ML20246A543
| ML20246A543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-56FR31324, REF-10CFR9.7 AD-2-5, AD00-2-005, NUDOCS 8907070018 | |
| Download: ML20246A543 (93) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _______ __ _ _______ __________ ____-_ - _ _
' MNWdWdn'd6NdWWWWWhd%%%fW@dtM&;(gggggggggggiggggg TP.AH5MITTAL TO: Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips p -
3 ADVANCED CDPY TO: The Public Document Rocm f DATE: 7[3[89 g FROM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branch
& Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting :
'5; document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and !
l- placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or {
g required. j' Meeting
Title:
b m MEL Pa n / e dmL Os_4afafau- M f h / ene n- of )ltu k h m LAst$4 '
C l ,
l E
g:
Meeting Cate: 5[3/[84 Open X Closed g 5 :
5 ,
E E
Item Description *:
Copies '
k Advanced DCS C Copy *8 to PDR E 3 5 .f
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1 p nrlNamaub i
l I g
- 2. [
I 3-ic 4* 5 c
C h
5.
5 c-- 5 1
E k
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper. pgoA &i C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY 5 papers. ,
8907070018 890531
_ $.N _ 710CFR _
j
s s -
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION- l l
l
Title:
3Ritr1No oN r1 Nit Rutt iNu accutiroRY cu13e roa MAINTENANCE Or NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS .
1 Location: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND h3($l MAY 31, 1989 Pag 6S: 64 PAGES
- f 4
NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I
I 0Fok
'fl l
_ _ _ - - - - - - _ - ')
l W O DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 31, 1989 in the Commission's office at One White Flint
- North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any' proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
HEAL R. GROSS COURT ttPoRTERS AND TRAN$CRillR$
1323 RHoDE ($ LAND AVINUE. H.W.
wAsMinatoN. D.C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600
{ (202) 234 4433
~1
_ ', A : .
1.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
BRIEFING ON FINAL RULE AND REGULATORY GUIDE FOR.
MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS' I
l u ____
- l. PUBLIC MEETING 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Wednesday, May 31, 1989 The Cor. mission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman, presiding.
. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Chairman of the Commission THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH M. CARR, Commissioner KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS, Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202; 232-E400 f
, 3
- g ..
STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary WILLIAM C. PARLER, General' Counsel FRANK MIRAGLIA, Staff.
-EDWARD JORDAN,. Staff VICTOR STELLO, JR.,.. Staff WILLIAM MORRIS, Staff
,, MONI DEY,' Staff THOMAS KING, Staff I
l l
I i
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W l
> (202) 2Mg WASHINGTON DC 20005 (202) 232-6600 t
.3
+
'1- P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
.2 (2:04 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN ' ZECH: Good afternoon, ladies and 4 gentlemen. Today the staff will brief-the Commission 5- on the subject of the final rule and regulatory guide 6 for maintenance of nuclear power plants.
7 During visits to the nuclear power plants 8 that I've been able to make, I've concluded that
.9 maintenance could and should be improved in almost all 10 'of the plants in our country.
11 The Commission in 1988 directed the staff to 12 develop a rule on maintenance of nuclear power plants.
13 I have, frankly, been impressed by the . tremendous 14 teamwork effort put forth by the staff to develop on 15 the Commission's accelerated schedule the final rule 16 on maintenance of nuclear power plants and the 17 accompanying draft regulatory guide. This accelerated 18 rulemaking effort immediately served to . increase 19 . industry attention on this important aspect of nuclear j 20 power plant safety.
21 During some of my more recent visits to the 22 plants, I've begun to see improvements in maintenance 23 and certainly some improvements at most all of the 24 plants and significant improvements at others. j 25 However, I firmly believe that even today, NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 l
4 1 maintenance remains an area where most utilities could 2 improve in maintenance, and some utilities could 3 improve substantially.
4 Because maintenance, in my view, plays such 5 an important.and integral role with plant operations 6 in assuring public safety, I am convinced that a rule 7 on maintenance is needed, not only for improved
.8 maintenance today, but to ensure the continued proper 9 maintenance of power plants in the future.
10 I continue to believe that it is appropriate 11 for this Agency to pursue this maintenance rulemaking 12 initiative. 'However, I continue to believe that-13 industry assistance in developing a standard for 14 maintenance would be extremely valuable.
15 I am concerned that without their expert j
16 involvement in developing such a standard, that j 17 perhaps the draft regulatory guide that backs up and 18 amplifies the maintenance rule might not be as good as 19 it can or should be. This has been a factor in my
, 20 reassessment of our readiness to approve a rule on q 21 maintenance at this time.
22 Consequently, I proposed to my fellow 23 Commissioners that we defer action on this maintenance i
24 rule, which the staff will discuss with us today. I !
25 propose that we defer action for a period of about 18 NEAL R. GROSS 1 COURT hEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600 I j
-)
5 l.. .
1- ' months while actions are in progroos to further i 1
- 2. improve the draft regulatory guide.
