ML20216H619
| ML20216H619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1998 |
| From: | Curtiss J WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Black S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803230100 | |
| Download: ML20216H619 (4) | |
Text
WINSTON & STRAWN 35 WEST WACKEf4 DRfVE 1400 L STREET, N W 6, RUE DU CIROUE CHICAGO, ILLINOl5 00001-9703 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3502 75008 PARIS, FRANCE 43 RUE DU E
(202) 371-5700 CW YO Y 01 4193 FACSIMILE (202) 371-5950 March 17,1998 Ms. Suzanne C. Black Chief, Quality Assurance and Maintenance Branch Division of Reactor Controls and lluman Factors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:
Observations and Comments Regarding the implementation of the Maintenance Rule,10 C.F.R. @ 50.65
Dear Ms. Black:
The Maintenance Rule Inspection Clearinghouse (MRIC) was formed in 1995 by a number of licensees to prepare for and follow the NRC's maintenance rule baseline inspections.
Through regular meetings and other communications, the participants share experiences and strive to keep abreast of NRC expectations for implementation of the Maintenance Rule. After more than a year and a half ofimplementation experience and over 40 baseline inspections, the Clearinghouse thought it would be useful to share with the NRC some of our general observations on the inspections to date.
The MRIC, with the assistance of Winston & Strawn and LCM Engineering, has reviewed the baseline inspections completed to date. As a general observation, while we understand that the baseline inspections have been intended to be programmatic in nature, we remain hopeful that once the baseline inspections are complete, there will be a further transition to the pcrfannanec-hased philosophy originally envisioned by the Commission for implementation of the Maintenance Rule. That said, our more specific observations are as follows:
Numerous violations have been cited as a result of the baseline inspections. On average, approximately two violations per plant have been issued and most plants are further cited for weaknesses that result in inspector follow-up items. After a five-year implementation period for the rule and extencive interaction between licensees and the NRC, it would seem that the number of violations issued indicates a mismatch between NRC expectations and licensees' understanding of the Rule requirements.
I 9803230100 980317 DR ADOCK 0500 5
g g, - /1[ $ C h'
/)D g pcu n -
- WINSTON & STRAWN Ms. Suzanne C. Black March 17,1998
- Page 2 To enhance licensees' understanding of the necessary elements required to implement the Rule and satisfy NRC expectations, we believe a continuing dialogue and communication between the NRC and licensees would be beneficial. Further, we believe that training and strong headquarters oversight within the NRC would provide a significant benefit. Since each inspection team is generally composed of different individuals, training and oversight are extremely important to normalize the process and ensure consistent inspection results. Similarly, we strongly recommend that the Maintenance Rule Enforcement Review Panel remain in place not only through completion ofbaseFne inspections but through the transition period to a fully performance-based Rule. The Panel should be continued in order to maintain consistency and uniformity in inspectors' understanding of the intent and requirements of the performance-based aspects of the Maintenance Rule. First and foremost, regulatory expectations must be clear and consistent within the NRC itself, at both headquarters and the Regional offices, if licensees are to have a clear understanding of the Staffs expectations.
In connection with the Ft. Calhoun enforcement action (EA 97-280, Notice of Violation issued August 11,1997), the violation issued as a result of the failure of extraction steam piping could create some confusion for licensees. While it appears that there were deficiencies in the licensee's crosion/ corrosion program, the licensee apparently followed the Maintenance Rule requirements and guidance in its treatment of the extraction steam piping under the Rule. In citing a violation of the Maintenance Rule, the NRC seems to equate a functional failure with a violation of the Rule.
We understand the regulatory concern raised by the pipe rupture incident, but are concemed with the precedent this case may set. If broadly applied, the NRC's action could cause licensees to shift the focus of their Maintenance Rule programs to place undue emphasis on the single-minded goal of preventing failures. The purpose of the Maintenance Rule is not to preclude failures from occurring. Rather, the Rule and associated guidance contemplate that failures may occur, and specify that when they do, a cause detennination must be performed and corrective action taken so that equipment reliability and avt.ilability will be enhanced. As stated in SECY-97-055 (at page 9), "[f] rom a regulatory standpoint, the occurrence of an MPFF is not a violation. Rather, an MPFF indicates a potential problem; what is important is that the licensee take effective corrective actions." In the case of the Ft. Calhoun event, the failure was identified as the first MPFF of the extraction steam piping. The licensee perfonned a cause determination and took appropriate corrective action by dispositioning the SSC to Paragraph (a)(1) including monitoring against established goals. The occurrence of the failure should not alone constitute a violation absent a deficiency in implementing the Rule's programmatic requirements.
