ML20045H097
| ML20045H097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/19/1993 |
| From: | Mate J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Correia R, Newsome H, Rothburg O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045H096 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR33993, RULE-PR-50 AE55-2-002, AE55-2-2, NUDOCS 9307190056 | |
| Download: ML20045H097 (51) | |
Text
[,
l.
h 6 MD k
?DR May 19, 1993 NOTE TO:
Richard Correia, NRR Owen Rothburg, RES Hampton Newsome, 0GC FROM:
Joseph J. Mate, RES j
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE, MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS The comments received on the proposed rule that was published in the Federal I
Register in March were provided to you on May 12, 1993. Attached is the i
l Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule.
It should be noted that the Federal degister Notice for the final rule package is basically the same as the prcposed rule except for the following:
-- minor rewording to change the word " proposed" to " final".
-- effective date
- incorporation of the summary and analysis of comments section beginning on page 5 of the FRN.
- Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (to be changed)
Please review the Federal Register Notice and provide me with your written comments by Friday cob.
If you have no comments please indicate and return the cover page of package.
If you have any questions, please call me at i
492 - 3795.
Due to the extreme compression of the schedule, it is imperative that I have you comments on time.
Thank you for your support.
Joseph J. Mate Enclosure IU S
9307190056 930701 PDR PR T
SO 58FR33993-PDR
0...
't-
'.May 19, 1993 D
R A
F T
[7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150 - AE55 i
Monitoring the Effectiveness of-Maintenance' at Nuclear Power Plants 1
J 4
J l
i
)
- ~
E
~,
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150 - AE55 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending-its regulations for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance programs at commercial nuclear power plants. The current regulations require that nuclear power plant licensees evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities at least annually.
This amendment changes the time interval for conducting evaluations from a mandatory once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(60 days from the date of publication.)
^
O FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph J. Mate,.0ffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3795.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 10,1991, (56 FR 31324) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published the final rule, " Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," (s 50.65). The final rule, which will become effective July 10, 1996, requires commercial nuclear power plant licensees to monitor the effectiveness of maintenance activities for safety-significant plant equipment in order to minimize the likelihood of failures and events caused by the lack of effective maintenance. Section 50.65 (a)(3) requires nuclear power plant licensees to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their maintenance activities on an annual basis. An industry consensus guidance document and a regulatory guide to provide an acceptable methodology for implementing the final rule are expected to be published by June 30, 1993.
Discussion 1
Since the Maintenance Rule was published in July 1991, two events have occurred that led the Commission to reconsider the annual evaluation l
requirements in i 50,65(c)(3).
2 i
l
First, in the Summer of 1991, the Nuclear Management Resources Council l
(HUMARC) Steering Group was formed to develop an industry guide for implementing the Maintenance Rule. While developing the guide, the Steering i
1l' Group suggested to the NRC in a public meeting held on February 26, 1992, that instead of annual assessment requirements, the NRC should consider assessments based on a refueling cycle interval.
The NUMARC Steering Group stated that:
(1) Significantly more data would be available during refueling cycles than is available on an annual basis.
l (2) Key data from some surveillance tests can only be obtained during refueling outages and is not available on an annual basis; and (3) Adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after such 1
an evaluation would be typically performed after a refueling outage.
l The NUMARC Steering Group further added that the evaluation process is a 1
time consuming activity and that with limited data available, the annual evaluation would not provide for meaningful results. With only limited data, changes to maintenance programs will likely not be made because there would not be sufficient information available for spotting trends or doing trend analysis.
Second, the NRC conducted a regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome regulations and published a final rule on August 31,1992 (57 FR 39353) that amended several regulations identified by its Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). One of 4. hose amended 1
i regulations was 10 CFR 50.71 (e) (Final Safety Analysis Report Updates) where the frequency of licensee reporting to dhe NRC was changed from annually to once per refueling cycle. ' The change was made because the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since, a 3
l
i i
majority of design changes and major modifications were performed during refueling outages.
In addition, it had no adverse impact on the public health and safety and reduced the regulatory burden on the licensees.
The Commission is now changing the required frequency of maintenance activity evaluations from annually to once per refueling outage.
Evaluation of data collected over the period of a refueling cycle will provide a substantially better basis for detecting problems in degraded performance of structures, systems, and components (SSC's) and weakness in maintenance practices.
Evaluations conducted on a refueling cycle basis would also l
consider and integrate data available only during refueling outages with the j
data available during operations; under the existing requirements this may not occur depending on whether the annual assessment coincides with the refueling outage.
Furthermore, evaluations of data accumulated over the period of a refueling cycle, as opposed to the shorter annual period required by the rule, will provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends. The Commission understands that a normal frequency of refueling outage ranges from 15 to 18 months; however, the conditions may vary from plant to plant.
In order to ensure that an indefinite period of time does not occur between maintenance evaluations, the Commission is proposing the establishment of an upper limit of 24 months between the maintenance i
evaluations. This would address those licensees that have extended their refueling cycle beyond 24 months for any reason including numerous short.
outages or extended shutdown periods.
Although the Commission believes that it is generally the case that maintenance evaluations will be more effective if conducted in conjunction with refueling outages, licensees would still have i
the option of conducting them more frequently.
4 4
r In light of the above discussion,.the NRC is changing the-requirement for evaluation of the overall effectiveness of maintenance activities to be performed once per, refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.