, 3 My proposal will provide that during the 18-l 4' month period, the staff would prepare a strengthened ,
5 maintenance policy statement for Commiss. ion {
6' consideration and publish the draft regulatory guide 7 for public comment.
8 If. it became necessary, I would expect the 9 staff to bring in contractor assistance to provide any 10 expertise ' that was needed in order to assure the 11 integrity and validity of the regulatory guide, which 12 may serve in the place of a uniform standard for 13 maintenance in the nuclear industry.
14 My proposal would also provide that at the 15 end of the 18-month period, the Commission could 16 review the industry's improvement in maintenance and 17 the status of the uniform standard for maintenance and 18 decide what, if any, additional regulatory action 19 might be appropriate.
. 20 In the interim, the Commission would hold a 21 final maintenance rule, which provides an excellent 22 foundation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 23 regulation of maintenance and readiness, should 24 circumstances warrant its prompt promulgation.
25 I understand that copies of the staff's ,
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 1
1
6 l 4 i 1 slides are available as you enter the room. I know 2 Commissioner Rogers has~a'st'atement to make. Do.any 3 of my other fellow Commissioners have any comments.to.
4 make before I call on Commissioner Rogers?
5 (No response.)
6 If- not, Commissioner Rogers, you may 7 proceed.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, after a nuclear 9 power plant has been constructed and licensed, the 10 impact of the plant on public health and safety is 11 entirely dependent on the competence of the~ operators i
12 and the material condition of the plant, .as determined 13 by the quality of the maintenance program.
14 Poorly . maintained equipment can frustrate 15 the best efforts of even the most competent operators.
16 The relevance of maintenance of nuclear power plants 17 to public health and safety is obvicus and, therefore, 18 its relevance to the deliberations of this Commission 19 should be without question.
I
, 20 In discharging its responsibility for public !
21 health and safety, the issue that the Commission must 22 now address is: How can we best ensure that a 23 suitably high level of maintenance is consistently 24 sustained in every U.S. nuclear power plant at all 25 times?
NEAL R. GROSS !
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2M WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
7 )
. 1 The entwer to that qusation io not obvious. i 2 It's clear that good plans and sufficient resources do ):
l 3 i not necessarily produce satisfactory results and that 1 I 1 4 mechanisms of accountability for results are of
]
5 fundamental importance.
6 We've heard many comments on this proposed 7 maintenance rule. Today we have the opportunity to 8 hear the staff's views on the key issues, especially 9 on how a rule might assure safety, as well as whether, 10 as some contend, it might even detract from safety.
l 11 We're here to learn from the staff what, in 12 its opinion, is the answer to the maintenance 13 question. I hope that, in giving us its views, the 14 staff will not try to anticipate what might be the 15 Commissioners' near term decision on hos to proceed, 16 but will give us their most candid professional 17 opinions.
18 I'll look forward with keen interest to the 19 staff's presentation.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
21 Mr. Ste11c, you may proceed.
22 MR. STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We 23 have been struggling f or a long tira e with the issue of 24 maintenance. And I think, as you pointed out, the 25 fact that we haven't been involved with the issue of NEAL R. GROSS I COUAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202)232 4600
8 l: *
'l maintenance has caused the maintenance that wa now 2 ~ observe'in-plants to have improved.
3 I think the briefing that you.had from our
'4 ' team inspection shows that, in fact, maintenance is 5s getting better. Weg generally ' see the paper . program j
~
6 for maintenance reasonably . all right, but the 7- variation in implementation and maintenance, I should 8' point out, could' stand improvement. Some could stand' 9 quite a bit of improvement.
10 How to get there, as Commissioner Rogers has 11 pointed out, is not' easy. After reading and talking 12 to many who have commented on the rule', including.our 13 ACRS, who suggest that we ought not to go forward with 14 a rule at this time, I have come to the contrary view
.15 that I think we ought to continue going forward with 16 the rule.
17 Part of the rule that I believe is most 18 important is a part of the rule that allows for a 19 third party certification and development of what it
. 20 is and perhaps even assistance, what it is that is, in 21 fact, good and proper maintenance.
22 I think the industry has the expertise 23 available to it. That expertise exists in INPO as 24 well as in other parts of the industry organizations.
25 And I think they could put together a very useful NEAL R. GROSS COURT RE8'ORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2M WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232-6600
9
< l 1 comprohanaiva program to ros11y improve throughout our 2 country the maintenance at all our nuclear plants.
3 I think this is important that it be done, 4 important for safety. I think it would be important 5 from the perspective of the owners in improved 6 reliability of equipment and more efficient operation 7 and eventually, most likely, very significantly 8 improved plant availability and capacity factors.
9 I am concerned, as the industry points out, 10 that once the NRC gets into it and we start to 11 regulate it, that there is the potential that we may, 12 in fact, detract from the purpose we all seek, which 13 is improved maintenance, because of getting some false 14 starts.
15 This could be avoided if the industry is 16 sincere and moves forward for the third party 17 certification. I think if we do not have the rule, we 18 have not achieved that goal, and I am not persuaded 19 that the net result in the improvement in maintenance
. 20 will continue at the pace we've seen in the past.
