ML20045H101
| ML20045H101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1993 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Jordan E, Murley T, Norry P NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD), NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045H096 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR33993, RULE-PR-50 AE55-2-003, AE55-2-3, NUDOCS 9307190061 | |
| Download: ML20045H101 (36) | |
Text
A6S8'Q
/
'o,%
)g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
u$
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
MA)' 2 g
- a..<
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward L. Jordan, Director, AE0D Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR i
James Lieberman, Director, OE Patricia G. Norry, Director, ADM Gerald F. Cranford, Director, IRM Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel, OGC FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research SUBJEU :
REVISION OF THE MAINTENANCE RULE (10 CFR 50.65)
A Staff Requirement Memorandum (SRM) dated February 17, 1993, Enclosure 1, directed the staff to publish a final rule modifying the period for the performance of evaluations required of power plant licensees under paragraph (a)(3) of 10 CFR 50.65 (Maintenance Rule), from annually to once per refueling interval but not to exceed 2 years. The SRM stated that the final rule should be published in the Federal Reaister by June 1,1993., contains a final rulemaking package consisting of a Federal Register Notice, environmental assessment, a public announcement, and the Congressional letters developed by RES on this subject.
This rulemaking package is provided for your concurrence.
In order to. meet this aggressive schedule, a meeting is scheduled in room 3B13 at OWFN, on June 2, 1993, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to expedite the consensus process.
Please provide your concurrence prior to this date or attend the meeting with those changes to the package that are necessary for your concurrence.
If you i
cannot attend personally, please have someone attend who is designated to concur for you.
h 4b A
Eric $. Beckjord, 'D' ctor Office %f Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
1.
SRM dated 2/17/93 2.
Rulemaking Package cc w/encls:
R. M. Scroggins, OC D. C. Williams, IG i
l gk g71 061 9307o3 50 5BFR33993 PDR l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward L. Jordan, Director, AE0D Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR l
Il4Pg8 James Lieberman, Director, OE Patricia G. Norry, Director, ADM
/
Gerald F. Cranford, Director, IRM Martin G. Malsch, Deputy General Counsel, OGC FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
REVISION OF THE MAINTENANCE RULE (10 CFR 50.65)
A Staff Requirement Memorandum (SRM) dated February 17, 1993, Enclosure 1, directed the staff to publish a final rule modifying the period for the performance of evaluations required of power plant licensees under paragraph (a)(3) of 10 CFR 50.65 (Maintenance Rule), from annually to once per refueling interval but not to exceed 2 years. The SRM stated that the final rule should be published in the Federal Reaister by June 1, 1993., contains a final rulemaking package consisting of a Federal Register Notice, environmental assessment, a public announcement, and the Congressional letters developed by RES on this subject.
This rulemaking package is provided for your concurrence.
In order to meet this aggressive schedule, a meeting is scheduled in room 3B11 at OWFN, on June 2, 1993, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
to expedite the consensus process.
Please provide your concurrence prior to this date or attend the meeting with those changes to the package that are necessary for your concurrence.
If you cannot attend personally, please have someone attend who is designated to concur for you.
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
1.
SRM dated 2/17/93 2.
Rulemaking Package
(.c w/encls:
R. M. Scroggins, OC D. C. Williams, IG g(
See next page for Distribution
$gIch PRM50 M
Concurreqctt [gED'B(6520D]
/DRA RDB/DRA DD/DRAh D/DRA t/r-0FF BB/DRA DD RES NA. Mate RAuluck SBahadur NCostanzi BM, orris CJH. emes DA :3 Ny93 g/2G93 5/.25/93 f/et/93
> #'/93 f /31/93 0FFC:D h h
~ g' NAME:EBhrJjord DATE:p Q /93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
e,J.heJ.avJA
- dsp-4 e e am.p r e #a.m am--
a-.e,w,,
,*mes.m4p me,'
h *
.35 dF.se--4.2-a&J,m J6e M45a L
Am*
54A.4imT, L
J i m J a.
-4
-M65
,ame d 4 ed,MtM
_.444e
-.4 L
,$9=--+J-4J4-Ch da -J.
A hsn-4 s4d6_d e t' M3t y
!t i
I a
i i
F s
1
)
3 1
ENCLOSURE 2 i
RULEMAKING PACKAGE 1
o 1
l 1
4 d
E' l
4
-~---.v.Ew,.--'w.-.