' WINSTON & STRAWN Ms. Suzanne C. Black March 17,1998 '
Page 3 Maintenance Rule implementation has commanded a far greater utility resource investment than originally expected. The regulatory analysis estimated a 544 million net cost ofimplementation industry-wide, but emphasized that the results-oriented Rule would likely result in cost savings, thereby reducing the overall estimate. Based on this information and other NRC assurances, licensees generally approached the Maintenance Rule with the perception that results, not the process, were the ultimate measure ofsuccess, and that many existing programs would be used to maintain SSC performance.
Nevertheless, it has become evident that sophisticated new databases are needed to feed the ever increasing demand for real time performance trending, monitoring, and
<cporting. Computerized control room logs, Technical Specification surveillance logs, and equipment failure or work request logs are becoming a necessity. Some plants have over 1,000 individual system and train performance curves that are trended and monitored for the Maintenance Rule alone. Our participants average two j
j full-time individuals dedicated to Maintenance Rule compliance and implementation.
l Furthem1 ore, plants which are now being inspected must incorporate an ever-l increasing set oflessons leamed from previous inspections. Results ofprior baseline inspections, both favorable and unfavorable, create what amounts to additional requirements on later-inspected plants. The effectiveness of individual plant programs are not judged standing alone, but as compared specifically against the i
elements of other plant programs. This constantly increasing standard makes the burden ofimplementation even higher. At some point, the burden ofincorporating increasing acceptance standards could ovenake the true intent of the Rule -- to l
improve plant safety and performance through effective maintenance.
We encourage the NRC to allow the flexibility for licensees to adopt cost-effective I
approaches to implementing the Rule. Moreover, based on experience with Rule implementation, the NRC should be open to program changes that reduce or l
climinate overly burdensome process steps.
l l
The resource burden is particularly evident in the NRC's emphasis in the baseline inspections on Prnbabalistic Risk Assessments. The link between the PRA and the selected performance criteria for SZs is understandable, but, in reviewing the results of recent inspections, there appears to be an undue emphasis placed on the use of PRA. An overly analytical approach depending largely on the PRA is too resource intensive and may not yield the best results. While the PRA data can inform performance criteria selection, the expert panel was adopted to compensate for potential shortcomings in the PRA. The expert panel has proven to be a valuable element in selecting and reviewing effective performance criteria. We believe that
o
- WINSTON & STRAWN 1
Ms. Suzanne C. Black March 17,1998
- Page 4 many sources, including the PRA and the expert panel, should continue to be used to set specific performance criteria.
Overall, the Maintenance Rule appears to be contributing to better plant performance.
The improvement was, and continues to be, due largely to licensees' additional experience with maintenance and operations and the quest for excellence in plant performance. Despite what the Staff has characterized as weaknesses, overall licensee performance by most objective measures is up. The data on unplanned scrams, safety system actuations and reported personnel exposures continue to show a continuous downward trend, while capacity factors continue to increase -- all measures of effective maintenance programs.
In conclusion, to enhance Maintenance Rule programs and reduce the number of violations and weaknesses discovered during inspections, NRC resources should be focused on increased communication. This would ensure consistent direction to the NRC inspectors and improve licensee understanding of NRC expectations with regard to Maintenance Rule implementation. Greater communication between the Staff and licensees is essential to ensure that Staff expectations are met in such areas as Maintenance Rule implementation. We, therefore, encourage the NRC to maintain an open dialogue with licensees as experience continues to be gained with implementation of the Rule and would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,2. $
mes R. Curtiss Daniel F. Stenger Deborah K. Staudinger cc:
The lionorable Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman The lionorable Greta J. Dicus The lionorable Nils J. Diaz The lionorable Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
L. Joseph Callan Samuel J. Collins}