Summary and Analysis of Public Comments On March 22,1993 (58 FR 15303), the NRC published a notice of the proposed rulemaking. The comment period expired on May 6, 1993. The NRC received 15 comments on the proposed rule. All of the comments except for one favored the change identified in the proposed rule. The comment letters are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington DC. The comments on the proposed rule came primarily from pubile utilities with comments also being received from a public utilities representative and a private citizen. The NRC has identified and responded to six separate issues that include all of the significant points raised by the commenters. The comments and their resolution are discussed below.
l 1.
Comment.
One commenter stated that the proposed change in the rule
.i would unfairly require nuclear plants on an annual refueling cycle to perform twice as many evaluations as plants on a 24 month cycle.
NRC should consider a fixed maximum period of two years and give the utilities the latitude to manage the timing of the evaluation within that framework.
Response.
NRC, through the proposed rule change, is already increasing licensees' flexibility by allowing them to review and evaluate maintenance 5
i
r
'e activities at every refueling cycle provided the time interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.
Currently the requirement in the regulations is for, an annual review and evaluation.
Licensees are free to determine the refueling cycle interval that best suits their needs. The time between the refueling cycle interval varies among utilities from 12 months to 24 months. Most of the licensees fall in a 15 to 21 month range.
If a licensee chooses to have a refueling outage annually, then it is true that they will perform twice as many evaluations as a utility that chooses to refuel on a biannual basis.
However, a utility on an annual refueling cycle should have an easier time since they will only have to evaluate 50 % of the data that a utility on a 24 month cycle would have to review and evaluate.
2.
Comment. As a result of the verification and validation program recently conducted by the NRC to test the proposed industry guidelines, it was determined that several systems are neither risk-significant nor able to be monitored for performance by currently known plant level performance criteria.
Since these systems have no public health or safety significance, they should be excluded from the scope of the rule and the rule modified accordingly.
Responsa. The suggestion to change the scope of the rule to exclude those systems that have no public health or safety significance or that have no current performance level criteria is clearly beyond the scope of the proposed changes in the rule and cannot be considered at this time. However, as a result of further verification and validation programs conducted at facilities, if changes to the rule or regulatory guidance are warranted, the NRC will consider such changes at that time.
3.
Commen_t. One of the commenters stated, "one of the clear lessons learned from the recently completed verification and validation program is 6
that the major expense of the rule's implementation will be the detailed documentation (for NRC audit purposes) of performance monitoring".....
Response. It,should be pointed out that the documentation developed by the licensee is that level of documentation which the licensee believes is necessary to support the program developed by the licensee to monitor performance of a structure, system, or component. It is not a level of documentation required for NRC audit purposes.
4.
Comment. One of the commenters stated that the NRC is mesmerized by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) suggestion to extend the annual assessment of plant maintenance from an annual schedule to a refueling outage schedule. The commenter further states that the extension does not provide an improvement in safety and may help hide maintenance which was improperly deferred.
Response. As stated at the beginning of the discussion on an earlier page of this notice, the NRC decided to make the proposed change in the assessment requirement for two reasons. To begin with, the NRC agreed with the NUMARC suggestion and felt that significantly more data would be available during refueling outages than would be available on an annual basis. Also key data from surveillance tests can only be obtained during refueling outages and would not be available on an annual basis. Adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after such a review and evaluation would be typically performed after a refueling outage.
Periodic evaluations of maintenance activities is a time consuming process and with limited data available, the annual evaluations would not provide for as meaningful a result.
7
i l
The second reason for changing the' annual assessment of plant maintenance concerned a change made by the NRC in August of 1992. As part of the regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessary burdensome regulations, the NRC revised the frequency of licensee reporting of the Final Safety Analysis Reports from annually to once per refueling cycle. This change was made because the NRC felt that the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since the majority of the design changes and modifications were made during refueling outages.
The staff disagrees with the commenter and believes-that the change in requirements will improve the quality of assessments by ensuring that each assessment will include a review of all maintenance activities conducted during the refueling cycle including the refueling outage.
5.
Comment.
One commenter stated that effective maintenance is an ongoing duty and need and that allowing licensees to put off monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance from annually to 18 to 24 months sends the wrong j
message that the NRC does not care about safety.
Response.
The NRC agrees that effective maintenance is an ongoing duty and need. The NRC does not agree, however, that the rule change allows licensees to put off monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance.
Section (a) (1) of the rule, which is not being changed, requires licensees to continuously monitor the performance of structures, systems, or components against licensee established goals in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these structures, systems, and components are capable of fulfilling their intended-functions.
It also requires appropriate corrective action be taken when the performance of the structure, system, component does not meet established goals. The only thing that is being 8
i l
changed is the frequency of the periodic evaluation.
The NRC does care about safety and it does not agree with the commenter that changing the evaluation I
cycle sends the wrong message to the industry.
6.
Comment.
The commenter stated that the rule could be further improved by the elimination of the requirement for a specific time interval because the i
time interval adds burdensome requirements without a commensurate increase in the margin of safety.
Response. The staff does not agree that the rule could be improved further by the elimination of the requirement of a specific time interval.
The staff believes that the change from an annual requirement to allowing the licensees to perform the evaluation once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months, is a reasonable compromise between being overly prescriptive and not be prescriptive enough. The specification of 24 months in intended to put a reasonable upper limit on the interval between evaluations. This limit should affect very few licensees.
If there was no time limit for performing evaluations, perhaps the evaluations might not get done.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
The Commission has determined that, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be-a-major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment and j
therefore an environmental impact staterdent is not required.