21 I am concerned that if we could let up now, 22 we would tend to ree a slackening of the progress we 23 have made, and I don't think that's in our interest or 24 the interest of the industry. And., therefore, it's 25 the staff recommendation that we move forward and go NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234-4433 V.ASHNGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 6600
E1 m ..
p -10
,c ..
1 with the rule.
N 2 .ind with that introduction', let me ask Billy 3 to start the ' briefing, and we'll be happy to answer 4 all questions you may have. Billy?
5 MR. MORRIS: First page of the handout, we 6 have an outline'of the briefing. Let me continue on, l
7 though. The second page we discuss some of the 8 background that led us to where we are today.
9 It was in March of 1988 that the Commission 10 issued its policy statement on maintenance of nuclear 11 power plants. The policy had evolved from a series of 12 reports provided to the Commission by the staff in the l' 13 performance of maintenance by licensees, including 14 systematic assessment of licensee performance and 15 NUREG 1212 and'the status of maintenance in the U.S.
16 power industry.
17 The policy statement announced that the 18 Commission's rulemaking and that the policy statement 19 itself were being issued to provide guidance to the
'20 industry while the rulemaking was proceeding.
21- In the staff requirements memorandum dated 22 February 25th, 1988, which approved the final policy 23 statement for publication, the Commission also 24 directed the staff to proceed with preparation of a ,
j 25 proposed rule and to consult in some open fashion with NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234g WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
[:.;; -i'. ,
'11'
.i .4 1 'hterested parsons, . including representatives of the 1 .
2 r egulated . . industry , as Vic suggested this be 3 accomplished by holding public workshops.
l 4 The staff scheduled a public workshop for 5 July lith and 12th of 1988. Subsequently in a l
'6' memorandum from the Secretary to the EDO dated June
< 7 15th, 1988, the Commission directed the staf f . to 8 indicate that among five rulemaking options to be 9 . discussed at.the public workshop, one preferred'by the' 10 Commission would be a rule that would require that 11 licensees track certain defined maintenance 12 performance indicators, which would measure the 13 effectiveness of a broad range of maintenance 14 activities.
15 At the public workshop, the Commission's-16 preferred rulemaking option was discussed in.the form 17 of a general performance-based rule with those 18 performance indicators to be incluf.ed in a regulatory 19 guide.
. 20' There were other rulemaking options that we 21 considered as we struggled with this effort to 22 determine what would be the best rule to achieve the 23 Commission's desired goal.
24 An option two that we looked at was one in 25 -which a set of performance indicators would be listed l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 f
L .
l- p 12 l . .. .
L - i-l in the rule itself.
2 Other' options were considered which would 3 have involved a general rule requiring development and l
4- implementation of a maintenance program, accompanied 5 by a regulatory guide, which :n one of those' options 6 would endorse an industry standard and in another 7 option would contain NRC-developed criteria for 8 maintenance. programs.
9 An additional option that we considered at 10 that time would have included detailed and 11 prescriptive criteria for conducting maintenance 12 embodied in the rule itself.
13 We have the public workshop. There was a 14 session devoted to the viability of basing a rule 15 primarily on monitoring the performance. The session 16 was chaired by the AEOD staff responsible for 17 developing and implementing the NRC performance 18 indicator program. The subject, however, was also 19 discussed at many of the other sensions in the
. 20 workshops.
21- At that time considerable concern was 22' expressed by the participants at these sessions about
-23 the wisdom of requiring the monitoring and reporting 24 of a uniform set of maintenance performance 25 indicators.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 (202) 234 4433
!I
[ 13
~
..r 1 However,-at:other sessions of'the workshop, 2 'it became obvious that'there were some very effective l
- 3 industry initiatives by certain utilities and industry I-l 4 groups, such as INPO, in developing and implementing 5 excellent and outstanding maintenance programs.
l 4 6 As a result of these insights, the staf f -
l 7 then' concluded and proposed in SECY-88-277 that . the 8 rulemaking strategy. should be to issue a proposed.
9 general rule requiring development and implementation 10 of a maintenance program, but to request that the 11 industry develop its own standard'for the contents of 12 such a program. The industry standard would be 13 endorsed in a regulatory guide.
14 In making this decision to recommend this 15- approach, the staff recognized it would be unwise to 16 attempt to spell out detailed technical and 17 prescriptive criteria in a rule such -as the last 18 option that we considered, that we wanted to follow 19 the basic idea that we would take advantage of the
. 20 ' knowledge and experience of the industry's best 21 performers in developing maintenance standards and 22 excellence in maintenance that could be adopted by 23 some of the weaker performers. i 24 However, such a standard developed by those l j
25 who would have to implement it would be expected to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W l (202) 2y.-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
e i
14-
'. 1 ' auf ficiently.. flexible that it would not impose any
'2 undue difficulty on the recommendations.
i .
'3 Furthermore,.in this same spirit, the staff
.4 proposed that comments be sought on the concept of a 5 third party certification program for maintenance.
6 The staf f proposed 'o develop generic guidance . for-7 maintenance programs in the form of a. regulatory guide-8 as a backup.in case the industry did not respond to 9 the Commission's request.to develop a standard.