-. - - *--E-.---.---.-
- - -. - +. +
e--,
,r%cv,.-w-r dw e-----=--,
--w.,
~, - - - - - - - -,- - -
--.4
---U.---U-..---.-.-U,.i-r---
<m--w--se==-me
-v,--e w e w e a r -'s a - se-
A w
A 4
- A e
+
a e.
t ab+
yn,a.w w
a
_x.
+
r l
I l
i i
I i
e r
b FEDERAL REGISTER.N0TICE e
}
I 1
l w
i i
6 J
1 k
+
s I
.s s
I
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 i
RIN 3150 - AE55 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants 1
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 1
mandatory once every year to at least once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(30 days from the date of publication.)
j 1
e
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," (5 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 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
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 regulatcry 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
)
l once per refueling cycle. The change was made because the use of a refueling j
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.
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 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 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 establishing 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
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 for public comment. The comment period expired on May 6, 1993.
The NRC received 17 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 received from a public utilities representative and a private citizen. The NRC has identified and grouped all comments into six broad issues.
For each broad issue, the NRC has included a summary of the comments received and their resolution as follows:
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 i
manage the timing of the evaluation within that framework.
Response.
The intent of the proposed modifications of'the maintenance rule was to allow sufficient flexibility in the scheduling of Maintenance Programs evaluations so that the additional information available 5
from the refueling activities could be factored into the evaluation. The refueling cycle has also been adopted as the basis for FSAR updates.
It is recognized that those licensees who refuel more frequently will have to conduct these activities more frequently than others.
In the view of the Commission, this is neither an undue burden nor one that is outside the control of the licensee to impact by reducing the frequency of refuelings.
2.
Comment. As a result of the verification and validation program 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 amendments to the rule and cannot be considered at this time.
However, as a result of further verification and validation programs conducted I
at facilities, if changes to the rule or regulatory guidance are warranted, 1
the NRC will consider such changes at that time.
3.
Comment. One of the commenters stated, "one of the clear lessons i
learned from the recently completed verification and validation program is
)
that the major expense of the rule's implementation will be the detailed documentation (for NRC audit purposes) of performance monitoring".....
j Resoonse. The purpose of this rule is not to address the level of documentation required for NRC audit purposes.
It is merely to provide more flexibility in the timing of Maintenance Program evaluations.
6 o
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.mprovement in safety and may help hide maintenance which was improperly deferred.
Response. As stated earlier, the NRC decided to make the proposed change in the assessment requirement for the following reasons:
(1) 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, (2) Evaluations conducted on a refueling cycle basis would also 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, and (3) Evaluation 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.
In addition, 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 not conducted in conjunction with a refueling would not provide for as meaningful a result. The NRC's rationale, in this respect, differs from that advocated by NUMARC. Therefore, the commenter incorrectly 7
implies that the NRC simply accepts NUMARC's suggestions without independent review and consideration.
Another 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. This was not a rationale relied upon by NUMARC and further contradicts the commenter's view that the NRC accepts the suggestions of NUMARC without independent consideration.
In summary the Commission disagrees with the commenter's view that the extension does not improve safety. 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.
It is unclear how the proposed change will help " hide" improperly deferred maintenance.
5.
Comment. One commenter stated that effective maintenance is an ongoing duty and need and that allowing licensees to put off mor,itoring the effectiveness of maintenance from annually to 18 to 24 months sends the wrong i
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.
8
Section (a)(1) of 10 CFR 50.65, which is not being changed, requires licensees to monitor the performance or conditions 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 to be taken when the performance of the structure, system, or component does not meet established goals. The only thing that is being changed is the frequency of the periodic evaluation of the maintenance program.
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. The NRC believes that this additional flexibility will not result in any increase in risk to public health and safety, and in fact, should result in a more effective maintenance and improved plant safety.
6.
Comment. One of the commenters stated that plants on a 24 month refueling cycle would not meet the maximum time period of 24 months.
- Further, the Standard Technical Specification, Revision 0, retains the option for performance of surveillance requirements within 1.25 times the interval specified.
This would extend the refueling outage interval by upwards of 6 months.
Another commenter stated that this rule could be further improved by the elimination of the requirement for a specific time interval.
Response. The Commission believes that is necessary to assure that maintenance effectiveness is periodically assessed and that this period is not unacceptably long nor indefinite. Thus, a balance was necessary between obtaining the improved reviews associated with assessments conducted during refueling outages and the extended or indefinite periods associated with plants with extended plant cycles or experiencing extended plant shutdown or I
)
9 l
outages.
In weighing this balance, the Commission established an upper limit of 24 months between maintenance evaluations in order to obtain improved evaluations for the majority of the plants having frequency of refueling cycle from 15 to 18 months, and yet not allow maintenance effectiveness to continue without being assessed for periods in excess of 2 years. The NRC does not agree that the rule could be improved further by elimination of the requirement of a specific time interval.