The final amendment does not require any change to nuclear power plant design or require any modifications to a plant. Nor does the rule change the 9
scope of the maintenance rule or affect the nature of the activities to be performed, e.g., monitoring, corrective action, and assessments of compliance.
The final rule change would only extend the time period for performing evaluations of the effectiveness of licensees' maintenance program from at least once a year to at least once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months. The extension should not result in any significant or discernible reduction in the effectiveness of a licensee's maintenance program; rather the change would increase the meaningfulness and quality of the maintenance evaluations.
For these reasons, the Commission finds that the final amendment will not result in any significant increase in either the probability of occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an accident and therefore concludes that there will be no significant effect on the environment as a result of the amendment.
The environmental assessment is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower level), Washington, DC.
Single copies of the environmental assessment are available from Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 492-3795.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends the information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.
t 10
4 4
3-.no:
A--
~
3..M N
Because the rule will relax existing requirements related to the assessment of maintenance ' activities, the burden for this activity of information is expected to be reduced by 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Info-mation and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE08-3019, (3150-0011), Office of Management and 3udget, Washington, DC, 20503.
Regulatory Analysis The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has considered the costs and benefits of the final rule.
With respect to benefits, the amendment would allow those licensees who choose to exercise the option to perform evaluations of their maintenance program in conjunction with refueling outages but no less frequently than every 24 months. The Commission believes that this additional flexibility will not result in any increase in risk to the public health and safety, and may result in a more effective maintenance and improved plant safety.
Undertherule,thefrequencyofherio'icassessmentswouldchangefrom d
annually to at least once per refueling cycle but not to exceed 11
~
e n,
w
l
\\
i 24 months.
Since most refueling outages normally occur in the 15-to 18-month range, the time between periodic assessments assuming a 16-month average would be increased by about 33 percent. Therefore, the licensee staff hours to accomplish a periodic assessment under the proposed rule would be reduced from approximately 460 staff hours to about 310 staff hours per plant. This would
]
save the licensee approximately 150 st.ff hours per plant. There are no additional changes in costs to be incurred by the NRC.
The foregoing constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifies that, if promulgated, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects only the operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required.
The amendment to the interval for evaluating the effectiveness of maintenance activities by licensees is considered a relaxation from the existing 12
- 4 requirement and does not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as determined in 10 CFR 50.109.
Further, the option of conducting an annual review as provided by the current rule would be retained. 8ecause there are no new requirements or procedures imposed on licensees by this rule, it does not impose a backfit.
List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Sec s. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 18fr, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 213 2133, 2134,'2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
13
I Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.
955, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat, 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
5ections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).
Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec.187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
2.
In s 50.65, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
s 50.65 Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants.
(a)
(3) Performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities shall be evaluated at least every refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed i
14 1
~.
~
a 24 months.
The evaluations shall be conducted taking into account, where practical, industry-wide operating experience. Adjustments shall be made where necessary to ensure that the objective of preventative failures of structures, systems, and. components through maintenance is appropriately balanced against the objective of minimizing unavailability of structures, systems, and components due to monitoring or preventative maintenance.
In performing monitoring and preventative maintenance activities, an assessment of the total plant equipment that is out of service should be taken into account to determine the overall effect on performance of safety functions.
I Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of May 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations.
4 I
6 5
15
P
&(
{Cna M Y WR c-g- g Pbp s
/p a~Dt-33
^
May 19, 1993 NOTE TO:
Richard Correia, NRR Owen Rothburg, RES V Hampton Newsome, OGC Ib E I9 FROM:
Joseph J. Mate, RES
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE, MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS The comments received on the proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register in March were provided to you on May 12, 1993. Attached is the Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule.
It should be noted that the Federal Register Notice for the final rule package is basically the same as the proposed rule except for the following:
-- minor rewording to change the word " proposed" to " final".
-- effective date
-- incorporation of the summary and analysis of comments section beginning on page 5 of the FRN.
-- Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (to be changed)
Please review the Federal Register Notice and provide me with your written comments by Friday cob.
If you have no comments please indicate and return the cover page of package.
If you have aay questions, please call me at 492 - 3795.
Due to the extreme compression of the schedule, it is imperative that I have you comments on time.
Thank you for your support.
Joseph J. Mate Enclosure f- ;L o ~ 9 3 O W b, [Ni hg o 11-\\ B () R (L 7)'p.t,
'O
__ - aerha.dW'*memei.4Ms*w
.d.-v. esmp%qaw-e-a-M--'
h May 19, 1993 D
R A
F T
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150 - AE55 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants i
4
4
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u
10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150 - AE55 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants
.l AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
-l i
-i ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance programs at commercial nuclear power plants. The current regulations require that nuclear power plant licensees evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities at least annually.
This amendment changes the time interval for conducting evaluations from a mandatory once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.
)
y *W
>% y cy?
3 e
F EFFECTIVE DATE:
()50 days from the date of publication.)
p 60 bt u
I
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3795.
1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Background
On July 10,1991, (56 FR 31324) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published the final rule, " Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," (9 50.65). The final rule, which will become effective July 10, 1996, requires commercial nuclear power plant licensees to monitor the effectiveness of maintenance activities for safety-significant plant equipment in order to minimize the likelihood of failures and events caused by the lack of effective maintenance.