'10 The Commission approved this general 11 approach to the rulemaking, ; and a proposed rule was 12 published on November 28th,, 1988. The expiration date 13 of the public comment period was extended from January 14 27th to February. 27th at the' request of a number of 15 utilities and NUMARC, but a significant number of l 16 comments came in after that date.
17 By virtue of a team effort on the part of 18 the staff's research and AEOD and OGC, a regulatory 19 guide was developed. Public comments were analyzed.
. 20 Regulatory analysis was completely revised. And a 21- final rule was completed and transmitted to the 22 Commission in SECY-89-143 on schedule.. The industry 23 had not offered to develop a standard.
24 However, during that period, I wanted to 25 point out that AEOD was able to complete a significant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
)
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 l
%+
15 1 report of performance indicators t r a n s m i t t e d '- t o . t h e 2' Commission in SECY-89-044 and NRR, as has been 3 mentioned, completed a number of its maintenance team 4 inspections. This kind of information from those'two 5- offices was essential'in our work to develop the rule 6 and' reg guide in its final form.
7 In the process, the staff developed proposed 8 resolutions to some very dif ficult issues. Perhaps-9 the most challenging was that of addressing 10 maintenance of a broad range of types ' of equipment, 11 including those in the balance of plant and'those were 12 varying degrees of safety significance, while at the. j 13 same time allowing flexibility on the part of 14 licensees to develop the details of his program to fit 15 his own situation and circumstances.
16 I believe that an examination of the draft 17 final rule and proposed regulatory guide would 18 indicate that we have accomplished what we set out to 19 do in that regard.
l 20 In addition, by keeping open the options in 21 this final rule for development of an industry 22 standard and a third party certification process, the 23 rule would give the industry considerab'le latitude 24 and, if they accepted, responsibility for determining 25 the nature of the maintenance program they would !
NEAL R. GROSS I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (m2) Ng WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2324 600 j
16 1 implem:nt.
l 2 Given this flexibility and the incentive to !
3 the industry to develop this standard, the rule would 4 provide assurance to the Commission that an effective 5 and readily enforceable maintenance program would be 1
6 l in effect for all licensees within a specified time 1 7 frame.
8 Staff has recommended, then, that the 9 maintenance rule be published final and the reg guide 10 be published for comment.
11 As I mentioned earlier, the development of 12 the final rule and the proposed regulatory guide has i
13 been a team effort involving NRR, AEOD, OGC, and 14 research. A number of individuals from those other 15 offices have helped us put together this package, and 16 I want to express my appreciation to all of them now 17 for their outstanding efforts.
18 Now let me turn this over to Moni Dey, who 19 will continue with the presentation.
. 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
21 You may proceed.
22 MR. DEY: Slide 3 is the first of a series 23 of slides on public comments. First, Slide 3, I would 24 like to provide some quick statistics and come to the l
25 specific comments later. Eighty-eight comments were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W
!?O2) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 23243600
__ _ _ _ _ _ l
17 1 received. Thirty-six of these were received on time.
2 prior to the.close of the comment period, which was 3 February 27th of this year.
4 The SECY paper,89-143, .which the staff S transmitted to you, includes analysis of and response
'6' to comments received prior to the close of the comment 7 period on February 27th.
n 8 A number of comments were received after j l
9 that. We have reviewed these comments, and there i i
10 haven't been.any new substantive comments. Comments 11' have been received from NUMARC and all the' utilities 12 individually. A number of second letters have come in ;
13 frism utilities also.
14 The next slide, 4, provides a quick summary 15 of those for and against the rule. Seven commenters 16 were for the rule, including two states and public 1
17 interest groups.
18 NUMARC and all the utilities were against 19 the rule, and they provided individual letters. As I 20 mentioned, a number of second letters were received 21 from utilities, and that's reflected in the Number 52 22 on the slide.
23 The next slide, 5, is a discussion of the 24 public comments received. What I would like to do 25 here is just provide the public comments. And as we i NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEN'JE, N W l (202)234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 QC2) 232-6600
s .
18 !
+ -
l
. provide our
~1 go through the presentation, . we will j 2 ~ responses at the appropriate places.
3 The seven commenters,. including two states, a
'4 supported the rule. The comments.that-we provided on. >
~
5 this slide are mainly from'the' industry and the ones 6 addressed in coming'up with the final' rule.
']
h 7 The major concern comment' from ' industry 8 against the rule'was on the scope and the. associated q 9 ' administrative burden and cost. The comments'on the 'I 1
10' scope ~ ranged from some . saying that NRC has no 11 authority in regulating the BOP to others saying that
-12 maintenance of BOP would detract from maintenance of 13 safety-related structure systems and complements and' 14 that the administrative controls for maintenance of 15 BOP would be costly.
16 And following this trend apart, the 17 commenters indicated that this would have a negative 18 impact and divert industry resources and, therefore, 19 there's no demonstration that the rule would actually 20 increase safety.
21 Now, the industry also stated that they have i 22 been improving and that improvement programs are in 23 place.
24 And the next slide, 6, is a continuation of i
25 the public comments received. The commenters l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600
,c .
