This Ma.intenance Team inspections reports, and to CrR part 50, appendix B.
reguhtory guide is being developed in regarding the adequacy of Licenseen.
m rimeuion requests ph perallel with the final rulemaking, &
maintenaam programs, and the amany comment concerning the need for a Commission encourages the industry to other industry laitiatives in this area, the backfit analysis for this rulemakin6, develop standards and acceptance Commission revise the rule ta Cornmente-h nuclear industry criteria. If an acceptable industry emphasize the effectiveness or results of commenters uniformly believe that a standard is available in this timeframe, maintenance programs and de-backfit analysis must be prepared for the Conunission wi3 consider endorsing emphasize the programmatic aspects of the maintenance rule.h most the industry standard in the regulatory maintenance. Also,in acknowledgement comprehensive responses were
l
. Federal Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday. July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31313 The Commission acknowledges that a guide. An industry commitment to of the generally satisfactory state of systematic evaluation cf SSCs could develop a maintenance standard, maintenance programs, the fmal rule require as much as two or com years.
consistent wii the Commission's provides great Dexibility for the industry Consequently, the final rule has a five schedule to issue a final regulatory to continue developing. improving and year implementation schedule which guide by November 1933, would be implementing recommendations and allows at least three years for these necessary during this public comment guidance concerning maintenance eveluations beyond the time when final period.
programs. The Commission encourages guidance is expected to be available.
Comments-Most respondents believe such activities. especially as they
- 4. Is it appropriate for a designated that issuance of a rule without public support improvements in the evaluation third party to certify plant maintenance comment on a regulatory guide was of maintenance program effectiveness.
programs to comp!y with the inappropriate. Many feel that the most However. because the rule has been Maintenance Standard,if so, would an important NRC document concerning modified to de-emphasize programmatic organization be willing to perform such maintenance will be the regulatory requirements of maintenance, the certification?
guide and not the maintenance rule.
Commission does not currently intend tn Comments-Of the comments that Industry feels that the current standards formally endorse an industry addressed this question, most stated as embodied in publications such as mainten.nce program standard.
that it would be inappropriate for the INPO 8548 are sufficient and that a The Commission does not agree with NRC to delegate certification rule and regulatory guide are ccmmenters who suggested the issuance responsibility to a third party.h unnecessary. SeveralindustrY of a regulatory guide without a rule.h degree of opposition ranged from "not respondents said that Gey would be Commission desires to put forth necess ry" to "dgorously opposed."
willing to participate with the NRCin requirements for evaluating the Most comments stated that third party developing a standard but that the effectiveness of maintenance programs.
certification would be u=necessary November 1932 time constraint was including the issuance of implementing because existing measures that unrealistic. Several respondents guidance, to clarify NRC regulatory eccomplish this function such as appeamd to feel that the proper way to purview and to provide additional m inten nce frapeus andINPO upgrade maintenance would be by first enforceability.The revised regulatory evaluations. Some comments indicated developing a regulatory guide and then a guide willreflect the narrower results-that INpO could perform certincation rde if use of the guide indicated that oriented focus of the rule.h details for but not if a rde existed since that would such a rule was needed. If the current the conduct of activities supponing place INp0 in theposition of a industry standards were not enwgh.
maintenance will not be specified and regulator. One respondent clearfy stated most feel that the NRC has the should be developed by the licensee to that INp0 should not be aNowed to responsibility to develop the regulatwy ensure the adequate performance of perform maintenance certifications for guide, though the industry rerpendents p ant equipment Several guidelines the NRC.
feel that they should have input to ruch ex st in the industry (e.g.,INPO no0a Response-It was the Commission's a gmde. INpO's position is that use of Maintenance Programs in the Nuclear intent to build upon industry initiatives INpO 85-038 as a besia for a regulatory Power Industry." Institute of Nuclear to encourage good maintenance guide would be mappropriate.
prachces and common standards. A Response-W Commissbn believes "y"
th*
d cerhfication process eFainst a that, by clearly putting forth a standard Y
direc maintenance stamkrd by a third party for an effective maintenance pre in toward providing detailed rec mmendadons kr the eHective w's raised as an optica that would have one document. guidance and stability a
c nduct of maintenance activities.The i provided some degree of rmmtency would be provided to help ensure that l and independence without relievmg the maintenance programs of all industry is enceuraged to continue the l NRC of its regulatory responsibdity to licensed plants achieve and maintain a development and im;rovement of such oversee the process.
satisfacsorylevelof effectiveness.The guidelinea and tn standardize l
Because a viable third party Commission believes that the rec Mti ns and guidance for l certification process was not offered by devebpment of a standard by industry plant madenance pmgrama.
! the industry, the Comnission is no would support industry's current
- 6. The Commusion believes that the l longer pursuing this as an option.
initiatives towani developmg and proposed maintenance rule should be l Additionally, as noted in Question 1 implemannng effective unintenance considered under 10 CFR 50.209(a)(4) of l because the rule has been #61 to programs. end that stairy participation the backfit rule which would exempt the de-emph: size programmatic in preparing a maintenanew standard maintenance rule from backfit i
requirements of maintenance, the would provide additional experience, reqmrements based on the precepts that Commission does not currently intend to incentive, and respoundalsty br effechve maintenance is ne ssary to form:lly endorse an industry improving plant maintenanm programs, assure adequate public protection and maintenance pmgram standard.
h Commission was encouraged by that the proposed rule codifies and 5.W Commiuion plans to issue by NUMARC's submittal ofINPO pe0e as standardizes previously existing j
November 1980, a regulatory guide an industry maintena nem standard. In Commission requirements, both explicit establishing standards and criteria for acknowbedgement of this A~ ~mt. the and implicit. in plant technical determining what constitutes an generally favorable resulAs of the NRC's Specifications, licenses safety analysis effectiva maintenance pregram.~ Itis Maintenance Team inspechons reports, and 10 CFR part 50, appendix B.
regulatory guide is being developed in regarding the adequacy of beees-N Conassion requests public p*rn!!cl with the final rulemaking h maintenance programs, and the many comment concerning the need for a Commission encourages the industry to other industry initiatives in this area, the backfit analysis for this rulemakin6-develop standards and acceptance Commission revise the rule to Comments-h nuclear industry criteria. If an acceptable industry emphasize the effectiveness or reselts of commenters uniformly believe that a stradard is available in this timeframe, maintenarce prograna and de-backfit analysis must be prepared for th2 Commission will consider endorsing emphasize the progranunatie aspects of the maintenance rule.h most the industry stendard in the regulatory mamtenance. Also,in acknowledgement comprehensive responses were
'I 31314 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday. July r
j.
10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations submitted by two nuclear industry basis of the criteria contained in the groups: The Nuclear Utility Backfitting backfit rule.
could divert resources that would be and Reform Group (NUBARG), and NUMARC. Many utility commenters NUMARC followed and expanded on more profitably spent on critical safety endorsed NUhbRC's response or NUBARG's arguments. NUMARC systems and conponents. The proposed repeated arguments made by NUhiARC.
asserted that a backfit analysis is rule did not define BOP fGCs, thereby A law firm. Conner and Wetterhahn.
necessary solely because the not providing a meaningful opportunity also provided substantial comments that maintenance rule would impose for public comment.NRC should were generally consistent with those substantial new requirements on withdraw the proposed rule and develop from NUMARC and NUBARG.In licensees and require the expenditure of a definition and a list of typical BOP addition, a number of utility commenters significant resources by virtue of the SSCs that are related or important to joined in NUBARG's comments.The maintenance rule's expansion of nuclear safety. BOP systems were not U.S. Department of Energy also agrees maintenance to the BOP. This argument built to the standards of safety-related with the industry on a need for a backfit was echoed by several other utility equipment and will not be capable of analysis. Only one commenter. Nuclear commenters. Next NUMARC attacked being maintained at the same level of Infonnation and Resource Service the Commission's assertion that the readiness. For example, the proposed (NiRS). supported the Commission's maintenanca rule codifies and rule would require the proper 3
position.
standardizes previously existing maintenance of a component that is not NUBARG contends that the requirements by pointing out that the required to be properly installed.
Commission " misapplied" the adequate rule would require maintenance for However,if NRC proceeds with protection exemption in the backfit rule SSCs in the BOP.NUMARC also rulemaking and if BOP SSCa must be in four respects. First. NUBARG followed the NUBARG reasoning that considered,it should be on a graded any redefinition of the standard of approach depending on a given BOP asserted that the Commission prevented adequate protection to include system's potentialimpact on safety 3
the public from reasonably commenting maintenance must necessarily presume functions.The utility must retain the on the backfit issue by failing to specify and admit that "all U.S. nuclear power ability to determine the requirements whether it was relying on 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(ii), which exempts from plants are currently operating at a level applicable to specific SSCs based on 1
below the ' adequate protection' baseline safety, reliability, and economic i
to ensure that (a] facility provides until they improve their maintenance considerations. Instead of including all analysis those rules that are "necessary adequate protection to the health and program."