Section 50.65 (a)(3) requires nuclear power plant licensees *
- evaluate the overall effectiveness of their maintenance activities on an annual basis. An industry consensus guidance document and a regulatory guide to provide an acceptable methodology for implementing the final rule are expected to be published by June 30, 1993.
Discussion Since the Maintenance Rule was published in July 1991, two events have occurred that led the Commission to reconsider the annual evaluation requirements in 5 50.65(a)(3).
2
q First, in the Summer of 1991, the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) Steering Group was formed to develop an industry guide for implementing the Maintenance Rule. While developing the guide, the Steering Group suggested to the NRC in a public meeting held on February 26, 1992, that instead of annual assessment requirements, the NRC should consider assessments based on a refueling cycle interval.
The NUMARC Steering Group stated that:
(1) Significantly more data would be available during refueling cycles j
i than is available on an annual basis.
j (2) Key data from some surveillance tests can only be obtained during refueling outages and is not available on an annual basis; and (3) Adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after such an evaluation would be typically performed after a refueling outage.
The NUMARC Steering Group further added that the evaluation process is a time consuming activity and that with limited data availabic, the annual evaluation would not provide for meaningful results. With only limited data, changes to maintenance programs will likely not be made because there would not be sufficient information available for spotting trends or doing trend analysis.
Second, the NRC conducted a regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome regulations and published a final rule on August 31,1992 (57 FR 39353) that amended several regulations identified by its Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). One of those amended regulations was 10 CFR 50.71 (e) (Final Safety Analysis Report Updates) where the frequency of licensee reporting to the NRC was changed from annually to I
once per refueling cycle.
The change was made because the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since, a 3
majority of design changes and major modifications were performed during refueling outages.
In addition, it had no adverse impact on the public health and safety and reduced the regulatory burden on the licensees.
The Commission is now changing the required frequency of maintenance activity evaluations from annually to once per refueling outage aM Idata collected over the period of a refueling cycle will provide a substantially better basis for_ detecting problems in degraded performance of structures, systems, and components (SSC's) and weakness in maintenance practices.
Evaluations conducted on a refueling cycle basis would also consider and integrate data available only during refueling outages with the k
data available during operations; under the existing requirements this may not
(
iO occur depending on whether the annual assessment coincides with the refueling Furthermore, evaluations of data accumulated over the period of a 1
outage.
{ refueling cycle, as opposed to the shorter annual period required by the rule, will provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of hends.jhe Commission understands that a normal frequency of refueling outage ranges from 15 to 18 months; however, the conditions may vary from plant to plant.
In order to ensure that an indefinite period of time does not occur between maintenance evaluations, the Commission is proposing the establishment of an upper limit of 24 months between the maintenance evaluations. This would address those licensees that have extended their refueling cycle beyond 24 months for any reason including numerous short outages or extended shutdown periods. Although the Commission believes that it is generally the case that maintenance evaluations will be more effective if conducted in conjunction with refueling outages, licensees would still have the option of conducting them more frequently.
4
s In light of the above discussion, the NRC is changing the requirement for evaluation of the overall effectiveness of maintenance activities to be performed once per refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.
Summary and Analysis of Public Comments On March 22,1993 (58 FR 15303), the NRC published a notice of the proposed rulemaking.
The comment period expired on May 6, 1993. The NRC received 15 comments on the proposed rule. All of the comments except for one favored the change identified in the proposed rule.
The comment letters are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington DC. The comments on the proposed rule came primarily from public utilities with comments also being received from a public utilities representative and a private citizen. The NRC has identified and responded to six separate issues that include all of the significant points raised by the commenters. The comments and their resolution are discussed below.
1.
Comment.
One commenter stated that the proposed change in the rule would unfairly require nuclear plants on an annual refueling cycle to perform twice as many evaluations as plants on a 24 month cycle. NRC should consider a fixed maximum period of two years and give the utilities the latitude to manage the timing of the evaluation within that framework.
Response. NRC, through the proposed rule change, is already increasing licensees' flexibility by allowing them to review and evaluate maintenance 0
activities at every refueling cycle provided the time interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.
Currently the requirement in the regulations is for an annual review and evaluation.
Licensees are free to determine the refueling cycle interval that best suits their needs. The time between the refueling cycle interval varies among utilities from 12 months to i
IS 24 months. Most of the licensees fall in a 15 to h month range.
If a licensee chooses to have a refueling outage annually, then it is true that they will perform twice as many evaluations as a utility that chooses to refuel on a biannual basis. However, a utility on an annual refueling cycle should have an easier time since they will only have to evaluate 50 % of the data that a utility on a 24 month cycle would have to review and evaluate.
2.
Comment.
As a result of the verification and validation program recently conducted by the NRC to test the proposed industry guidelines, it was determined that several systems are neither risk-significant nor able to be monitored for performance by currently known plant level performance criteria.
Since these systems have no public health or safety significance, they should be excluded from the scope of the rule and the rule modified accordingly.
Response. The suggestion to change the scope of the rule to exclude those systems that have no public health or safety significance or that have no current performance level criteria is clearly beyond the scope of the proposed changes in the rule and cannot be considered at this time. However, as a result of further verification and validation programs conducted at facilities, if changes to the rule or regulatory guidance are warranted, the NRC will consider such changes at that time.
3.
Comment.
One of the commenters stated, "one of the clear lessons learned from the recently completed verification and validation program is 6
that the major expense of the rule's implementation will be the detailed documentation (for NRC audit purposes) of performance monitoring".....