19 1 suggested that the NRC should concentrate on the few 2 poor performers that exist today, that 'the 3 justification of promulgating the rule on adequate l l
4 protection is not.what's questioned and stated that it 5 .was not justified.. -
6 'A number of comments were received ' on the !
7 cost benefit analysis and the regulatory analysis.
8 The data we provided in the draft regulatory analysis 1
9 was questioned and, quote, " ultimate" data provided.
10 And, finally, as Bill mentioned, the notice 11 of proposed rulemaking solicited volunteers for 12 development of an industry standard. However, there 13 was no commitment received.
14 Some industry commenters did suggest, 15 though, that if a rule and standard is necessary, that 16 they would participate, that industry should take the 17 lead and the schedule, as proposed, was extremely 18 tight and would make it difficult for them to 19 participate and, finally, that NRC and industry 20 shouldn't continue on parallel paths.
21 The next slide, 7, we provide a discussion 22 of our objectives in developing the rule and 1
23 regulatory guide. Our basic objective is to define a 24 basic maintenance standard, which would include the .
l 25 scope of activities that a maintenance program should NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20306 (202) 232 4 00
p ..
- ' .- 20 1 include and also the structure systems'and. components I 2' that should be covered.
3 The basic maintenance-standard contains the 4 essential ingredients of a systems performance-5 oriented approach. Our intent' is to build upon 6 existing programs.
7 We don't want to start from scratch or 8 create new . documentation. It would be a graded 9 approach to maintenance, depending on significance to 10 safety and, we emphasize, implementation.
11 On Slide 8 --
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Before you leave 13 Slide 7, the second two items, the operative phrase, I 14 "where necessary." We heard a presentation on May the 15 2nd of this year on the maintenance team inspection.
16 And you're talking about the program, not 17 implementation. ,
18 And we were told there are no utilities with 1
- l 19 a poor program. Implementation, a little different.
20 I question the "where necessary." You've already told l 1
21 us, the staff has told us, there are no unsatisfactory 22 programs.
I 23 Also, on the third item, " facilitate NRC's j
\
24 taking enforcement action, where necessary," during )
25 the Commission meeting, May the 2nd, on the NEAL R. GROSS ,
COURT REPOATERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W j (pop) pm WASHINGTON. O C 2(TJ05 (202; 232 4 600
' 21 -
1 .
- 1. maintenance . team inspection', we were. told : the. staff L 2 could te.ke , enforcement ' action when they saw a ~ safety 3 concern. And you have-done so.
1; >
l~ 4 I' question the "where necessary" in both of l:
L 5 these two itemsi Thank you.
l l
l> 6 MR. MORRIS: On those two' issues, the L
7 regulatory guide has a set of program elements, 17 8 elements, that are provided that .would be there for 9 .the benefit of one of the utilities or licensees who, 10 through the process of hisL self-examination process, 11 would determine-that'he might need to. upgrade in some-12- area.
'l 13 He might do this on the basis'of.a feedback 14 from the examination of the failure modes of equipment 15 with .NPRDS type data that he would be collecting.
16 He might see that there would be a need to.
17 some improvement in his program. And it would be at 18 his option to make that upgrade if he thought that it 19 was necessary.
20 So we do believe that there may. be places 21 where members of the licensees would find that they 22 wanted to improve their programs, and this would be 23 the process that would be put in place to do that.
24 The second issue, we have noted that this 25 would facilitate NRC taking enforcement action. We do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2p33 WASHINGTON. D C 20305 (202) 232 6600
^
'22
.1 not-claimLhere that we are now incapable of.taking;a 2 significant ' enfornamant action, li needed, but this
-3 would clarify, more clearly stating what the 4 requirements are for balancing plant, how you-would go 5 about doing that.
4 6 So the key word is " facilitate," rather than
- i. <
- 7 anything else.
8 'COMMI'SSIONER ROBERTS: Just an observation.
9 I'm sure there are those who would disagree'with this,
- 10. but in my over eight years here, I have not seen the 11 need for the staff to have any'more ability to 12 facilitate enforcement.
13' MR. STELLO: I think I agree with that. If 14 we find a problem, we usually could find a way to --
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: You bet you do. And 16 that's what we're all supposed to do.
17 MR. STELLO: And I think we can.
18 With respect to the first item you asked 19 about, maintenance programs, I did say I think, as you
.20 have indicated, that what we looked at, most of the 21 programs weren't bad. Some could have been improved 22 some.
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Can't we all improve?
24 MR. STELLO: Absolutely. And what's the 25 whole idea. But we've only got about half, about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W p02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 2J005 (202) 232 4 600
i' - -
23 2 1
. i 1 halfway through. j l
l l 1, 2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Let's not bog down on j i
3 this. !
l 1
4 MR, STELLO: And I just think the important i
5 point of the objectives of the rule is yet to come. I i
)
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Excuse me. If I could )
7 just --
8 MR. STELLO: Go ahead.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It seems to me we may 10 be using the word " program" a couple of different ways 11 here, and I think it might be well to be very clear on 12 what we mean by " program."