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 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 10
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.
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 11 4
i i
l 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 i
safety, and may result in a more effective maintenance and improved plant safety.
I Under the rule, the frequency of periodic assessments would change from annually to at least once per refueling cycle but not to exceed 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 staff hours per plant. There are no additional changes in costs to be incurred by the NRC. The foregoing 1
constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.
12
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 i
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.
13
i 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: 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).
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, 14
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 5 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 24 months. The evaluations shall be conducted taking into cccount, 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 15
of the total plant equipment-that is out of service should be taken into l
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 1
16
l-I:
DOCUMENT NAME:
PRM50-65.F-1 AUTHOR:
J. Mate REVISED:
5/25/93 5/26/93 5/27/93' JW jw jw 11:20AM 9:50am-4:20pm 17 i
..n,4 w
4 e
4 4
.J 4
1 m,,2::
_,,.. _...i.. -
D
.s a
y
{
(
h S
h
?
..)
)
i 1
- }
s
-.i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
.3 J
J 1
i
..q i
l
.I1 i
i
-l l
1 1
I
- i i
1 l
i a
)
1 1
1 1
1 1
~
i
May 24, 1993 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR AMENDMENT OF 10 CFR 50.65 FOR MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Identification of the Action:
In July of 1991, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a new regulation (10 CFR 50.65) to require commercial nuclear power plant licensees to develop and implement a comprehensive program for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance activities for safety significant plant equipment. The rule requires licensees to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their maintenance programs on at least an annual basis and adjust their programs as necessary.
The NRC is now amending 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(3) to change the time interval for evaluating the effectiveness of the maintenance program from annually to once every refueling cycle, but not to exceed 24 months.
Need for the Action:
Since the rule was published in July of 1991, two events have occurred to cause the NRC to reconsider the annual evaluation.
First, in the spring of 1992, the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) suggested that the annual assessment be changed from an annual basis to a refueling cycle basis.
The rationale for the change was threefold: (i) significantly more data would be available during refueling cycles than is available on an annual basis, (ii) key data from some surveillance tests can only be obtained during refueling outages and is not available on an annual basis, and (iii) adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made after performing an evaluation are typically performed after the refueling outage.
NUMARC went on to add that the evaluation process is a time consuming activity and that with limited data available, the annual evaluations would not provide for meaningful results. With only limited data, changes to maintenance programs 4
will likely not be made because there would not be sufficient information available for spotting trends or doing trend analysis.
Second, in the summer of 1992, the NRC amended several regulations to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees.
One of the regulations that was amended was 10 CFR 50.71, (Frequency of Final Safety Analysis Reports), where the frequency of reporting data to the NRC was changed from annually to once per refueling cycle. This change was made because it had no adverse impact on the public health and safety and because it reduced the regulatory burden on nuclear power plant licensees.
The Commission is nov amending the required frequency of maintenance performance evaluations from annually to once per refueling cycle (not to exceed 24 months).
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 weaknesses in maintenance practices.
Evaluations conducted on a
refueling cycle basis would also 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 required by the rule, will provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends.
The Commission also believes that the rule change would be less disruptive of the licensee's activities and more conducive to effective maintenance, since any adjustments to the maintenance program required by the results of the evaluations under 50.65(a)(3) could be implemented at the beginning of a refueling cycle. Under the existing rule, adjustments stemming from the 50.65(a)(3) annual evaluations could be implemented at any time throughout the refueling cycle, depending on when the annual evaluation is required.
It is simpler and easier to implement a maintenance program where the changes are coordinated with the refueling cycle outages, so that in any given cycle there is only one maintenance regime. The Commission believes that its regulatory 1
requirements should be adjusted to minimize unnecessary burdens on the licensee, where there is no significant adverse impact on the level of public safety. The recent amendment to 10 CFR 50.71(e), which lengthens the time for submitting Final Safety Analysis Report updates to once every refueling cycle not to exceed 24 months, is an example of where the Commission found that regulatory requirements can be relaxed to integrate them with licensee activities without any significant impact on safety.
It also reflects the Commission's view that refueling cycles are an appropriate period for accumulating and integrating data, which NRC requirements should be integrated with.
Alternatives Considered:
The Commission determined that there are two reasonable alternatives to the proposed amendment: (1) retain the existing requirement for annual assessments (the "no action" alternative), and (2) amend the period for. performing maintenance assessments to some period other than once every refueling cycle.