Response. It should be pointed out that the documentation developed by v
e the licensee is that level of documentation which the licensee believes is
)
w necessary to support the program developed by the licensee to monitor
}
U performance of a structure, system, or component. It is not a level of documentation required for NRC audit purposes.
4.
Comment. One of the commenters stated that the NRC is mesmerized by the
.h Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) suggestion to extend the annual assessment of plant maintenance from an annual schedule to a refueling 4
outage schedule.
The commenter further states that the extension does not provide an improvement in safety and may help hide maintenance which was improperly deferred.
Copg ksA f# fYA Response. As stated at the beginning of the disc ssion on an earlier 5,
page of this notice, the NRC decided to make the proposed change in the 7
tdAb941%%%4Addli
);
assessment requirement for two reasons.
To begin with, the #RC-agread-witL
{
tha NUMARG-suggestwand feit that-s49nM4santly more datn would bn available
[
during-refueling outa p Lhen woulo De available on an annual basis. Also key eu data from surveillance testaan-only-be-obtained-dur+ng-refueHng-outages-and-j would_naLbn_availab1 m an7 nnuai casTh.
justments to maintenance f
l activities that may be made after such a review and evaluation would be k
typically performed after a refueling outage.
Periodic evaluations of 6_
maintenance activities is a time consuming process and with limited data j
available, the annual evaluations would not provide for as meaningful a A
A result.
,J
_ L ddM j 7
i n ncs abu.de-C C v%
D%
W V es t eL 3
tJuMI%C.74 ( N co-4 6 bu<ak imUm h4 A M by
The second reason for changing the annual assessment of plant maintenance concerned a change made by the NRC in August of 1992. As part of the regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessary burdensome regulations, the NRC revised the frequency of licensee reporting of the Final Safety Analysis Reports from annually to once per refueling cycle.
This change was made because the NRC felt that the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since the majority of the design A v.ges. "Thh w e ^E A- "A g/dMkesandmodificationsweremadedF bsW e co+JNibg refuelin chan outa ht the N R C-mech 4Q4 N u MNK.
<c#
w I
The staff di'sagrees with the commenter\\a + beHeve M a4 Tie change in u hed Cuw W h'~ d.u J ie QL MyM requirements will improve the quality of assessments b) ensuring at each %, L F,( _.
assessment will include a review of all maintenance activities conacctad s-y y@f-
~.s during thq refueling cycle including;qe r fubM
- w. age. h a uM o
th
~ing out A ku m.
pypp4 W 4~ z, g,. m A.y a Up " h;.L" 5.
Comment.
One commenter stated that fective maintenance is an ongoing duty and need and that allowing licensees to put off monitoring the i
effectiveness of maintenance from annually to 18 to 24 months sends the wrong message that the NRC does not care about safety.
Response.
The NRC agrees that effective maintenance is an ongoing duty and need. The NRC does not agree, however, that the rule change allows licensees to put off monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance.
Section (a) (1) of the rule, which is not being changed, requires licensees to continuously monitor the performance of structures, systems, ce components against licensec established goals in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these structures, systems, and components are capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
It also requires appropriate corrective action be taken when the performance of the structure, system, component does not meet established goals.
The only thing that is being 8
\\
i
'l
'I changed is the frequency of the periodic evaluation. The NRC does care about 1
safety and it does not agree with the commenter that changing the evaluation cycle sends the wrong message to the industry.
6.
Comment.
The commenter. stated that the rule could be further improved by the elimination of the requirement for a specific time interval because the j
time interval adds burdensome requirements without a commensurate increase in the margin of safety.
Response.
The staff does not agree that the rule could be improved further by the elimination of the requirement of a specific time interval.
The staff believes that the change from an annual requirement to allowing the licensees to perform the evaluation once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months, is a reasonable compromise between being overly prescriptive and not be prescriptive enough.
The specification of 24 months in intended to put a reasonable upper limit on the interval between evaluations.
This limit should affect very few licensees, If there was no time limit for performing evaluations, perhaps the evaluations might not get done.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
The Commission has determined that, under the National Environmental i
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment' and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required.
The final amendment does not require any change to nuclear power plant design or require any modifications to a plant.
Nor does the rule change the 9
scope of the maintenance rule or affect the nature of the activities to be performed, e.g., monitoring, corrective action, and assessments of compliance.
i The final rule change would only extend the time period for performing evaluations of the effectiveness of licensees' maintenance program from at least once a year to at least once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months.
The extension should not result in any significant or discernible reduction in the effectiveness of a licensee's maintenance program; rather the l
change would increase the meaningfulness and quality of the maintenance i
evaluations.
For these reasons, the Commission finds that the final amendment will not result in any significant increase in either the probability of occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an accident and therefore
]
concludes that there will be no significant effect on the environment as a result of the amendment.
The environmental assessment is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),' Washington, DC.
Single copies of the environmental assessment are available from Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 492-3795.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends the information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.
10
Because the rule will relax existing requirements related to the assessment of maintenance activities, the burden for this activity of information is expected to be reduced by 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 20503.
Regulatory Analysis The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has considered the costs and benefits of the final rule.
With respect to benefits, the amendment would allow those licensees who choose to exercise the option to perform evaluations of their maintenance program in conjunction with refueling outages but no less frequently than every 24 months.
The Commission believes that this additional flexibility will not result in any increase in risk to the public health and safety, and may result in a more effective maintenance and improved plant safety.
Under the rule, the frequency of periodic assessments would change from annually to at least once per refueling cycle but not to e.xceed 11
?