13 My understanding of the question that was 14 asked some time ago that Commissioner Roberts referred 15 to about, are there good programs or are there any 16 poor programs, those were really plans.
17 MR. STELLO: Planc, papers.
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And it seems to me a 19 program is a plan and execution, both components, and 20 that it's important that we distinguish between those 21 at the outset, that a program is not a plan. It's a 22 plan plus implementation.
23 And if the answer to the question is: Are 24 there any programs out there that are less than 25 satisfactory, based on that definition of " program,"
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 23m33 WASHINGTON. D C 2JJJS (202) 2324&r) l
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 11
24 1 namely plan plus implementation, I'd like your answer- 7 2 to it.
3 MR. STELLO: There are some that are clearly 4 in need of significant improvement. What they use the 5 program to include both plan and implementation.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: So what.'s out there 7 now that we find satisfactory are plans?
8 MR. STELLO: Are basically the plans. And 9 even some of those could use a little ' improvement, 10 too. But of those that we have seen, there were not l
11 any that we were really upset with, but we respect ,
I 12 implementation --
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I think we 14 should be clear on what we mean when we say " program" 15 here, that it's important.
1d MR. JORDAN: I think in the context of the 1
17 rule and the reg guide, the program that we're talking 18 about has the element of looking at the implementation 1
19 in that program and the feedback mechanism to further 20 improvement. And I think it would include both. )
21 MR. STELLO: I understood Commissioner 22 Roberts' question, though, to really basically mean 23 the paper.part.
i 24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I'm using your 25 presentation of May the 2nd. q NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.N W l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
! . l 25 1 MR. STELLO: That was the paper part of the 2 plan.
3 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: And there are none 4 that are poor in the plan. In implementation, you say 5 4.8 percent. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's proceed.
7 MR. DEY: Slide 8 is a continuation of our 8 discussion of the objectives of the rule and reg 9 guide. What we intend to do is define a basic 10 maintenance standard, but provide the flexibility and 11 the responsibility to licensees to conduct the 12 detailed maintenance practices, as appropriate.
13 What we've done is provided a balance 14 between what we feel is an essential requirement in 15 guidance and what is most beneficial to be determined 16 on a plant-specific basis. And we feel that this 17 approach should not divert resources from what's 18 actually being done at the plants at the present.
19 For detailed good practices, maintenance 20 practi':es, there are a number of guides already 21 available published by the INPO, maintenance 22 guidelines, IEEE and BPRI. And these could be 23 utilized for the detailed practices.
24 The second bullet emphasizes that the rule-25 making provides an option for industry participation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCReERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WA$HINGTON D C 27X6 (202) 232-6EC
l
- 26 1 through a third party certification process, along i
2 with the development of a maintenance standard. We 3 feel that it's appropriate and it's the opportunity 4 for industry to take the lead and continue its S initiatives in this option.
6 We feel that rulemaking will provide I
7 incentive to industry to develop basic and 8 supplementary standards. The staff considers these 9 standards are esser.' ial .
10 The next slide, 9, is a summary of the final 11 rule. As I mentioned, the basic approach is non-12 prescriptive. It's performance-oriented and 13 emphasizes implementation and not paper and 14 documentation.
15 The rule provides the essential requirement j 16 for a standard. Maintenance is a living process.
17 It's conducted by monitoring the effectiveness of the 18 program, assessment, and feedback. These are critical 19 and essential elements that would be required. -
20 An effective progrr.m can only be achieved 21 through operational experience by understanding the l I
i 22 underlying causes cf anomalies and failures and by l 23 trending equipment history, providing strong !
i i
24 engineering support to this, and an integrated 1 25 program. The activities listed in the final rule ]
NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W
( Kty; 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 l
~ _-__-__
L 27 1 should be' integrated in tha maintenance program.
'2 Slide 10, as. a result of our analysis of 3 public comments, we.did make a number of changes to 4 the proposed rule. The first was on the scope. A.
5 number-. o f commenters, as I mentioned ' eerlici ,.
6 indicated concern on the scope, and we have-explicitly 7 defined ~our intent in that area.
8 Secondly, as previously mentioned, there are 9 now two-options in the rule itself for implementation 10 of the rule. The first one was in the proposed rule, 11 that individual licensees coeld certify their own 12 programs'through use of a reg guide.
13- But we've added the second option in the 14 rule that NRC-approved third party certification, in 15 conjunction with industry-developed maintenance 16 standards, is also available to licensees for 17 implementing the rule. And this provides flexibility 18 for industry to continue its initiatives and not 19 detract from what they're currently doing.
. 20 on the next slide, 11, is a detailed 21 discussion of our modification to the scope of the i
22 rule. As I mentioned, the major comment was on the 23 maintenance requirements for the BOP, would add 24 administrative controls that would be costly, l
25 However, we feel, staff feels, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202)2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 )
28 j 1 maintenance should - be conducted commensurate with~
i 2 safety significance and, therefore, the wording of the 3 scope of the rule has been altered to clarify this q l
4 intent. And this rulemaking approach shonid not ;
5 divert industry resources.