BOP SSCs, the rule must focus on the safety of the public " or the provisions of Although N:RS agreed with the maintenance of functions whose failure i 50.109(a)(4)(iii). which exempts those Commission that a backfit analysis need would threaten public health and safety.
rules that involve " defining or redefining not be prepared for the maintenance Comments in favor ofincluding BOP what level of protection to the public rule, their agreement was partially SSCs are summarized as follows:The health and safety or common defense couched on their position that the 10 maintenance rule should cover the and security shou'd be regarded as CFR 50.109 is an invalid rule.
whole plant. Unplanned reactor trips adequate "
Response-The Commission has often originate in BOP systems, Furthermore, seemingly irrelevant parts Next, after quoting from two passages determined to prepare a backfit analysis of the plant can affe for the final rule.
in unforeseen ways ct plant operations in the notice of proposed rulemaking for the maintenance rule that suggest that 7.The Commission believes that the for example, at the Commission is relying on both inclusion of balance of plant (BOP)
Surry in the aftermath of the pipe break.
i 50.109(a)(4) (ii.' and (iii), NUBARG equipment in the proposed maintenance Response-The Commission does not appeared to contend that such reliance rule is necessary and proper. However.
agree that maintenance of SSCs in the is logically inconsistent. No reasoned the Commission also recognizes that BOP is beyond the statutory jurisdiction argument was presented by NUBARG in some licensee maintenance programs, as of the Commission. Pursuant to section support cfits contention.nor did presently configured, apply to 181 and 182 of the Atomic Energy Act NUBARG specifically criticize the structures, systems, and components (AFA), the Commission has broad Commission's reliance on that are without question, irrelevant to authority to protect the public health i 50.109(a)(4)(ii). Rather, NUBARG protection of public health and safety and safety, and the common defense th:t the Commission's po(sition thatfocused on f 50.109(a)(4)iii). arguing from radiological hazards associated and security and to minimize losses to with the operation of the nuclear power life and property. Maintenance of SSCs effective maintenance is necessary for plant. The Commission requests public in the BOP falls within this regulatory adequate protection must logically rest comment concerning what limitation,if authority because such SSCs can and do i
on the presurnption that none of the any, should be placed on the final have a significant effect on safety.
currently operating nuclear power plants maintenance rule to provide some With regard to safety, SSCs in the licensee flexibility in this regard.
BOP have initiated transients and do provide adequate protection.
In any event, NUBARG also argued Comments opposingincluding BOP caused scrams and safetyinjection.
that the Commission's decision not to equipment are summarized as fo!!ows:
Probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) prepzre a backfit analysis for the BOP equipment is outside the NRC's confinn that, for many plants, dominant mzintenance rule represents an jurisdiction; the statutory jurisdiction of accident sequences are initiated by unwarranted departure from the policies the NRC to regulate BOP components is transients in the BOP such as loss of underlying the backfit rule-an limited to those BOP stcuctures, systems, offsite power orloss of feedwater, "al2rming retreat." Lastly NUBARG and comments that are related or -
Therefore, to ensure that licensees crgued that the Commission's reliance important to nuclear safety; the operate safely. NRC's regulatory program is intended to ensure both a on the " adequate protection" exemption economic impact ofincluding nonsafety low frequency of transients that of i 50.109(a)(4) is in " logical conflict" BOP equipment would be staggering:
challenge safety systems and a high with the Commission's alternative and the resulting improvement to safe ground that the rule is justified on the operation of the plant would be reliabihty of safety systems to respond to these chattenges.%is approach to disproportionate to the cost involved or regulation is Part of the fundamental 4 :.mW.WS'""
, _ _ n
j
. Federal Register / Vol. SE No.132 / Wednesday. } sly 10.1C91/ Rules and Regulations 31315 1
1 1
principle of defense-irMiepth that shutdown the reactar and maintain it in a the worker.One respondent expressed a j
underlies all NRC regulation. Defense.
safe shutdown cond; tion, and the capability concern that a rde that included worker prevent or rmtigate the consequences of accountability would be interpreted as t
in-depth provides for both accident accidents that could result in potennet oHsite punitive by wcriers.
l prevention and accident m.tyation with principal emph. asis on gevention.
hE*,***" *
- Response-The Commission and E*
Therefore, the enmmheion is well 1:Nortsafety related structures, systems.
industry have both recognized the importance of developing an attitude of i
within its statutory jurisd.Jction in or components requiring that all SSCs that can (i) That are relied upon to mitigate accountability on the part of each and l
significantly affect safety.inr6di o accidents or transients or are used in plant every worker in a nuclear power plant.
those in the BOP. be properly emergency operatmg pmcedums WM. or The Commission agrees with industry maintained. Indeed, the Commission's
- Q
- NP'".j" h
that regulation of this area would be I"
difficult to enforce ob,getively. The regulations already reflect the fehg ther uretr edsted functiam or Commission concludes that each importance of mabt=,ce of SSCs in lui) whese fadure could cesse a reactor licensee should include considerations ensuring adequate potection to public scram or actuation of a safety-related system.
i r emphasizing worker accountability health and safety.Section 50.34(b)(6)(iv) does not go beyond the based on local conditions; and the requires an FSAR to include the "p!ans Thisdscoof & NRC.This Commission will not attempt to deal 4
for conduct of nonna1 operations, clarification of the scope should boed spec $cally with this issue ur the rule w i
meludmg mamtenance, surveillance.
the scope. focus bcensee resources an "M"Y 8"d**
l and periodic testmg of structures.
SSCs with the most safety stgmficance.
9.The Commission desires to systems, and components." The and reduce the cost impact projected by establish crrteria within the Standard Review Plan [SEP)(NUREG-the comments.
maintenance rule which wouki form the 0800).agmnat which applicanta for
%e Commission recogmses that BOP basis for determining when a licenses after 1982 are seguired t SSCs may have been eleagmed and built maintenance program is fully effective evaluate their facility (see 10 CFR with noemal industrial qua4ity and may 50.34(q)). requires applicacAs to evaluate not uneet the standards in appendix B to and additionalimprovement is not warranted from a safety standpoint, j
a number of SSCs in the BOP. Including 10 CFR part 50L Itis not the intent t, design and insta2ation as they affect require licensees to generate peperwork Such criteria adght be either safety. For example. the pressurizer to document the basis See the design.
quantrtatrve or quahtative and could be 4
relief tank system, which is "nonsafety fabrication, and construction of BOF based on specific measurable attributes, i
related.' is addressed in section 5.4.11 of eqmpment not covered by appendix B.
on overall ydam performance, on the SRP.Of note is the rational for Instead, it is the intent to ans=re that progrant results, or on other atacibutes.
The Comnussion regaests public j
reviewing the design of the pressurizer each licensee's maintenance prograra relief tank minimizes failures in those BOP SSCs comment concenung the need for such "Tha review is pri r.anly directed toward that affect safe operatice of the plant. In criteria. the form of such criteria, and the criteria themselves.
assuring that its operatian is cansistent with response to enmments. security has Commente-Of the commenters that transient analyses of related systems and been deleted from 10 CFR 50,85 asitis that failure or malfunction of the systern adequately addressedin i R46(g} and addressed this issue, most beheve that quantitative irxhcalors could not be could not adversely aect essentialsystems gn or components is acemdance with erplicable R.The Commission believes that used solely lo evaluate effectiveness j
individual worker arennntability plays and that the determmation of Thus, the Commission has previous!Y eni=portant role in an aberive effectiveness was subjective. Further.
i i
recognized that certain SSCs in the BOP maintenance program.The Comav aunn the commenters believe that sufficient can have a sigrdlicant eifect on safety is, therefore, saliciting enmments on the tools already existed in the form of 5
and has exercised its regulatory means for incorporating this SALP. QA essessments, regulatory 2
authority by requiring the evaluation of consideration into a licensea's inspections, monthly operating report the potential effect of nonsafety-related maintenance prograzn.
data, and manegement reviews.
SSCs on safety.This is the same Commenin--RecnnarbM= ceasistently One commenter noted that rationale for requiring maintenance of agreed that worker" accountability was effectiveness needs to be defined in SSCs. including those in the BOP. that an important and necessary part of a terms of a particular obreetive. Another can significantly affect safety-good maintenance program. Several of stated that performance goals such as He Commission agrees with the them gave exampfes for how their utility the number of maintenance-related comments that the scope of the rule holds its empIcyees accountable for reactor trips. LERs. etc., should be should be narrowed; nat an of the bop their work.These examples aII feu established. One individual commented has the same safety significance.
within the broad context of the that effectrveness needs to focus on Accordingly, the scope has been personnel management system, f.e, fum'bonal failures affecting pubhe modified to include only those BOP selection. training, perfonnance heahh and safety; ancther suggested SSCa whose failure could most directly appraisal, supervision, promotional goals associated with general piant threaten public health and safety.
policies, etc. Most feel that rulemaking safety performance measures.
Therefore, the scope of the rule has been on worker accountability is impossibPe.
Several commenters expressed modified as follows:
unnecessary, or inappropriate. Several concern that the lack of defined The scopeof the monitoringprogram * *
- cited the fact that worker accountability performance criteria could generate shalt include safety related and nonsafety was a subject of negotiation between either complacency or a continuous utility management and hbor bargainicg ratchet since there would be no critena related structures systems. and em-as fonows:
units. Several cited existing regulations for a "fuDy effectfve program."
1 (1) Safety related sunetures, systema. or (to CFR part 2. appendix C. and to CFP.