24 months.
Since most refueling outages normally occur in the 15-to 18-month range, the time between periodic assessments assuming a 16-month average would i
be increased by about 33 percent.
Therefore, the licensee staff hours to accomplish a periodic assessment under the proposed rule would b'e reduced from approximately 460 staff hours to about 310 staff hours per plant.
This would i
save the licensee approximately 150 staff hours per plant.
There are no additional changes in costs to be incurred by the NRC. The foregoing constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.
j Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, l
(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifies that, if promulgated, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule affects only the operation of nuclear power plants.
The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
i Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required.
The amendment to the interval for evaluating the effectiveness of maintenance J
l activities by licensees is considered a relaxation from the existing l
12 h
5
^
requirement and does not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as determined in 10 CFR 50.109.
Further, the option of conducting an annual review as provided by the current rule would be retained.
Because there are no new requirements or procedures imposed on licensees by this rule, it does not impose a backfit.
List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization _Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1
1.
The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
)
AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239,-
2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
13
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.
955, as amended, (42-U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat, 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).
Sections 50.58, 50.91, l
and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187., 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
2.
In s 50.65, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
9 50.65 Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants.
i (a)
(3)
Performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities shall be evaluated at least every refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 14
r 24 months. The evaluations shall be conducted taking into account, where practical, industry-wide operating experience. Adjustments shall be made where necessary to ensure that the objective of preventative failures of structures, systems, and components through maintenance is appropriately balanced against the objective of minimizing unavailability of structures, systems, and components due to monitoring or preventative maintenance.
In performing monitoring and preventative maintenance activities, an assessment of the total plant equipment that is out of service should be taken into account to determine the overall effect on performance of safety functions.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of May 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations.
15
y
.N R R "WW
~
May 19, 1993 NOTET0:s/RichardCorreia,NRR iD M S Owen Rothburg, RES Hampton Newsome, 0GC FROM:
Joseph J. Mate, RES
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE, MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS The comments received on the proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register in March were provided to you on May 12, 1993. Attached is the Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule.
It should be noted that the Federal Register Notice for the final rule package is basically the same as the proposed rule except for the following:
-- minor rewording to change the word " proposed" to " final".
-- effective date
-- incorporation of the summary and analysis of comments section beginning on page 5 of the FRN.
-- Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (to be changed)
Please review the Federal Register Notice and provide me with your written comments by Friday cob.
If you have no comments please indicate and return the cover page of package.
If you have any questions, please call me at 492 - 3795. Due to the extreme compression of the schedule, it is imperative that I have you comments on time.
Thank you for your support.
Joseph J. Mate o
Enclosure
% Ds N O D Ell V E R i
\\
s 3
4M'
%eM s h,'1 t) 7 c3 g;g yo0
%, s,
\\e 972.D 17 Uupm
'1
.j
'i May 19, 1993 D
R-A-
F T
i
[7590-01]
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part'50 RIN 3150 - AE55 t
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants i
i
4 1
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 s
RIN 3150 - AE55 J
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations j
for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance programs at commercial nuclear power plants.
The current regulations require that nuclear power plant licensees evaluate performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities at least annually.
This amendment changes the time interval for conducting evaluations from a mandatory once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.
l t
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(60 days from the date of publication.)
.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3795.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 10,1991, (56 FR 31324) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published the final rule, " Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants," (9 50.65). The final rule, which will become effective July 10, 1996, requires commercial nuclear power plant licensees to monitor the effectiveness of maintenance activities for safety-significant plant equipment in order to minimize the likelihood of failures and events caused by the lack of effective maintenance.
Section 50.65 (a)(3) requires nuclear power plant licensees to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their maintenance activities on an annual basis. An industry consensus guidance document and a regulatory guide to provide an acceptable methodology for implementing the final rule are expected to be published by June 30, 1993.
Discussion i
Since the Maintenance Rule was published in July 1991, two events have occurred that led the Commission to reconsider the annual evaluation requirements in s 50.65(a)(3).
2
L First, in the Summer of 1991, the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) Steering Group was formed to develop an industry guide for implementing the Maintenance Rule. While developing the guide, the Steering Group suggested to the NRC in a public meeting held on February 26, 1992, that instead of annual assessment requirements, the NRC should consider assessments based on a refueling cycle interval.
The NUMARC Steering Group stated that:
(1)
Significantly more data would be available during refueling cycles than is available on an annual basis.
(2) Key data from some surveillance tests can only be obtained during refueling outages and is not available on an annual basis; and (3) Adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after such an evaluation would be typically performed after a refueling outage.
The NUMARC Steering Group further added that the evaluation process is a time consuming activity and that with limited data available, the annual evaluation would not provide for meaningful results. With only limited data, changes to maintenance programs will likely not be made because there would not be sufficient information available for spotting trends or doing trend analysis.
Second, the NRC conducted a regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessarily burdensome regulations and published a final rule on August 31,1992 (57 FR 39353) that amended several regulations identified by
]
I its Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). One of those amended regulations was 10 CFR 50.71 (e) (Final Safety Analysis Report Updates) where the frequency of licensee reporting to the NRC was changed from annually to
)
once per refueling cycle.
The change was made because the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since, a 3
r majority of design changes and major modifications were performed during refueling outages.
In addition, it had no adverse impact on the public health and safety and reduced the regulatory burden on the licensees.