6 The scope, as it reads now in the rule, is 7 that it would include structure systems and components 8 described in documents required by 10 CFR 50.34; for' 9 example, the final safety analysis report, and whose 10 failure could significantly affect safety or security.
11 This certainly includes equip. ment in the 12 BOP, and it's -already part of the licensing basis of 13 plants. 10 CFR 50.34 requires licensees to include 1
l 14 plants for conduct of maintenance of structure systems
-15 and components, looking at the plant as a whole.
l l 16 I would like to emphasize, on the graded 17 approach, that maintenance should be conducted 18 commensurate with importance to safety and focus on 19 important systems.
. 20 Next slide, 12, provides esmo dates for the 1
21 implementation of our proposed final rule. As is 22 indicated, there's flexibility for two options:
'23 first, utilizing the regulatory guide and individual 24 certification from licensees; and the second option, 25 use of an industry standard and third party NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 /.433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
, .. 4 29' l g
.1 certification process, . which could be utilized for l
2 initial certification or later on if the industry so f
I 3 chose. 3 4- The rule would provide certification and i l
5 assurance to the Commission that by'these end dates, y l 6 that effective programs would be in place in that time 7 period.
i 8 Slide 13 is a discussion on the draft 9 regulatory guide. I would like to go .through it 10 quickly since it's a continuation of our objectives 11 and thinking of the rule.
12 The regulatory guide is in draft form. The 13 staff believes it's ready for public comment.
14 However, it will improve through ' the - public comment 15 process and through peer review.
16 Stress that the reg guide provides guidance 17 on . the essential elements, and by is learning from 18 operational experience, is the hef to success.
19 Slide 14, continuation of the draft l
20 regulatory guide, allows flexibility in the use of 21 existing industry guides, and we don't feel a 22 commitment to detailed conduct of practice is 23 necessary. l 24 And, therefore, we believe that this should 25 have little or no impact on licensees with existing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W f( (202) 2M33 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
30 i, -
- :1 . good programs and , - tharef ore , not detract or: divert
'2- ' resources.
3- Slide 15 is a schematic of the draft'.-
4 regulatory . guide.- Briefly, it takes maintenance as a 5 living' process that should ' be integrated and 6 systematic,- where overall maintenance strategy , is 7' defined, strategy goals and . objectives, maintenance 8 conducted commensurate with this, but, most' 9 ' importantly, .that the program, maintenance . program,
'10 effectiveness is monitored, experience is monitored, 11 assessed, ' and ' corrective actions are executed, the 12 program adjusted. including trending, root cost
-13 analysis, engineering support, which are critical 14 elements.
15 The regu'latory guide provides the basic 16 guidance and criteria for these following steps. And
.17 that's all of the discussion we have on the regulatory 18 guide.
l 19 And Tom King will continue the briefing.
- 20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: What's the 21 significance of the dotted line to the definition of 22 " assessment"?
23 MR. DEY: We feel that the dotted line is a 24 path which is not as often gone through as the other 25 two paths. Overall maintenance strategy should not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202)234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
33.
1 have . 'to change that often. However, through plants
2 life;and age, it may. .
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's proceed.
4 MR .- KING:. If I ' may.' have Slide 16, please,.
5 'I'm going to talk about the supporting-basis for the 6 rule and the reg guide and then finish with up with 7 the< conclusion and recommendation.
8 Because of the approach we have taken in the 9 development of the rule and reg guide; that is, one to 10 allow flexibility for a licensee to develop this 11 program and one that. stresses self-assessment and 12 improvement, we have put together the supporting 13 documentation on the rule. and reg guide along the
- 14. lines of enhanced safety.
15 You will recall the proposed rulemaking 16 package had a question in it regarding should this 17 . rule and reg- guide be justified on adequate 18 protection.
19 We have received quite a bit of ' comment on 20 that, all negative. And we feel now that enhanced 21 safety is the proper approach for justifying this rule I
22 and reg guide.
23 We feel that enheaced safety can be 24 addressed both qualitatively and through quantitative i
25 analysis or what we cal) " regulatory impact analysis." l l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2W33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
R l 'r: >.
32-1 I'm-going to talk about both of these.
2 On the next slide, 17, qualitative basis, we 3- found there's universal agreement, everyone that 4 worked on this rule within the staff, industry, ACRS, L 5 that maintenance has a direct impact on plant safety 6 by affecting both reliability of safety systems and 7 the frequency of challenge to new safety systems and 8 to operators. Therefore, we believe that maintenance 9 is an area appropriate for NRC to consider regulation.
10- Continuing on, on Slide 18, also found 11 through the maintenance team inspection results. to-12 date that there is still a variation across the 13 industry in maintenance program, particularly the 14 implementation, and the industry has not yet achieved 15 a uniferm good performance in the maintenance area.
16 Although there are industry initiatives 17 underway to improve maintenance, it is not clear as to 18 the schedule or pace for improvement. Therefore, we 19 believe that supporting this rule, it would also 20 facilitate the Commission's ability to take action to 21 achieve improvement, by both establishing general 22 requirements and by setting a schedule for 23 implementation an achievement of an effective means 24 for it.