Response--he Commission agrees fu 50.110) as already requiring worker that determination of effectiveness accountability. One respondent said that depends on many factors and that, with one a 4
i wears to ensure the ia6egnty of the reactor the licensee should be responsible, not regard to programmatic features.it is j
cootact pressure bosndary, the capabilty to l
- 31316 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No.132 / Wednesday, July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations subjective. The rule provides fle :ibility Two utilities stated that there was no Response-The Commission agrees for each licensee to decide how to need to develop new performance that plant performance indicators that structure a maintenance program and indicators. One added that the have been developed and used by the conduct maintenance to achieve Commission should continue to evaluate NRC and industry are not appropriate as established performance goals.
a given licensee using its current the sole indicators of maintenance Specifically, the mie addresses (1) the technology.The other suggested that the effectiveness.The Commission also development of licensee-established existing INPO Performance Indicators agrees that, because of individual plant goals for performance. (2) the use of be revised to meet the need for a variations, performance indicators are goals and other quantitative and maintenance standard.
not appropriate for making absolute qualitative means as a measure of the effectiveness of maintenance programs, NUMARC expressed the opinion that plant-to-plant comparisons. However, as end (3) the use of monitoring and a good maintenance program would ure recognized by commenters, indicators a combination ofindicators based upon taken in context can be used as an i
assessment of equipment performance the condition, type, aFe, etc., of the plant indication of maintenance performance.
or condition against goals, cr.
and specific equipment in question, More importantly, indicators can be alternatively, the demonstration of NUMARC believes that prescribing a used by licensees as an effective preventive maintenance effectiveness-rigid set of indicators would not achieve management tool to assess the need for in Feneral, the Commission does not intend to define specific parameters or necessary plant flexibility and may corrective actions within a maintenance numerical criteria in either the rule or preclude focusing on areas of more program.
regulatory guide: each licensee is to appropriate concern. Flexibility is Operating characteristics such as I
l establish appropriate goals to assist in needed to revise, delete, or add consistently high availability or low monitoring the effectiveness of performance indicators as appropriate equipment-caused forced outage rates i
l mamtenance.
to provide information to management over a number of operating cycles are
- 10. Are performance indicators that to fit circumstances, methods, and indicators of good maintenance are being used by mdustry, may be used conditions that may pertain to a given effectiveness. However, the plant in the future, or have been used in the plant in a specific situation. In this vein, material condition can degrade past. appropriate candidates as efforts to obtain consistent data would significantly before these indicators quantitative measures of maintenance have questionable benefit for regulatory provide identification of degraded effectiveness? The Commission is pumoses and may have deleterious maintenance effectiveness: thus these particularly mierested in experience or effects on plant programs.
indicators are not very timely. Based on enalysis concerning indicators or the Another utility does not believe that the results of extensive work on any prescribed set ofindicators can be indicator development, the Commission re$abi t irte a ce p rformance used to judge the effectiveness of a concludes that indicators that are based a
indicators plant s maintenance program. It also upon actualin. service component Comments-In addressing this item, stated that no indicator or combination reliability and failure history provide a NUMARC and most utilities stated that of indicators can give an overall useful measure of maintenance general plant performance indicators measure of maintenance effectiveness.
effectiveness. Also, these indicators can that have been developed and used by in its view, such a task must be left to be defined and implemented j
3 the industry were not appropriate for the judgment of the individuallicensee, independent of the definitions and use as the sole maintenance.
INPO, and the NRC.
procedures that the licensee deems effectiveness indicators because of the One individual stated that necessary to manage the flow of
]
number of nonmaintenance-related maintenance effectiveness is a measure maintenance work. Knowledge of data factors included in them.Many of the focused on economics. He went on to showing component failure in excess of proposed maintenance indicators are say that this view clouds the focus on the industry average has the desirable process indicators, which may or may public health and safety. According to property of alerting licensees to not accurately reflect the state of the this commenter, the proper focus of determine whether improved overall maintenance program. Such maintenance effectiveness is on maintenance performance is needed. In I
indicators are useful, but only as one functional failures that threaten public Feneral, the Commission agrees with tool for management evaluation of the health and safety.
NUMARC that a good maintenance maintenance program.
NUMARC wamed that component program would use a combination of Although stating that there are reliability by itselfis not a good indicators based upon the condition, presently no performance indicators in indicator of maintenance performance.
type rid age of the plant and the use by the industry that directly The reason given for this position was spcific equipment in question.
measure performance, NUMARC and that component reliability may be an hcordingly, the Commission has the utilities recognized that some of the indicator of an application, design, r sodified the final rule to allow licensees current industry indicators, taken in the component, operating, or maintenance f exibility to determine the details of proper context. can provide an problem. NUMARC added that their individual maintenance programs.
indication of maintenance performance.
assessments by the plant staff or by the
- 11. Should an industry-wide Indicators can be used effectively by a corporate staff, including observation of component failure reporting' system, e.g.,
specific utility as a management tool to work in the field, are necessary NPRDS. be used by all plants in order to essess the trend of performance within a ingredients in the measurement of support the sharing of generic given indicator or set ofindicators.
maintenance performance. NUMARC maintenance experience and facilitate However. NUMARC admonished that pointed out that a given component monitoring of maintenance there are individual plant variations that failure or degradation could be effectiveness?
make absolute comparisons misleading, allowable based on engineering Commente-Of the commenters.
even for plants with the same licensee.
NUMARC also stated that the Judgment without indicating an including NUMARC, who addressed this comparis'on of plant-specific indicators ineffective maintenance program, item, most recognized the usefulness of to industry averages can be misleading.
especially for cases involving redundant the NPRDS as a source ofseneric failure or nonsignificant equipment.
data.However. nost of the commenters.
..,~c w
Federzl Register / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday, July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31317 including NUMARC, oppose the form but no substance.1 believe it would be very issue.ne Commission addressed this unqualified use of the NPRDS for more productive to delay issuance of this point in detail under the headmg " Adequate monitoring maintenance effectiveness proposed rule until the draft regulatory guide Protection"in the Response to Comments on is ava able for comment. Only then can we the fmal10 CFR part 50 Revison of Backfit for a number of reasons. Some:
receive meaningful comments on the Process for power Reactors. let us remember commenters, m.cluding NUMARC.
rulemaking package.
that there had been concerns that in dealing perceive such use of the NPRDS as an I am concemed that this rule Foes beyond with the backfat rule, the Commission would 4
inappropriate regulatory intrusion into a our authonty.1 cannot agree with a rule that use the phrase " adequate protection" program designed to improve would hase the NRC regulatmg maintenance arbitranly.He Commission could communications regarding equipment on all systems, structures. and components unwittingly be giving credence to that view.
i performance within the industry that regardless of whether they have a nexus to Additionally.it seems to me that the would tend to stifle the free exchange of radiological safety or not. I am troubled by Commission position on adequate protection
]
the attitude demonstrated when we request is internally inconsistent. ne, Commission information. NUMARC cited the public comments on what limitations. if any, needs to recognize that when it states that necessary expansion of the reportable should be placed on the final rule to address this rule is needed to mamtain adequate l
scope of the NPRDS to cover the entire structuses, systems and components that are protection. it is saying that the current BOP as a tremendous undertaking that "wirbout question inelerent (my emphasis) operating plants now pose undue risk to the could be prohibitively expensive.
to the protectiori of public bealth and safety "
public which we are presently tolerating. If 1 j
NUMARC, two utilities, and one This clearly abdicates our responsibility to believed that. I would suggest (as rm sure individual believe that. although the show that a regulation is needed. we must would the rest of the Commission) that this NPRDS can be used to obtain gross ask ourselves: Are we proceeding with this rule become immediately effective. This is indications of a problem. its usefulness rulemaking for the sake of the rule itself? As clearly not the case. As the Cornmission in attested to by the cases where the the very same comment showa." *
- the l
.is restricted because of pIant-t@ plant Commission cited licensees, the NRC already proposed rule codifies and standardizes differences m, mamtenance practices.
has the authority to enforce compliance in the periously existing (my emphasis) component application, design-maintenance area.
Commission requirements, both explicit and i
environment. and the detail with which ne arguments advanced by both the staff implicit. in plant technical specifications.
i failures are reported.
and the Commission in trying to comply with licensee safety analysis reports. and to CFR j
Response-The Commission generally the requirements of the backfit rule have part 50, appendix B."It seems to me that the j
agrees with the above comments.
played a significant role in my decision not to Commission can't have it both ways.
i However, the NPRDS may provide support this pmposed rulemaking. ne staff I request comments on my views.
useful information for comparing plant-Comments-Of the commenters who
{
a ment fo e do of st.
i specific experience on equipment with a The staff states that the backfit anal.vsis responded to this question, most agreed broader range of industry operating shows that "* *
- the rule will povide a with the views of Commissioner experience on simtlar equipment. The substantialincrease in the protection of the Roberts, while only three commenk rs data does provide usefulinsights into public health and safety without any disagreed with the Commissioner. Some maintenance trendt at an individual additional cost."I am skeptical of the commenters did not provide any bd i
plant.
assumptions made in the backfit and for their agreement or disagreement.