As discussed above, the first alternative (keeping the existing requirement) is viewed as being undesirable because the quality and meaningfulness of i
annual evaluations would not be as high as evaluations which are coordinated with the refueling outage.
Second, corrective action to maintenance would not be coordinated with the refueling cycle, which is thought to have benefits in administrative efficiency and quality of maintenance implementation.
Moreover, there is no environmental advantage to the existing requirement as compared with the proposed change.
The second alternative is viewed as undesirable because adopting a specific time period, e.g., every 18 months, or every two years, would have the same objections as the existing requirement for an annual evaluation. There would be no environmental advantage with the second alternative as compared with the proposed change.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that there are no other alternatives which address the problems with the annual assessment which are obviously superior from an environtnantal standpoint.
j
-1 Environmental Impacts of the Action:
The amendment changes the period for performing the evaluations of licensee maintenance activities required by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3) from annually to once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 me ',hs.
The amendment does not require any change to nuclear power plant asign or require any modifications to a plant's SSCs. Nor does the rule change the 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 rule change would only extend the time period for performing evaluations of the effectiveness of i
licensees' maintenance program from at least once a year to at least once every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months. The staff believes that the extension of the allowable time in which to perform maintenance program evaluations will allow the licensee to consider information gathered during refueling outages and allow the licensee to efficiently integrate this activity with refueling. The requirement for an annual evaluation was initially adopted to assure periodic evaluations by the licensee, but the exact interval of twelve months was never deemed by the Commission to be required by safety considerations. The extension should not result in any significant or discernable 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 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.
6
es
.r.
I
- -(
,-i I
1
)
J r,
. I
. I
' i h
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT r
' I
- i k
' b i
i t
I h
4 i
4 i
I I
4 o
I i
l 1
NRC CHANGES TIME LIMITS FOR MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations governing monitoring programs to evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance programs at licensed nuclear power plants.
The amendment changes the time interval for conducting evaluations from once every year to at least once every refueling cycle with the maximum amount of time between evaluations not to exceed 24 months.
B The amendment is consistent with an earlier change to the NRC's requirements where the frequency of required power-reactor licensee reports updating Final Safety Analysis Reports was changed from annually to once per refueling cycle.
In that case, the Commission found that the use of a fuel-cycle interval provided a more coordinated and cohesive update since a majority of design changes and major modifications were performed during refueling outages.
In addition, officials of the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) suggested, in a public meeting with the NRC staff in February 1992, that the NRC should consider assessments of maintenance program effectiveness based on a refueling cycle rather than annual interval.
The NUMARC officials pointed out that:
-- assessment data collected during a refueling cycle would be more meaningful as some important data can be obtained only from surveillance tests performed with the reactor shutdown during a refueling outage;
-- adjustments to maintenance activities that may be made I
after such an evaluation would typically be performed after a refueling outage; and P
-- the evaluation is a time-consuming process; that the insufficient data available on an annual basis would not provide for meaningful evaluations by licensees; and that annual evaluations would be difficult for utilities which own multi-unit sites having common or shared equipment.
i
.l I
l l
l.
j I
i CONGRESSIONAL LETTERS j
-j i
i i
m
+
o UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
nj WASHINGTON, D. C 20555
\\...../
The Honorable Richard H. Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a Notice of Final Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Reaister. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to change the time interval that nuclear power plant licensees have for reviewing the performance of maintenance programs from annually to at least every refueling cycle provided the time between evaluations does not exceed 24 months. The Commission believes that the quantity and quality of data obtained during refueling outages will be substantially greater than that available on an annual basis and would provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends. This action should result in greater licensee flexibility and greater assurance that nuclear power plants will operate safely.
This final rule should reduce the regulatory burden on power plant licensees while at the same time maintaining the health and safety of the public and the common defense and security.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc:
Representative Barbara Vucanovich
The Honorable Richard H. Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a Notice of Final Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Reaf ster. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to change the time interval that nuclear power plant licensees have for reviewing the performance of maintenance programs from annually to at least every refueling cycle provided the time between evaluations does not exceed 24 months. The Commission believes that the quantity and quality of data obtained during refueling outages will be substantially greater than that available on an annual basis and would provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends. This action should result in greater licensee flexibility and greater assurance that nuclear power plants will operate safely.
