ML20235T358

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Util Endorses Comments Filed by NUMARC & Nuclear Util Backfitting & Reform Group.Rule Fails to Provide Basis for Determining Effective Maint Program

ML20235T358
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook, Vermont Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, 05000000
Issue date:	02/27/1989
From:	Denise Edwards YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR47822, RTR-NUREG-1333, RULE-PR-50 53FR47822-00028, 53FR47822-28, FYC-89-003, FYC-89-3, GL-88-20, GLA-89-024, GLA-89-24, IEB-88-011, IEB-88-11, NUDOCS 8903080252
Download: ML20235T358 (3)

Text

. - - - - - -

4 LYANKEEATOMICELECTRIC COMPANY "*fl%";,1?"gT7R*g'"

-DOCKETNUMBEF N W- M GLA 89-024

.. PROPOSED RULE rYC 89-003 0, . !

'yh Y_h & $8kNstreet, sotton, Massachusetts 01740-1398 89 FEB 27 P2:02 Secretary of the Commission ?u U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission UUC.C Washington, D.C. 20555 '

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule Regarding Maintenance Programs for Nuclear Power Plants (53FR47822)

Dear Sir:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule regarding maintenance programs for nuclear power plants.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company fully endorses the detailed comments on the proposed maintenance rule filed by the, Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG).

Also, we believe that the remarks of Commissioner Roberts which accompanied the proposed rule succinctly characterize the major defects of this rulemaking effort.

We have followed the Commission's activities leading up to and culminating in the publication of this proposed rule with a mounting sense of frustration and corcern. In the eight month period between the publication of the Commission's. maintenance policy statement and the proposed rule we have had a "strawman rule", a public workshop, publication of NRC staff studies such as NUREG-1333, regulatory analyses, maintenance team inspections, .]

and numerous staff briefings. Yet, the proposed rule that has ultimately emerged after all these activities is nothing more than a reformatting of the original policy statement - a product which Commissioner Roberts has aptly characterized as "a rule of form but no substance".

1 In addition to the lack of real substance, Commissioner Roberts has correctly noted that the proposed rule fails to provide any basis for determining when a maintenance program is effective or when improvements are " appropriate."

We believe that this failure to ectablish meaningful performance criteria has been a persistent and basic problem in the handling of the maintenance l issue. To cite just one example, during the staff's Septenbsr 7, 1988 )

briefing of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) concerning the results of.the three pilot maintenance team inspections, Dr. William Kerr requested an explanation of the nature and bases of the pass / fail criteria for these inspections. The staff was either unwilling or unable to respond. Is it unreasonable for licensees to seek some quantification of the Commission's expectations?

8903080252 890221 PDR PR SO D3FR47822 PDR ((

Throughout 1988, NUMARC and industry representatives have expended considerable time and effort to inform the Commissioners, the ACRS, and the staff of the various industry initiatives to improve plant maintenance. Unfortunately, the discussion of these initiatives has been essentially one-sided rather than a potentiaJiy productive dialogue. Not once, to our knowledge, have l the Commissioners or the staff offered a serious analysis of the effectiveness of these initiatives (individually or collectively), specifics of perceived shortcomings, and suggested enhancements. If there is a real problem that can be effectively addressed by a new rule, a detailed analysis of the present industry efforts would seem to be the logical starting point to establish both the scope of the problem and a substantive solution.

We hope that a majority of the Commissioners will also share our concern about a rulemaking that completely ignores the extremely serious reservations expressed by the ACRS. We believe that the following passage from the September 13, 1988 ACRS letter to Chairman Zech deserves special emphasis:

"Nor have we seen evidence that the existence of a rule would not make things worse. Indeed there are characteristics of regulations, and especially the way in which they are typically enforced, that lead us to believe that, under a rule, a move toward uniformity would occur, and this is likely to decrease the effectiveness of some of the better existing programs."

In our six SALP reports, the Yankee Plant at Rowe has received the top Category 1 rating in the functional area of maintenance five times and one Category 2 rating (with an improving trend). The Yankee Plant has also operated with a composite capacity factor in excess of 82% for the last five years. While we take some pride in this performance, we are completely cognizant of the on-going need to assure the effectiveness of our maintenance efforts. We can find nothing in this proposed rule that will assist us in these efforts and believe that the fears expressed by the ACRS are well-founded.

l The Commission's stated intent to invoke 10CFR50.109(a)(4) to avoid the requirement for a backfit finding and analysis for the proposed rule is i simply one more unfortunate example of the Commission's increasing propensity l to avoid a reasoned and reasonable application of the provisions of 10CFR 50.109. In recent months Licensees have seen:

i). the imposition of major new regulatory requirements such as Generic Letter 88-20 under the guise of a 10CFR50.54(f) request for information, ii). publication of proposed rules such as the Education and Experience Requirements for SROs and Supervisors (53FR52716) which signal the Commission's apparent willingness to accept completely subjective and specious backfit analyses, and 111). NRC correspondence such as Bulletin 88-11 imposing new requirements completely lacking any stated justification be it 10CFR50.54(f) l or 10CFR50.109. I

1 These actions seem to convey the message that this Commission is willing l

to accept practically any rationale which will avoid a meaningful application of the backfit rule. We sincerely hope that this is not the case and we urge a reversal of this unfortunate trend which we believe is seriously undermining reguin. tory stability.

In conclusion, we urge the Commissioners to consider the following course of action:

1. Re-evaluate the question of whether a maintenance rule is actually required to achieve the basic goals of the Commission's Maintenance Policy Statement. The re-evaluation process we envision would include the formulation of coherent perforn.ance standards or goals and a serious, systematic evaluation of the industry's maintenance initiatives by personnel with demonstrated maintenance experience and expertise.

2. We believe that during the course of this re-evaluation it would be extremely beneficial if there were direct meetings between the Commissioners and the ACRS (similar to the recent meeting on Mark I containment issues) to discuss and analyze the results of the effors.

3. If the resulte of Steps 1 and 2 convince the Commissioners that a rule and/or Regulatory Guide is necessary, we urge that the entire package of regulation or guidance be developed prior to the Commissioner's vote so that all parties can understand the full scope of the rule. Again, as noted by Commissioner Roberts, "without being afforded the opportunity to review this implementation document, the Commission is left in the position of approving a specious rule".

4. If a rule is required, it should be justified by a credible application of the provisions of 10CFR50.109.

Very truly yours, Donald W. Edwards Director, Industry Affairs