- 12. Commissioner Roberts had the regulatory analysis and request comments or' However, a number of commenters l
following views:
both these documents. I also request expressed concerns beyond the views comments on the views of the ACRS.ney I cannot lom the majonty in supporting the state that "* *
- there are characteristics of expressed in Question 12.These are summarized below.
proposed rulemaking on maintenance. In regulations, and especially the way in which order to have the benefit of the public's they are typically enforced, that lead us to A majority of the utility commenters comments, it has been my custom to agree t believe that, under a rule, a move toward implicity agreed with Commissioner publication of proposed rulemakings. I cannot uniformity would occur, and this is likely to Roberts that the proposed rule went decrease the effectiveness of some of the beyond the current authority of the unda e tal u s i n.
h we ing to better existing programs. I share their Commission by requiring maintenance accomplish with this rule that cannot more concem dat the existence of this rule could of all SSCs in the BOP. According to effectively and innovatively be accomplished make things worse and dimtmsh rather than these commenters, since many SSCs in without a regulation? I have not received a i
satisfactory answer. I do not believe the case enhance the protection of the public.
the BOP have no nexus to pubic health h
s$e Corr s o app rs to be sa that since and safety, the maintenance rule would j
4 ai enanc regram t
sta l
importantly to me. there has been no effective maintenance is necessary to require licensees to spend thetr l
demonstration that this rule would improve maintain adequate protection, this rule resources on unimportant areas.
implementation of existing programs. Neither should be excepted under 50.109(a)(4).This potentially decreasing the level of 1
have I been provided with compelling exemption would prohibit staff from taking safety. One individual stated that documentation on what the problem is and implementation costs into consideration.
regulators have a bias in favor of how. specifically, this rule will fix it. On the However,it would require that a documented overboard regulations, pointing to the contrary the trends staff has provided show evaluation be prepared for pubhc comment.
FAA's regulations on air transportation.
continued improvement in the maintenance Therefore, my opposition to the exception is
. Utis commenter noted that, unlike the not to the exception itself but to the area' proposed rule the Commission is now precedential nature of the use of tha adequate scope of FAA's statutory charter which The publishing fails to provide a basis for protection argument. Ist me state that 1. too.
encompasses the development of the atr 4
determining when a maintenance program is strongly believe that effective maintenance is ' transportation industry, the NRC's 4
effective or when improvements are necessary to assure that nuclear power authority is limited to the regulation of appropriate." We are even delaying plants are safe and to provide adequate the nuclear industry to protect public publication of the accompanying regulatory protection to the public. I also believe. Just as health and safety.Two utilities argued 1
guide until the final rule. Without being strongly, that this rule is not necessary t that the maintenance rule fails to provide that protect 2on, and that as the ACRS provide meaningful definitions and afforded the opportunity to review this,
implementation document, the Commission is noted,it may well have the opposite effect. g j
left in the position of approving a specious believe that we cannot afford to be careless standards of the activities required. In rule. It is no wonder that this rulemaking about the use of the " adequate protection" their view, this can lead to would elicit such widespread opposition. The argument for exception to the backfit rule; misinterpretation, arbitrary public is being asked to comment on a rule of The Commission is in litigation about this enforcement, and endless j
. cueses negister / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday. July
..,,,,m, 10 1991 / Rules and Regulations k
reinterpretations of the rule.One utility suggested that any industry st1ndard on health end esfety. Accordingl. as i
~
Y maintenance would be tailored to the discussed in the response to the 1988), the Commission made it clear i
i lowest common denominator, and comments on Question 7. the scope of that-j therefore there would be no net the rule has been modified to focus on a) the objective of the Commission that those SSCs whose failure could most nents rystems and stmetures of improvement in the level of safety It directly threaten public health and nuclear powerplants be maintained so that also argued that. once codified, a safety.
plant equipment will erform its intended, regulatory standard of acceptance P
I maintenance would be difBcult to Finally.during the time the function when required. To accomplish this i
t'-mWon held rulemaking in objective, each beenece should develop and j
i improve. Findly.NUMARC and the utilities also repeated their general abeyanz, the public had the implement a maintenance program which arguments wh opportunity to comment on the draft provides for the penodic naluation, and i
not necessary,y a maintenance rule is regulatory guide.Considering the prompt repair of plaat components s t_,
in particular, on the and stru
- to e narrowing of the focus of the fmalrule ould clu e the gradualimprovement in the industry to a results/ performance-oriented g,,gey,g,p j
p c results to ensure i
maintenance performance, and the INPO appmach the supporting regulatory correcure ections, provisions for overall i
Self-Assessment Program.NUMARC guide wiH mqmm revision. Dunng the program evaluation. and the identification of also asserted that the Commasion has revision pro ss, previous public possible component and system problems sufficient authority to ensure adequate comments will be considered and protection.
appmpriately reflected in the regulatory An adequate program should consider A Commissioner on the Public Service guide.%e regulatory guide will be Commission of the State of Vermont revised to reflect the rule's narmwer Predictive Maintenance
- Techndogy m. the area of-stated that there is safety significance in focus on results and maintenance the bop. pointing out that recent NRC
- Equipment history and trending staff and industry evaluations show that program effectfveness, and will describe (and}
a rneans for meeting the muuents of improper maintenance of components 10 CFR 50.65 acceptable to the staff.
- Measms of overaH pmgram i
not previously associated with safety has resulted in adverse safety Revision of the regulatory guide will effectiveness again indade the opportunity for pubh.
%e Commission went on to indicate consequences.In addition. the comment. lmplementation of the rnle is in that same 1988 Policy Statement c
Commissioner indicated that superior to be delayed for five years after the that-parformance of nuclear plants issuance date. with the regulatory guide ne Commission expects to publish a internationaHy has been associated with expected to be available within the first Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the near maintenance programs that are stdcter two years.his schedule wiH aDow at futme that will establish basic re than those in the U.S. citing the least three years forbcensee for plant maintenance programs. quirements experience of Japan and France.
development beyond the time when that the contents and bounds of the proposed We believe Response-Two of the issues raised final gmdance is expected to be rule will fall within the general framework by Commissioner Roberts and by the available.
described in this Policy Statement * * *. We 3
majority of commenters are similme to encourage interested parues to provide their those assues raised in response to Additional Comments of Commissioner views on this important subject to the i
Curtiss Commission, even at this early stage of the j
Questions 6 and 7. As discussed in the rulemaking press.
response to comments on Question 8 I believe that the approach adopted the Commission agrees that a backfit by the Commission in this final rule is FR 1"
1 i
analysts is required for the maintenance sound and appropriate.%e entire
%us. ea4 n, the Commission began rule. Because the current regulations Commission agrees that it is important to consider the principal elements of the provide an assurance of adequate for this agency to have a regulatory finalrule adopted bere by the protection of the public health and framework in place that will provide a Commission, caHed on heensees to safety. the Commission is no longer mechanism for evaluating the overaH incorporate those elements into thetr i
proposing to exempt the maintenance continuing effectiveness of licensees.
maintenance programs, and solicited rule from the requirements of a backfit maintenance programs. This final rule Public comment on such proposals.
i analysts.
will provide that regulatory framework.
The Commission does not agree that I strongly disagree with those who In conjunction with the issuance of the maintenance rule will result in contend that the Commission rushad outthe Fmal Commission Policy Statement decreased safety by requiring licensees with this maintenance rule without theon Maintenance of Nuclear Power j
1 i
to divert their resources away from benefit of public comment and with the Plants, the Commission directed the l
SSCs and activities with greater attendant implication that the final rule NRC staff to develop a preferred importance to safety. The maintenance was not well-considered. In point of maintenance rulemaking option rula is being issued to ensure that the fact, the reliability-based aspects of requidng licensees to track certain effectiveness of maintenance programs reaintenance reDected in this final rulemaintenance performance indicators i
i is m:intained for the life of the facility have been at the very heart of what the (See Staff Requirements Memorandum and is not expected to require Commission has been considering in the on COMKC-8843 June 17.1988).In 4
sign!!icant modific maintenance area since as early as 1988, response, the staff adrised that the licensee programs.ations to current The regulatory guide Indeed, it is abundantly clear from even proposed rules should contain will provide flexibility for a licensee to a cursoryreviewof thehistoryof this
" provisions for performance assessment structure its maintenance program in issue that considerable time and which licensees would irnplement to eccordance with the safety significance attention have been devoted to the basic track the effectiveness of their i
- of those SSCs. However, the concepts reDected in this final rule. nat maintenance programs" [See SECY-8&-
Commission does agree with the history is brieDy summarized below:
277. Amendment to to CFR part 50 comments that not all SSCs in the bop in the Final Commission Policy Related to Maintenance of Nuclear are related to the protection of public Statement on Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. p. 2. September 3o 2988L Power Plants (53 FR 9430; March 23 Although the staff was not in a position to suggest the see of spd
- <n A
9
. Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.132 / Wednesday, July 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 31319 i
maintenance performance indicators, it in how they fashion their individual which require rote adherence, stifle formulated a proposed rule that-maintenance programs.
initiatives and depend on punitive enforcement actions for compliance.There ernphasizes that an integral part of a good Commissioner RemicA's Sepamre Comments appears to be a near-unanimous consensus maintenance program is the monitoring and I respectfully differ with my colleagues that the agency and the industry have
'1 inasmuch as I do not believe that there is a stimulated initiatives which have produced a n enan pr s b >ul em mated md im a rule in @ d poshe resus. an wicome ut necena@
e 9uantitative indicators that are based upon significant improvements in maintenance assured even by result-oriented rulemaking, actual component reliability and failure programs resulting from Agency attention I agree with the view that routine use of the history to provide the best measure of and licensee initiatives. The Commission staffs maintenance inspection approach.
maintenance effectiveness.
Indicates in its decision to promulgate this utilizing the Maintenance Team inspection SECY-88-289. Preliminary Results of the rule that "* *
- the Commissionis satisfied (MTI) Criteria proposed in conjunction with Trial Program on Maintenance that the industry has been generally the revised policy statement, could ultimately J
successfu ringing abat substanual lead to essentially the same prescriptive Performance Indicators, p. 5. October 7, improvement in maintenance programs.,
result as a process-oriented rule. In the 1988.