The Commission is now changing the required frequency of maintenance activity evaluations from annually to once per refueling outage.
Evaluation of data collected over the period of a refueling cycle will provide a substantially better basis for detecting problems in degraded performance of structures, systems, and components (SSC's) and weakness in maintenance j
practices.
Evaluations conducted on a refueling cycle basis would also i
consider and integrate data available only during refueling outages with the data available during operations; under the existing requirements this may not occur depending on whether the annual assessment coincides with the refueling outage.
Furthermore, evaluations of data accumulated over the period of a refueling cycle, as opposed to the shorter annual period requirad by the rule, will provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of j
trends. The Commission understands that a normal frequency of refueling outage ranges from 15 to 18 months; however, the conditions may vary from plant to plant.
In order to ensure that an indefinite period of time does not
]
occur between maintenance evaluations, the Commission is proposing the establishment of an upper limit of 24 months between the maintenance evaluations. This would address those licensees that have extended their refueling cycle beyond 24 months for any reason including numerous short outages or extended shutdown periods.
Although the Commission believes that it is generally the case that maintenance evaluations will be more effective if conducted in conjunction with refueling outages, licensees would still have the option of conducting them more frequently.
4
4 In light of the above discussion, the NRC is changing the requirement for evaluation of the overall effectiveness of maintenance activities to be performed once per refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.
Summary and Analysis of Public Comments On March 22,1993 (58 FR 15303), the NRC published a notice of the proposed rulemaking. The comment period expired on May 6, 1993.
The NRC received 15 comments on the proposed rule.
All of the comments except for one favored the change identified in the proposed rule. The comment letters are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington DC. The comments on the proposed rule came primarily from public utilities with comments also being received from a public utilities representative and a private citizen. The NRC has identified and responded to six separate issues that include all of the significant points raised by the commenters. The comments and their resolution are discussed below.
1.
Comment. One commenter stated that the proposed change in the rule would unfairly require nuclear plants on an annual refueling cycle to perform i
twice as many evaluations as plants on a 24 month cycle.
NRC should consider a fixed maximum period of two years and give the utilities the latitude to manage the timing of the evaluation within that framework.
'l Resconse.
NRC, through the proposed rule change, is already increasing licensees' flexibility by allowing them to review and evaluate maintenance 1
5
3 1
activities at every refueling cycle provided the time interval between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.
Currently the requirement in the regulations is for an annual review and evaluation.
Licensees are free to determine the refueling cycle interval that best suits their needs. The time between the refueling cycle interval varies among utilities from 12 months to 6
24 months.
Most of the licensees fall in a 15 to 21 month range.
If a s
licensee chooses to have a refueling outage annually, then it is true that they will perform twice as many evaluations as a utility that chooses to refuel on a biannual basis.
However, a utility on an annual refueling cycle should have an easier time since they will only have to evaluate 50 % of the i
data that a utility on a 24 month cycle would have to review and evaluate.
2.
Comment. As a result of the verification and validation program
- mxm As L recently conducted by the f(RC~ to test the proposed industry guidelines, it was determined that several systems are neither risk-significant nor able to be monitored for performance by currently known plant level performance criteria.
Since these systems have no public health or safcty significance, they should be excluded from the scope of the rule and the rule modified accordingly.
Response.
The suggestion to change the scope of the rule to exclude those systems that have no public health or safety significance or that have o
no current performance level criteria is clearly beyond the scope of thd4,N). '
,1
~
,.r T.;
Qu r /.. DO proposedcban,gesdntheruleandcannotbeconsideredatthistime.
- However, n
.L-
,,.. s:
i
,1, u.<.
rg
, n.
as a -r.asult-of-furthei' veri fication-and-validation-programs-conducted-at P
facilitiescif-changes to-the-rule or-regulatory guidance-are-warranted,_the NRC will consider such changes-at-that-time.
3.
Comment.
One of the commenters stated, "one of the clear lessons learned from the recently completed verification and validation program is I
6 n
$; ^1 r y ) / -
f'(
~
Y v
i h.
s '. )
)L !
\\
)
<,y s
c t
3
- c. ~
s m, d, s..(. u ty v s Y ' ' *"
g " "~ %
L,
that the major expense of the rule's implementation will be the detailed documentation (for NRC audit purposes) of performance monitoring".....
Resoonse[%-iem.aIt should he pointed out that the documentation developed the licensee is that level o'f documentation which the licensee believes is
/
i necessary to support the program developed by the licensee to monitor l
ktlNi I
ob\\
performance of a structure, system, or component. It is not a level of
,x
~-
7-documentation required for NRC audit purposes _. ' 'O e~ +'A*
'"W
)
y s lu y g u./ u.. / n r.
,J 4.
Comment. One of the commenters stated that the.NRC is mesmerized by.the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) suggestion to extend the annual assessment of plant maintenance from an annual schedule to a refueling outage schedule. The commenter further states that the extension does not provide an improvement in safety and may help hide maintenance which was improperly deferred.
Response.
As stated at the beginning of the discussion on an earlier page of this notice, the NRC decided to make the proposed change in the assessment requirement for two reasons.
To begin with, the NRC agreed with the NUMARC suggestion and felt that significantly more data would be available during refueling outages than would be available on an annual basis. Also key data from surveillance tests can tnly be obtained during refueling outages and would not be available on an annual basis. Adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after such a review and evaluation would be typically performed after a refueling outage.
Periodic evaluations of maintenance activities is a time consuming process and with limited data available, the annual evaluations would not provide for as meaningful a resul t.