This final rule should reduce the regulatory burden on power plant licensees while at the same time maintaining the health a'nd safety of the public and the common defense and security.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Barbara Vucanovich Distribution:
[Lehman.JM) subj-circ-chron Reading Files DRathbun, OCA ESBeckjord CJHeltemes TPSpeis BMorris 7
FCostanzi
.IV g/N,, '
Rtan)'
N Y
w '
DD:DRA:RhD:DRA:RlF DD/GIR:RES D:3fk-Offe:RDB:
$f:DRA RDB:DRA stanzY BMorris~
CJHeltemes ES9eckjord Name:JMate:
uluck SBahadur FCy/p/93 [/p /93 I /o/93
-Q*/93 Date: S fr /93 r)/,2l 93
$/2$93 t/
3 Offc:0CA Hame:DKRathbun Date:
/ /93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
/
'o UNITED STATES
~,,
8 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
(
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,*ss,*/
The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives
~'
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a' Notice of Final Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Reoister. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to change the time interval that nuclear power plant licensees have for reviewing the performance of t
maintenance programs from annually to at least every refueling cycle provided the time between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.. The Commission believes that the quantity and quality of data obtained during refueling outages will be 'substantially greater than that available on~-an annual basis i
and would provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends. This action should result in greater licensee flexibility and greater assurance that nuclear power plants will operate safely.
This final rule should reduce the regulatory burden on power pla'nt licensees while at the same time maintaining the health and safety of the public and the-common defense and security.
?
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc:
Representative Michael Bilirakis B
f I
i
The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Commi.ttee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives
. Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is-a copy of a= Notice of Final Rulemaking to be published in the Federal-Reaister. The Nuclear-Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to change the time interval 1
that' nuclear power plant licensees have~ for reviewing the performance of maintenance programs from annually to at least every refueling cycle provided
.the time between evaluations does not exceed 24 months.- The Commission believes that the quantity and quality of data obtained during refueling outages will be substantially greater than that available on an annual basis and would provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends. This action should result in greater licensee flexibility and greater assurance that nuclear power plants will operate safely.
This final rule should reduce the regulatory burden on power plant licensees while at the same time maintaining the health and safety of the public and the i
-common defense and security.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc:
Representative Michael Bilirakis Distribution:
[ SHARP.JM]
subj-circ-chron Reading Files DRathbun, OCA ESBeckjord CJHeltemes TPSpeis BMorris c)
FCostanzi y{ian 1.hy N
/7y h
i 4
DB:DRA RDB:DRA DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD kRES D Offc:RDB:
Name:JMate 1 -
RAuluck SBahadur FCostanzi Bhorris CJi temes ES kjord Date: $/19/93 g/K/93
$/2993
(/t- /93
' /s /93 93 y
93 Offe: OCA' Name: DKRathbun Date:
./ /93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY n
-r w
jf fo UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y g, g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 205$5 g
%**..+/
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a Notice of Final Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Reaister. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to change the time interval that nuclear power plant licensees have for reviewing the performance of maintenance programs from anndally to at least every refueling cycle provided the time between evaluations does not exceed 24 months. The Commission believes that the quantity and quality of data obtained during refueling outages will be substantially greater than that available on an annual basis and would provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends. This action should result in greater licensee flexibility and greater assurance that nuclear power plants will operate safely.
This final rule should reduce the regulatory burden on power plant licensees while at the same time maintaining the health and safety of the public and the common defense and security.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc:
Senator Alan K. Simpson
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a Notice of Final Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Reaister. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to change the time interval that nuclear power plant licensees have for reviewing the performance of maintenance programs from annually to at least every refueling cycle provided the time between evaluations does not exceed 24 months. The Commission believes that the quantity and quality of data obtained during refueling (d ages will be substantially greater than that available on an annual basis and would provide a more meaningful basis for the recognition and interpretation of trends.
This action should result in greater licensee flexibility and greater assurance that nuclear power plants will operate safely.
This final rule should reduce the regulatory burden on power plant licensees while at the same time maintaining the health and safety of the public and the common defense and security.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc:
Senator Alan K. Simpson Distribution:
[Lieberman.JM]
subj-circ-chron Reading Files DRathbun, OCA ESBeckjord CJHeltemes TPSpeis BMorris FCostanzi
,y/
Offc:RDB N DRA RDB DD:DRA:Rt; D:DRAhCS DD ES D:
O kRAuluck SBahadur stanzi BMorris CJ temes ES kjord FCp/u/93 Name:JMate:
J
'/u /93 3
(/yg3 Date:
E/33/93 g h ((93 pf/93 Offc:0CA Name:DKRathbun Date:
/ /93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
m-ENCLOSURE 1 STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMO l
1 i
i i
I h1-e i:
m
-o e
r w
7
... ---,- _... ~r r-w---
g--r-w