Substantialimprovements and favorable interest of ensuring that the responsibility for Indeed, the staff specifically noted results are the goals that the Cornmission improving. sustaining and verif ing adequate 3
that the goal of the recommendations should strive for in its regulatory activities by maintenance performance (using mdustry's contained in the proposed maintenance utilizing the most effective regulatory tools standard document INPO 90-008) remained rule was to provide the NRC staff and for accomplishing those goals. As I argue with the industry. I believe that the licensees "with a practical near-term below. I am not convinced that in this case a Commission should have directed the staff to method to track maintenance rule is the most effective regulatory tool for develop an approach to its routine acc mplishing those goals. Further. I differ inspections which would have concentrated effectiveness * * *"(SECY-88-289, p.
5}-the very core of the proposal that
$'o7d not on in8pecting for the effectin results of e
rule. t sh "g*((*j' g
[**',tha s
8
[
Commission endorses in this fmal e rule is a concept w of d o t p
d
{"((;
,"((,[,p,']
Tha resulting Notice of Proposed have been issued for the benefit of public Rul: making on Maintenance and the comment.
cases where there was a perceived proposed rule published for comment on The Commission approved criteria to be maintenance problem. In my approach, the November 28.1988 (53 FR 47822) contain I", d[,
[,'M"8""
staffs proposed final policy statement on maintenance w uld have been revised to the s:me equipment history and sufficient to obviate a need for rulemaking include these future activities.
trending. effectiveness monitoring, and (SECY memorandum from S. Chilk to J.
I agree with the view that it is important for feedback elements as the Final Taylor, dated May 25,1990).%e staff Commission Poliev Statement on performed a detailed evaluation ofindustry.
this agency to have a regulatory framework l
Maintenance."Ihiy also contain clear progress and concluded that the criteria had in place that will provide a mechamsm for indications that the Commission been satisfled (SECY-91-110. Staff evaluatmg the overen cutinuing intended to include requirements for Evaluation and Recommendation on effectiveness of the maintenance programs, ulem Ba it p rt 1y ae th a ts 8
moni tre ding, and feedback with Main Ee d
M ds Commission not proceed with a maintenance together with the development of results-mg to e e edveness o maintenance in any maintenance rules rulemaking.%e ACRS agreed with the staffs oriented inspection pmgrams, would have that rnight ultimately be adopted.The recommendations. In general I agree with the provided an effective regulatory framework i
need for, and details of, such provisions bases for the staffs condusions.%erefore. I for such evaluation. I believe that the i
were emphasized in the draft Regulatory approved the etaffs recommendation in performance-based rule that the mejority of Guide that was subsequently published SECY-et-110 not to proceed with the Commission has approved has some for comment as part of this maintenance maintenance rulemaking. but instead to issue innovative features, and may be particularly rulemaking effort. 54 FR 33983. In turn, a a final policy statement on maintenance of appropnate for monitoring the effectiveness number of commenters acknowledged nudear power plants. I also approved the of mamtenance programs for the advanced staffs rec mmendation to remon the reactors. However. I do not agree with the the maintenance effectiveness maintenance escalation factor and revise the view that the proposed rule in no way measurement, trending. and feedback enforcement policy supplement of10 CFR interferes with the process-related activities aspects of the proposed rule and.
part 2. appendix C to include a epecific which the licensee community, to its provided their views on these matters.
maintenance-related example, considerable credit. has undertaken In sum,it is abundantly clear from all Further. I agree with the staffs conclusion voluntarily. lt may be argued that licensees of this that the Commission has long that the industry document. INPO 90-008, will not have to change their maintenance been considering maintenance
- Maintenance Programs in the Nudear Power programs to meet the provisions of the rule es effectiveness monitoring of the sort that Industry." delineates the necessary elements it is written.Nevertheless the focus of the a majority of the Commission now f effectin maintenance programs.%e NRC's attention on implementation of a new industry's commstment to monitor the rule almost always carries with it the strong odopts in thia finai maintenance ruIe, progress of maintenance implementation potential for impact on the licensees
- and that the industry and the pubhc using the performance objectives of INPO 90-initiatives and pmgrams and thus an inherent were given clear notice and the 008, and the staffs intention to assess disincentive to not innovate or participate in opportunity to comment on such industry performance and report to the new initiatives.
considerations throughout this Commission after four years with an interim One way of determining the potential miintenance rulemaking process. The report after two years are sufficient in my impact of this rule would have been to issue finzl rule that has resulted from this view to assure that them will be no it for public comment.1 think that issuing the careful deliberation will provide the backsliding of thelevelofindustry proposal for public comment would be good r gulitory framework that all perfonnance of maintenance.
policy, and consistent with the Commission's In gener8I I 8upP Ft 8 resul8 tory 8ppF 8Ch Principles of Good Regulation, which state Commissioners a8"e this a8ency must which stimulates licensees
- and industry a that all available facts and opinions be have in order to ensure the continuing initiatives.encouragesinnovation permits sought openly imm licensees and other effectiveness of maintenance efforts at self-management and produces positive interested members of the public.To rush a nuclzar power plants, while at the same results. under agency monitoring, in contrast final rulemaking package that contains some time providing licensees broad latitude to prescriptive, process. oriented regulations fundamental changes from the direction the
......,.... ~..... ~,.. wucauoy, g uay 10, 1991 / Rules and Regulations Commission has taken over the past reveral maintenance program development and years. without seeking all available facts and innovation. I fear that licensees will halt of the information requirements before opiriions. is likely to lesd to implementation furoer development of their maintenance they will become effective. Notice of problems that the Commission may not be initiatives to await the development of the NR' submission of the information C
awere of now.
reFulatory guidance to implement the rule, collection requirements to OMB, and The rmal rule represents a significant and that licensees will refrain from issuance of the required OMB approval, departure from the proposed rule.nc participating in future safety initiatives will be published by the NRC in the proposed rule issued in n88 focussed on because they willinterpret this Commission Federal Register.
what the Federal Register notice for the action as a significant retreat from its goals of proposed rule called ' maintenance practices" achieving a stable regulatory environment.
Regulatory Analysis end 'the adoption of common maintenance ne development of an industry maintenance standards"-in a word
- processes", or program standard, the industry's commitment The Commission has prepared a
" systems" of maintenance (53 FR US24). ne to self-assessment against that standard.
regulatory anal)' sis on this final notice stated that
- regulation [of INPO's evaluation of maintenance progress reguiab.on.The analysis examines e maintenance] by outcomes rather than against the objectives of the standard NRC costs and benefits of the alternatives processes" would be the subject of " follow.
inspectim pmgrams which would considered by the Commission. The on rulemaking" (id.). ne final rule, however, concentrate on effective results, and the analysis is available for inspection in is focussed on outcomes and thereby seems NRC's existing enforcement authonty are to have concluded the " follow.on adequate to ensure proper maintenance the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L rulemaking" before it was beFun. Although M,that a new rule.
St., NW., Washington. DC. Single copies the proposed rule mntained monitoring and 4 would stress, however, the importence of of the analysis may be obtained from trending components. they were only a few the Commission's conttnuing to monitor the Robert Riggs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory among seventeen maintenance activities industry's progress in this area. A policy Commission, %,ashington, DC 20555.
covered by the pmposed rule (see the statement would be a suitable approach for (301) 492-3732.
proposed 50.65(b)), and so clearly were in no catinuing the Commission's necessary way intended as a surmgste for a pmcess-mphasis on maintenance, and at the same Regulatory Flexibility Certification oriented rule. However, monitoring is the time allowing for continuing improvement in focus of the final rule.ne signincant shifts in maintenance thmugh Dexibility. diversity and in accordance with the Regulatory the focus of the rule and in the role of innovation in the industry's programs.
Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
monitoring in the rule deserved public the Commission hereby certifies that Findmg of No Significant EnGm.astal this regulation does not have a T
of the pmposed ruldvite Impact: Availability significant e onomic impact on a responses to questions on morzitoring. but the questions were confmed larpety to the inst.e The Commission has determined that, substantial number of small entib,es.
of what specific measures might be need to under the National Enviromnental Policy Tlus regulabon affects beensees that essess the effectiveness of a maintenance Act of1960, as amended, and the own and operate nuclear utilization pmgram (see 53 M8 5)h addmened La Commission's regulations in subpart A facilities licensed under sechons 103 the notice were artain matters which are of 10 CFR part 51, this rule is not a mafor and W o e Atmnic Energy Act of cructal to the final rule.nese include for Federal action sigmficantly affecting the 1954, as amended.These licensees do example, the final rule's requirement to quality of the human environment and M fab MbihiM monitor "against liceestablished goals-therefore an environmentalimpaet business set forth in section 3 of the which are. -.%.te with safety". Also, statement is not required.
Small Business Act,15 U.S.C. 632, or 150.es(blef the finalrule defines the Since this action is directed toward wi6in 6e SmaH Business Size structures.eystems, and components ISSCs) maintaining the level of maintenance Standards set forth in 13 CFR part 121.
to be incloded in the empe of maintenance monitonng pmgramstis dennition is both effectiveness of existing plant SSCs to similar to and different from the definition of minimize the likelihood of failures and Backfit Analysis SSCs important to bcense renewalin part 54, events cauthed by the lack of effective Pursuant to 10 CFR 50Ma)(2L 6e int dd Commission has prepared the following clong w h$e fna ul on modifi tion of the p it o
backfit analysis for the maintenance ena pubbe comment might have addressed '
adversely affect the quality of the rule. The Commission has determined, whether the differences between the human erwironment.
on the basis of this analysis, that de*mitions of SSCs in these two The environmental assessment and backfitting of the requirements in the m:intenance-related rules are Justified or will finding of no significant impact on maintenance rule will provide a present interpretation and implementation which this determination is based are substantialincrease in the level of problems.
tfI were convinced that a rule was needed available for inspection at the NRC protection of public health and safety public Document Room. 2120 L Street beyond that currently provided by the "FP NW., Lower Level. Washington, DC.