7 L
The second reason for changing the annual assessment of plant maintenance concerned a change made by the NRC in August of 1992. As part of the regulatory review to eliminate or revise unnecessary burdensome regulations, the NRC revised the frequency of licensee reporting of the Final Safety Analysis Reports from annually to once per refueling cycle. This change was made because the NRC felt that the use of a refueling cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since the majority of the design changes and modifications were made during refueling outages.
The staff disagrees with the commenter and believes that the change in requirements will improve the quality of assessments by ensuring that each assessment will include a review of all maintenance activities conducted during the refueling cycle including the refueling outage.
5.
Comment. One commenter stated that effective maintenance is an ongoing duty and need and that allowing licensees to put off monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance from annually to 18 to 24 months sends the wrong message that the NRC does not care about safety.
I Response.
The NRC agrees that effective maintenance is an ongoing duty and need.
The NRC does not agree, however, that the rule change allows licensees to put off monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance. Section (a) (1) of the rule, which is not being changed, requires licensees to i
continuously monitor the performance of structures, systems, or components
)
against licensee established goals in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these structures, systems, and components are capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
It also requires appropriate corrective action be taken when the performance of the structure, system, component does not meet established goals. The only thing that is being 8
t changed is the frequency of the periodic evaluation.
The NRC does care about safety and it does not agree with the commenter that changing the evaluation cycle sends the wrong message to the industry.
6.
Comment.
The commenter stated that the rule could be further improved by the elimination of the requirement for a specific time interval because the time interval adds burdensome requirements without a commensurate increase in the margin of safety.
Response.
The staff does not agree that the rule could be imornved further by the elimination of the requirement of a specific time interval.
The staff believes that the change from an annual requirement to allowing the licensees to perform the evaluation once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months, is a reasonable compromise between being overly prescriptive and not be prescriptive enough. The specification of 24 months in intended to put a reasonable upper limit on the interval between evaluations. This limit should affect very few licensees. -IfMhere-was-no-t-ime-Hmit-for performing evaluatT6r$Nii5pT~ttfU~eWTirstlerrs might not-get-doe Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
The Commission has determined that, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required.
The final amendment does not require any change to nuclear power plant design or require any modifications to a plant. Nor does the rule change the 9
scope of the maintenance rule or affect the nature of the activities to be performed, e.g., monitoring, corrective action, and assessments of compliance.
The final rule change would only extend the time period for performing evaluations of the effectiveness of licensees' maintenance program from at least once a year to at least once eveiy refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months. The extension should not result in any significant or discernible reduction in the effectiveness of a licensee's maintenance program; rather the change would increase the meaningfulness and quality of the maintenance evaluations.
For these reasons, the Commission finds that the final amendment will not result in any significant increase in either the probability of occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an accident and therefore concludes that there will be no significant effect on the environment as a result of the amendment.
The environmental assessment is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Single copies of the environmental assessment are available from Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 492-3795.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends the information collection requirements that _are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.
10
Because the rule will relax existing requirements related to the assessment of maintenance activities, the burden for this activity of information is expected to be reduced by 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 20503.
Regulatory Analysis The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has considered the costs and benefits-of the final rule. With respect to benefits, the amendment would a iow those r
i licensees who choose to exercise the option to perform evaluations of their maintenance program in conjunction with refueling outages but no less frequently than every 24 months. The Commission t:elieves that this additional flexibility will not result in any increase in risk to the public health and safety, and may result in a more effective maintenance ano improved plant safety.
Under the rule, the frequency of periodic assessments would change from annually to at least once per refueling cycle but not to exceed 11 1
24 months.
Since most refueling outages normally occur in the 15-to 18-month range, the time between periodic assessments assuming a 16-month average would be increased by about 33 percent. Th!refore, the licensee staff hours to accomplish a periodic assessment under the proposed rule would be reduced from approximately 460 staff hours to about 310 staff hours per plant. This would save the licensee approximately 150 staff hours per plant. There are no additional changes in costs to be incurred by the NRC. The foregoing constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification i
I In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifies that, if promulgated, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule affects only the operation of nuclear power plants.
The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
Backfit Analysis 4
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required.
The amendment to the interval. for evaluating the effectiveness of maintenance activities by licensees is considered a relaxation from the existing 12
l
. ~
l l
requirement and does not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as determined in 10 CFR 50.109.
Further, the option of conducting an annual review as provided by the current rule would be retained.
Because there are no new requirements or procedures imposed on licensees by this rule, it does not impose a backfit.
1 List of Subjects i
l I
10 CFR Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, l
Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the j
l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, i
as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.
)
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
i 13 l
'e d
i Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat.- 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.
955, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.185, 68 Stat, 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).
Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
2.
In s 50.65, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
s 50.65 Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants.
(a)
(3)
Performance and condition monitoring activities and associated goals and preventive maintenance activities shall be evaluated at least every refueling cycle provided the interval between evaluations does not exceed 14
24 months. The evaluations shall be conducted taking into account, where practical, industry-wide operating experience. Adjustments shall be made where necessary to ensure that the objective of preventative failures of structures, systems, and components through maintenance is appropriately balanced against the objective of minimizing unavailability of structures, systems, and components due to monitoring or preventative maintenance.
In performing monitoring and preventative maintenance activities, an assessment of the total plant equipment that is out of service should be taken into account to determine the overall effect on performance of safety functions.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of May 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations.
l 15 l
.