Commission's regulations, and that the te jonty a
e provided that I could see ow the staff would Sing e copies of 6e environmental M h deme @ b d an 4
implement the rule through the development assessment and finding of no significant justified in view of this increased of regulatory Fuides and inspection modules, impact are available from Robert Riggs, protection.
and provided that the public was given an Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
The maintenance rule requires opportunity to comment before promulgation Telephone: (301) 492-3732. U.S. Nuclear licensees to monitor the effectiveness of of a final rule. But I am not convinced that a rule as needed to produce positive results.
Regulatory Commission. Washington, maintenance 6ctivities for certain
%e staff has shown that we're seeing DC 20555.
structures. systems and components substantial positive results of the industry's Paperwork Reduction Act Statement based upon licensee-established goals for performance or condition, and take a7e
'Unis fina rule amends information corrective action where necessary (the e
af ed n n discussions with Regional staff ard Resident collection requirements that are subject requirements of the maintenance rule Irtpectors.nerefore.1 have concluded that to the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 are set forth in greater detailin the the Commission should not change its (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The information discussion below which addresses the direction now and that there is no need to requirements will be submitted by the nine factors of 10 CPR 50.100(ci).
promulgate a maintenance regulation which could be counterproductive to further NRC to the Office of Management and it is the Commission's tudgement tha Budget {OMB) for review and approval maintenance, and in particular the goal-3:,,,4
_~
=
1 4
Faderal Regist:r / Vol. 53 No.132 / Wednesday, July 10,1991 / Rnles and Regulations 31321 setting, nmitoring and carrectire action To obtain a bmader perspective on broad scope of structures, systems and
)
activities required by the maictenance maintenance, the Commission components also reprerents a safety a
rule. provide a substantial increase in performed a sarvey and assessment of concern because of the potential
]
the safety of nuclear power plant maintenance practices in other countnes adverse effect on the ability of the i
operation. This judgement is based on and industries to identify varying Commission to take tunely and effective j
the direct impact of maintenance on the approaches to maintenance and to regulatory action against licensees with reliability and operability of nuclear determine if there was any linkage poor maintenance practices. It is true 4
l power plant safety systems, and its between safety and effective that there are a number of existing i
effect on the other plant stmetures.
maintenance.Specifically,the aim of the Commission requirements that are systems and components that are study (NUREG-1333) was tm directly or indirectly relevant to 1
important to the protection of the public
- Review vanous regulatory maMtaere, including 10 CFR l
health and safety and cxrmmon defense appmaches and sietermine their 5034(a)(3)(ik 50.34(a)(7k 5034(b)[6] (it j
and security.
oppbcabdity to the mamtenance (ii), (iii) and (iv) 50.34(b)(9) 50.34(f)(t)
The Commission's judgement that rulemaking, and (i). (ii). and (iiih 50.34(gh 50.34a(ch effrctive maintenance is an important
- hrmme Mgn and Wa*
5036(aWW @ W,@ and M contnbutor to safety is confirmed by maintenance practices that contribute 5038a(aX1) 50.49(bh 50.55a[gh part 50, studies of maintmence practsces for significantly to effective maintenanra.
aptMv A. Criteria 1.13.18,21,32.36.
i domestic nuclear power plants. LERs.
%e study cwend Japanese, Frendt, 37,40,43.454 52,53; part 50, appendix d
imm and Gennan (FRG) modear snaintenance B. However, these requirernents do not repslations and prachms: the Federal apply uniformly to all' safety < elated" tcA sm ci see Performance (SALP), and the Aviation Adm-t=&n's regulatory structures, systemas and umyowents, Commission's 'mspections at domestic approach to the vantnt-nce of U.S.
and only ae*dly apply te commerciaa aircraft: and the stractices. systems and components nuclear power plants. as well as studies maintenance ymgrams of the U.S. Navy which could adversely affect the of maintenance practices at foreign end Air Form The results of the study functioning of safety-related structures, i
nuclear power plants. the military, and were usalin formulatung the proposed syet-ma and w.sas. Any attempt the aerospace industry. The Commission rule.These studies condirra the on the part of the NRC to take regulatory first began focusing on maintenance as a Commission's view that good action against alicensee with result of its observation that plant mantenance is correlated with high inadequase orpoorly-implemeined performance, as reflected in such rehabikty and =mimir.ation of plant maintenance must be pursued on an mdicctors as the number of transienes and therefore with nuclear individunkzed, case-try-case unanticipated scrams, was not power rearrw safety, consideration of the adequacy of that improving in the early 1980s."Ibe An additiemd conmm of the licensee's raamtenance practices and Commission had expected that as newly Cr=mm== inn is the need io assure their efied om safety. This regulatory licensed power plants ainad anarntN effective =mintenance et neoleer power approach is costly in terms of agency experience and took advantage of rpm A tant the terms of abeir resources. k also risks the possibility lessons learned and other in!nrmatica operatmg le==ses (and any d that the NRC will be anable to take distributed throughout the industry, operating licenses). Whee the arvent timely enfecemast action in the event 3
problems in plant operation would performance of thenuclearpower of a finding ofinadequate licensee gradually decrease to a relatively low industry in the area of smaintenance is pedarman= in rnaintenance.By i
level To understand why industry acceptable and improving in the contrast, timely reFunatory action could performance was not improving as aggregate theNRCStaffsMaintenance easily be taken if a bcensee were found 4
expected, the Commission performed an Team Inspections indicate that there are not to beimplemerzting spectfic actions 1
assessment of rnaintecera at domestic still common weaknesses is discrete required by a rule which addresses nuclear power plants in NUREG-1212-areas of maintenance at nuclear power maintenanos. in amm, the Comndosion
" Status of Maintenance in the Nuclear pants.Thus, whde the Coramission concludes that substantial safety
]
Power Industry." The study found that schacunedges the increased emphasis benefits are to be achmed from J
in 1985, maintenance safety problems by licenses en againtenance and adopting the final apostnenance rule.
were evident to varying degrees across significaatirnprovesnent in per6ennonce ne Comrmssion also condudes that the U.S. nuclear inhtry. Wide of ruaintenance prograras in the the oosts ofimplementing the variations were found in mairdenanca aggregste. additional attention is maintenance rnie et all tmclear pewer j
practices and effectiveness, and a warranted.Moreover,in the absence of plants are justined in view of the safety significant proportion of operational a rule, there is no assurance diet benefits iderrtified above. A regulatory problems was found to be attributable licensees would not relan their analysis has been prepared to assist the I
to improper or inadeque te maintenance.
commitment to ebctive rmaintenance Commissien in determining the benefits
)
%is finding was confirmed by an prar6rms in the future. In this eegard, the and costs of'm/ganting the industry study of snaintenanr*
Commissian motes that as boensee has maintenance rule through a quantitative conducted about the same time.This made a formal docketed r-mitment to approech. However, the quantitative industry study, which was performed by implement the institute for Nuclear estimates in the regtriatory analysis NUMARC Working Group 4, was Power Operaticas (1NPO) performance have prwed to contain varying degrees discussed by the Working Group objectives and criteria on saaintenance of uncertainty. Depending upon the 4
j Chairman during the July 1988 Public (INPO waot).By adopting a specific assumptions usedin the Workshop on the Maintenance maintenance rule now, the Commission analysis, a broad range of values is Rulemaling (NUREG/CP-0099, pp.1.21-will have a regniainry basis for possible for the estimated risk reduction I
1.31). The industry study found that 38%
preventing licensee " backsliding" in the attributable to the maintenance rule (the of the root causesof 650 significant area of mairdan='-=
uncertainties and their effect on the events examined were maintenance The absence af Comrnission overall risk reduction and value/ impact l
related.
maintenance tw.u-amts covering a ratios are discussed in greater detailin i
1
~+
,,---n_.
o-
~.-a o
...~..,ne...~
the regulatory analysis). Because of that the costs of implementing the Establish goals for the performance or these uncertainties. the Commission has maintenance rule are justified.
condition of certain structures, systems considered qualitative safety The Commission recognizes that and components to assure that they will considerations and benefits.Thus, the regulatory action in the area of meet their intended function. (ii) monitor regulatory analysis' quantitative maintenance should not be overly these structures, systems and estimates compnse a component of, but prescriptive, but rather be carefully components to detennine whether the are not the primary factor with respect directed to ensuring that unnecessary licensee-estabhshed goals have been to the Commission's conclusions on the activities are not required,in view of the met, and (iii) take appropriate corrective safety benefits and costs attributable to large degree of uncertainty in action if the goals are not met.These the final maintenance rule.
quantifying the costs and benefits of the goals are to be established by taking The regulatory analysis estimates that maintenance mle. Accordingly, the final into account industry-wide operating implementation of the final maintenance maintenance rule is carefully tailored to experience. Monitoring is not required.
rule could result in a point estimate of eliminate prescriptive programmatic, however, where the licensee 52.000 person-rems avoided, with an procedural and organizational demonstrates that preventive upper bound of 72.000 and a lower requirements. Rather, the final maintenance is sufficient to assure that bound of 7.300 person-rems.The net maintenance rule represents a results-the structures, systems and components costs associated with implementation of oriented approach to assuring that will remain capable of performing their the maintenance rule are estimated to maintenance is effectively conducted at intended functions. See i 5045(a)(2).
entail a point estimate of 44 million nuclear power reactors.The licensee is Licensees will be required to evaluate dollars, with an upper bound of 2100 responsible for establishing goals for the effectiveness of their goal-setting.
million dollars in cost savings and a structure, system and component monitoring and corrective action lower bound of 1500 million dollars. The performance or conditions, and the activities on at least an annual basis, resulting value,.mpact ratio is a point licensee is free to detennine the taking into account industry-wide estimate of 1200 person-rems /million monitoring method, the need for operating experience, and adjust their i
dollars.
conective action, and the nature of that programs where necessary to ensure l
Furthennore, the regulatory analysis action. Furthermore. the maintenance that failure prevention is balanced for the maintenance rule also contains rule contains a provision (i 50.85(a)(2))
against unavailabil'ty of structures, some conservatisms which the whereby licensees may forego systems and components. See i
l Commission believes underestimates the monitoring.The Commission believes i 50.65(a)(3). In addition. when cost-effectiveness of the final that the final maintenance rule provides performing monitoring and preventive maintenance rule. In the regulatory the necessary flexibility for licensees to maintenance activities, an assessment analysis. it was assumed that the core-tailor their maintenance programs to of the total plant equipment out-of-damage frequency and forced outage their specific plant design and service should be taken into account to downtime reductions associated with configuration, organizational structure, determine the overall effect on the results-oriented rule would be the and personnel, thereby permitting performance of safety functions. See same as those for a process-oriented compliance with the maintenance rule in i 5045(a)(3). The structures, systems rule. However, the Commission believes the most cost-effective manner.The and components which are subject to that the results-oriented approach, by Commission is confident that the the goal-setting, monitoring, and focusiag to a greater extent on regulatory goal of maintaining safety conective action requirements of the equipment performance, would be more has been achieved in the most rule are those which are safety-related.
likely to achieve additional reductions reasonable and cost-efficient manner and certain non-safety related systems, in core damage frequency and forced and is consistent with the public structures and components as defined in I
outage downtime.The regulatory interest.
I 50.65(b).
s;nalysis also assumed that licensees For the reasons set forth above, the
- 3. Potential change in the risk to the under the final results-oriented rule Commission concludes that, the public from the accidental offsite release l
would incur most of the costs of maintenance rule will result in a level of of radioactive material.
implementing programmatic elements safety beyond that currently provided According to the Regulatory Analysis I
similar in scope to those contained in by the Commission's regulations and for the maintenance rule, a point the 1988 proposed maintenance rule in that is a substantialincrease in the estimate of the potential risk reduction cddition to the costs ofimplementing the overall protection of the public health to the public is approximately 52.000 results-oriented elements which were and safety, and that the net costs of the person-rem, with an upper bound of drawn from the proposed maintenance rule are justified in view of this 72.000 person-rem and a lower bound of rule and incorporated into the final rule.
increased level of safety.
7.300 person-rem.The bases of these The Commission projects that because The nine factors listed in 10 CFR projections are provided in the the results-oriented rule is not a 50.109[c) are discussed below.
discussion in the Regulatory Analysis.
prescriptive programmatic rule.
- 1. Statement of the specific objectives However, as suggested by the range licensees will achieve some cost savings that the backfit is designed to achieve.
between the upper and lower bounds of because they will have flexibility in The purpose of the maintenance rule risk reduction to the public, the determining the manner in which to is to maintain the effectiveness of estimates possess a certain relatively improve the programmatic elements of maintenance at operating nuclear power high degree of uncertainty. One factor their maintenance programs.
reactors, thereby maintaining the level contributing to this uncertainty, and Accordingly, the Commission projects of safety at operating nuclear power which tends to suggest that the values that the costs for the performance-based reactors.
for the results-oriented final rule are final maintenance rule will be somewhat
- 2. General description of the activity conservative,is that the core damage smaller than that assumed in the required by the licensee or applicant in reduction frequency (CDF) and forced regulatory analysis.
order to complete the backfit.
outage downtime reductions associated in view of the safety benefits Under i 50.65(a)(1) of the maintenance with the results-oriented rute em '
discussed above, the Commission judges rule, licensees will be required to:(i) assumed to be the ** meas the Process.
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.132 / Wednesday, July to.1991 / Rules and Regulations 31323 1
oriented rule. Ibwever. it is believed For 110 eperating rescers. the estimated 5035algh pa:t 50, appendix A criteria 1.
that the resalts-onented rule, by net cost associated with implernentstion 13.18. 21.r 36. 37.40. 43. 45,46. 52,53:
focusing on equipment performance, of this rule is $44 million.This estimate part 50, appendix B. Licensees must would be more hkely to achieve breaks down as folios s:
continue to comply with these additional reductions in CDF and forced requirements.110 wever.10 CFR 50.65 outage downtime.
should provide added assurance that
- 4. Potentialimpact on radiological 79 3 o these requirements will be complied
% co mny,nt exposure of facihty employees.
oows with. No duplication of requirements is The goal-setting. monitoring and intended.
availt.bility evaluation requimments of inc nematon and op ang soso 7.The estimated resource br den on the maintenance rule are not likely to gacemen o to nereasea r
ge3 the NRC associated with the backfit and aIio m the availability of such resources os e or re eio ewmb implemerttation of correctzve mai nsay me 44 The estimated resource burden to the actions, as required by i 50.65(a)(t) of NRC associated with the maintenance the maintenan rule can affect rule can be divided into two elements:
collective occupational exposures both The above cost figures are point (a) Development of a regulatory guide positively and negatively, increases in estimates with a relatively large degree on tnaintenance effectiveness maintenance activity due to expanded of uncertainty.ne cost estimates in monitoring ($800.000h and (b) inspection preventive maintenance or more parentheses repmsent cost savings.
and enforcement to ensure compliance aggressive corrective maintenance (to 6.%e potential safety impart d with the rule (assumed to be negligible reduce AM t= for ex. ample) will tend changes in plant or operational over and above existing inspection to increase exposure, w hile prodscuvity complexity, including the relationship to efferts-)
I increases and reductions in the amount proposed and existing regulatory With regard to enforcement, the of rework wd, l tend to re&uce exposures. requirements.
maintenance rule does not equire he net effect of heme positive and -
As disc ssed above, the maintesame licensees to submit their maintenance 4
negative trends is beheved to be rule does not require any design program to the NRC for review and
- ['C*
g' modifications. Therefore, safety impacts approval, and no agency resources have attributable to changes in plant emgn been included in the cost estimates for
,,,% %,, g
,4 in this projectmen and the relatively naiI' e.
th regar to
- "U
"" "9" srn:ll magnitude of the reduced ch wget in operational complexity.
exposmes, the cost. benefit analysis of maintenance is often considered a part the Regulatory Anal ms does wt of operations. The maintenere rule 8.%e potentialimpact of difference 3
account for any dsanges in occupational requires licensees to establish goals far in facility type, design. or age on the the performance or condition af cemin relevancy and practicality of the backfit.
- P**"*-
i
- 5. In=Mlation and ooctinuing costs structures. systems and components.
De maintenance rule establishes associated with harnt,indadmg the monitor the performance or condition of generic requirements that are applicable cost M facdzty -m.mue or the cost M those structures, systems and to ail types of facilities and rhig,s i
cetmetam delay.
components, and implement corrective regardless of their age.These action if the licensee-established goals requuements(and therefore the cost of ma en ce ed c sts to are et natat also mquires an annual complying with these requirer rents) are the industry and the NRC associated with the maintenance rule. The evabati n d monitoring, soal-essentially the same agardless cf the establishment and corrective action type or design of the facility.
maintenance rule does not require any change in the design or construction of a ctivities. In a ddition. In performing.
final and. if tzsterun, the justification for
- 9. Whether the backfit is interim er any nuclear power plant.Nor does the m nitoring and maintenance activities, rule apply to activities associated with the overa5 efect d equipment mM imposing the backfit on en interim basis.
the planning. design, and installation of service on the performance of safety W
d is a hl cti plant modifications. Herefore, there
. te t
u provide a requirement. Licensees will have up to will be no mstallation, downtime, or d
de m 6Wyb five years foHewing publication of the construction costs associated with the co tributing to reduced operational final rule in the Federal Register to be in i
Rather, the maintenance rule will c mplexity as a result of fewer compliance with the requirements of the require licensees to establish goals for maintenance reworks. fewer unplanned ru e.
ths performance or conditian of certain transients, and higher reliability of structures, systems and components.
safety-argmficant SSCs, thus reducing List of Subjectsin to CI'R Part 50 monitor the performance or condition of the need for operator actxms'in Administrative practice and l
those structums. systems and response to events.7hes, operetional procedum. Antitmst.Clessified components, and knplement corrective complexityis mtlikely to be adversetY information. Fire prnention, affected.
Intergovermnental relations. Nuclear action if the licensee-established goals ere not met. It also requires an ammal There are a number of existing power plants and reactors. Radiation 4
i ersluation of rnonitoring, goal-Commisskm requirements dimetty er protection. Reporting and recordkeeping l
establishment and corrective action indirectly rekvant to mamtenenee.
requirements.
activities to take into account industry.
including (( 50.34(a)(3)(ih 5634(a)(7) bhbh &bpgh wide operating experience and to make 5034(b)(6)(i). (ii),(iii) and(ivh 1
adicalments where necessary to balance 5034(b)(9h 5034(f)(1) (i), (ii), and (iiik Nudear Regulatory Commission amends failure reduction against structure.
5034(gh 5834s(ch 50Jo(a h 50J6(c){f).
part 50 of title toof the Codeof Federal system, and component unavailability.
(3), (5) and (7); 5036a(a)(1); 50.49[b);
Regulations as set forth.
31321 Fed:r:
1 Regist:r / Vol. 56. No.132 / Wednesday. July
- 10. 1991 / Rules and Regulations PART S0-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND(ITILIZATION experience. When the performance or (c) The requirements of this section FACILITIES condition of a stmeture, system. or sha!! be implemented by each licensee component does not meet established
- 1. The authority citation for part 50 is Foals, appropriate corrective action no later than July 10.1996.
revised to read as follows:
shall be taken.
Dated at Roc.kvil'e. Maryland, this 28th day of ]une.1991.
Authority: Secs.102. 203.104.105.161.182.
(2) Monitoring as specified in 183.186.189. 68 Stat. 936,937. 938,948. 953, paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
954. 955. 956, as amended, sec. 234,83 Stat.
required where it has been samuel 1. chili.
1244. as amended (42 US.C 2132,2133,2134 demonstrated that the performance or 2135, 2201. 2232. 2:33, 2238. 2239, 2282); secs.
condition of a structurc, system, or
~
201, as amended. 202. 208. 88 Stat.1242, as component is being effectively su.a.seo coog reas. ewe amended.1244.1246 (42 US.C 5841. 5842.
controlled through the performance of 5846).
appropriate preventive maintenance.
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95_
such that the stmeture, system, or DE AR NT TRANSPOSTATION 601. sec.10,92 Stat. 2951 (42 US.C 5851).
component remains cepable of
\\
Section ato also issued under secs.101.185 Performing its intended function.
Fed al Av tion A inistrati 68 Stat. 938. 955. as amended (42 US C. 2131 2:35). sec.102. Pub. L 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 (3) Performance and condition 14 C Part US.C 4332). Sections 50.13. 50.54(dd), and monitoring activities and associated M103 also issued under sec.108,68 Stat. 939, goals and preventive maintenance (Docket o. AD, mdt. 39-54; activities shall be evaluated at least AD 81-1 13I 50.35 5.55, d 50 a is er a c.'.
an ually, taking into account. where 185. 68 Stat. 955 (42 US.C 2235), Sections 50.33a. 50.55a. and Appendix Q also issued practical, industry-wide operatmg Airworthi.ss Di tives; 33, experience. Adjustments shall be made g g g, gyp under sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 [42 where necessary to ensure that the US.C 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also Aotwcv: Fed 1 Avi ion 1
issued under sec. 204. 88 Stat.1245 (42 US.C objective of preventing failures of 5644). Sections 50.58,50.91, and 50.92 also stnictures, tystems, and components inistratio (FAA).
T.
thmugh maintenance is appropriately A
Final e'
8 SC2 39 Seebon 50 a1 s er ba anced against the objer.,tive of suu RY:This a endme' adopts sec.122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 US.C 2152). Sections mmimtzmg unavailability of structures.
50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.164. 68 Stat.
systems, and components due to new ai orthines directiv (AD)tha is M '. as amended (42 US.C 2234). Appendix F monitoring or preventive maintenance.
applica to certa Beech.35.and also issued under sec.187. 68 Stat. 955 (42 la performing monitoring and preventive initial and petitive spections for
)
36 series 'rplanes.
s actio requires U.S C 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958, a$ maintenance activities, an assessment fb.
of the total plant equipment that is out cracks in th wing fro carry-tfzzough of service should be taken into account frame struct. and te ir or
\\
ae ued e
1 reinforcement found cked. Re' ports Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(b));
to determine the overall effect on il W(a). 50.10 (aHc). 50.34 (a) and tel. 50.44 performance of safety functions.
n 2cate that se eral of affected\\,
(aHe). 50 48 (a) and (b). 50.47(b). 50.48 (a).
si lanes have veloped acks in (gts (c). (d) and (el. 50.49(a) 50.54(a)(i). (i)(1). (1)-
(b) The scope of the monitoring st.u tre.The a - ns s ed by thi (n). (p), (gl. (1). tv) and (y). 50.55(f). 50.55a (a). pmgram specified in paragraph (a)(1) of ADa intended to revent ctural (cHe) (s). and th). 50.59(c). 50ao(a). 50.62(bl.
this section shallinclude safety related damag o the wing at coul rogress and nonsafety related structures.
to the po t of failure.
s ed ur e 6 68 ta 9a systems. and components, as follows:
s DATES:Eff tive Augus 12.1991 The amended (42 US.C 2201 (i)); and Ii 50.49 (d),
(1) Safety related structures systems, ncorporatio. by referen e of ce in (h). and (jl. 50.54 (w), (z). (bb). (cc), and (dd).
or components that are relied upon to 255(e). 50.59(b). 50.61(b). 50.62(b) 50.70(a),
\\,
50.71 (aHc) and (e). 50.72(a). 50.73 (a) andremain functional during and following
' blications b 'ed in the qgulatio. s a,s roved by the irectorof theFed *al l
a (b). W4. 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under design basis events to ensure the Re ter as of A st12.1 tec.161[o). 68 Stat. 950. as amended (42 integrity of the reactor coolant pressure ADDR SER' Beech tvice Bu 'etin No US.C 22o1(o)).
boundary, the capability to shut down
- 2. A new i 50.65 is added to read as the reactor and maintain it in a safe 2360,d ed Novembe 1990, tha is discusse n this AD m be obt 'ned follows:
shutdown condition, and the capability from the cb Aircraft rporati to prevent or mitigate the consequences
.O. Box 85 'ichita. Kan s 67201 6 50.65 Requkements for monitoring the 8
effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear potential offsite exposure comparable to ink tab may so b, ex ined at the AA Centra power plants.
the 10 CFR part 100 guidelines.
egion.
Offi of the Assi ant Chief nsel.
(a)(1) Each holder of an operating (2) Nonsafety related structures, license under ii 50.21(b or 50.22 shall systems, or components:
City. hh ouri 64106, room
- 58. 601 E.1 5 Street. Ka as monitor the performance) or condition of (i) That are relied upon to mitigate structures, systems, or components, accidents or transients or are used in R INFoRMATyN CONTA ron m sgainst licensee-established goals. In a plant emergency operating procedures hir. Larry ler. Aerospace Engineer.
(
manner sufficient to provide reasonable (EOPs); or Wichita Aircr t Certifica
- Office, casurance that such structures, systems.
(ii) Whose failure could prevent Continent Airpo. Wichita.K.sas 1801 Airport Ro room 1 fid-end components. as defined in safety-related structures, systems, and 67209. Telephone ( 6) paragraph (b), are capable of fulfilling con)ponents from fulfilling their safety-their intended functions. Such goals related function; or suPPLEMENTAny speF MATlosc A shall be established commensurate with s;fety and, where practical. take into (iii) Whose failure could cause a proposal to amend pa 39 of ther I
Aviation Regulations to d W and 36
~
_ %' g*3.35, eccount industry-wide operating reactor scram or actuation of a safety.
that is applicable to 8
related system.
%T
- d 1DN
. m.
n
- f 8
.w,yj.EM$$
'.c-.g.g Y"Mb *
~~
W =.
gg
~
t Asse-1 UNITED 5TATf 5 Ub
[e' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hD O
~
W ASHIN CT ON. D r. 205t4 1
1 I
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
[
February 17, 1993 REFER TO:
M930129A OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO: DR. SHER BAHADUR, RES FROM: DAVE TRIMBLE, DCM/JRC 2/19/93 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for 0, rations Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta FROM:
\\
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRI NG JN IMPLEMENTING
SUBJECT:
GUIDANCE FOR THE MAIRIENAN E RULE AND INDUSTRY VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION EFFORT, 10:00 A.M., FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1993, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) i The Commission was briefed by the NUMARC and the NRC staff on the implementing guidance for the maintenance rule and the industry I
NUMARC was represented by:
verification and validation effort.
Corbin McNeill, President and Chief Operating Officer j
Philadelphia Electric Company Tom Tipton, Vice President, NUMARC The commission requested further information from NUMARC concerning the participants in their workshop on implementing the maintenance guidance.
The Conmission requested that the maintenance inspection guidance for the maintenance rule be published for public comment and be the subject of a public workshop.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/1/94)
Consistent with the authority delegated to the EDO by the Commission for rulemaking of a minor nature, the staff should publish a proposed rule modifying the periodicity of the evaluations -- of monitoring ac$ivities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities -- required of licensees under paragraph (a)(3) of the Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.65) from annually to once per refueling interval (not to exceed 2 years);
t
\\
QC 7&OlCb Y
\\
\\
1 1
1 1 i
obtain and address public comments on the proposed rule; and, provided significant concerns are not identified through the comment process, implement the final rule change.
I (EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
publication of proposed rule change in Federal j
~
j Register for 45-day colsent period - 3/15/93)
]
(SECY Suspense:
Incorporate public comments and publish final rule - 6/1/93) a j
cc:
The Chairman i
Commissioner Rogers Jommissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Plangue I
OGC j
OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)
OP, SDBU/CR, ASLBP (via FAX) i PDR - Advance 1,
DCS - Pl-24 1
i l
b I;
d
)
i s
J q
V.