25 Continuing on, Page 19, we believe the rule NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-66Ui)
I -
33 p 1 .- 'will stabilize and better define maintenance 2 requirements for both licensees and for the staff.
3 The.t will help assure good maintenance is achieved and 4 sustained over the life of the plant.
5 I think the " sustained" should be emphasized 6 because we're assuming, on the average, there's 30-7 year life left for the plants that are operating 8 today.
9 The rule and the regulatory guide will also 10 help ensure the effects of aging are considered in 11' maintenance programs. And we believe it will 12 facilitate life-extension decisions by having a good 13 program in place to monitor plant condition and l
14 maintaining appropriate records to document that plant 15 condition.
I 16 Regarding the regulatory impact analysis, or 17 the quantitative support for the rule, as Moni 18 mentioned, we received many comments on the proposed l 19 regulatory analysis that was published back in 20 November.
21 Major comments were that there was no ,
l 1
22 standard which could be used as a measure to judge 23 where improvements were needed when we estimated the i 24 cost and that the data we used for assessing the plant 25 performance, changing risk, as well as where industry NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 l i
'1
J .'T r;' : -.
34 l
' maintenance programs needed to improve was outdated.
2i And we also received a number of specific comments on 3 .the regulatory. impact' analysis.
4 We revised the regulatory impact analysis to 5- reflect these major comments and many of the more 6 detailed comments. And we believe the regulatory 7 impact analysis now adequately addresses the major 8 comments received and incorporates appropriately many 9 of the -other comments. And I will discuss these a 10 little further on in the presentation.
11 The ' regulatory impact analysis shows an 12 overall positive net benefit of the rule when-it 13 considers the reduction in public risk,.the cost to 14 the industry to implement'the rule, and the industry 15- ' cost savings we've estimated as a result of the rule.
16 Costs to NRC were estimated to be small and 17 that they basically can be ignored in the analysis.
18 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: On that point, before l- 19 you proceed, in the draft regulatory analysis, the l
20 staff made the following statement, "A substantial 21 share of the risk reduction estimated under this rule 22 will be gained under the status quo even without a 4
23 maintenance rule."
24 Is the reduction in risk here attributable 25 to what would be required under the rule or is it a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2m WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 l
l
~35 l' reduction that would come about given the 'progrees 2' that we've seen to-date already on maintenance?
3 MR. KING: The numerical values show-up on 4 Slide 22. Those values take into account the fact 5 that we have given' credit for industry initiatives, 6 which we'll take you'a certain distance down the path 7 in improving maintenance. And I will talk about the 1
8 assumptions we use and the reductions, or the credit, 9 that we have for that.
10 Let me move on to Slide 21. Before I get 11 into the quantitative results, I just 'want to 12 emphasize that while the regulatory impact analysis 13 was not .used as the sole basis for the rule, we 14 believe that it does determine that a rule can be 15 implemented in a fashion that enhances safety in a 16 cost-effective manner. And I would come back to this 17 point later also, using some numbers for illustration.
18 I next would like to talk about the results 19 from the regulatory impact analysis, which are shown
. 20 on Page 22. I'll spend a few minutes talking about 21- these numbers, where they came from, some of the major 22 assumptions we've made.
23 I'll also talk about the ranges. You'll see 24 a column here called " Ranges." Those numbers were not 25 in the SECY-89-143, but we did commit in that SECY to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCR$ERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2M WASHINGTON O C 20005 (202) 232 4 600
36 1 talP about those at today's briefing, and I will talk 2 about those as well.
3 This is a way of introduction. In arriving 4 at all of the numbers that you see on this slide, we 5 used the latest results from the maintenance team l 6 inspections to: one, estimate the number of plants 7 that were rated as either having good, satisfactory, 8 or poor maintenance programs; and to identify those 9 areas that needed improvement. Particularly, that was 10 useful in trying to estimate where the costs would 11 come from to implement the rule.
12 I would like to note that if you take the 13 maintenance team inspection results, they project a 14 number approximately of six poor plants , plants that 15 would be rated with poor maintenance programs. And 16 that's consistent with a number NUMARC gave us in 17 commenting on this rule of six to eight plants that 18 they considered having poor maintenance programs.
19 All right. Let me start by talking about 20 the risk reduction numbers. We estimated our based 21 case or best estimate at 50,000 person REM reduction 22 in risk as a result of this rule.
23 This was based upon using actual 1988 plant 24 data for unplanned scrams and safety system failures 25 to estimate the improvement possible with plants with NEAL R. GROSS !
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W i (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 6600
L. .- .
'37 -
-I average or below average scram safety system failure 2' rates, or to improve'to that of the top 25 percent 3 plants.
L L 4 Those improvements' were then substituted 5 into probabilistic risk assessment and changes in risk 6 calculated. I'd like to note that we did not assume 7 any change in risk as a result of this-rule for the l-8 plants that were ' characterized as having good 9 maintenance. programs.
10 In using the probabilistic risk assessment, 11 we chose a baseline risk value consistent with the l 12 number that NUMARC provided in their comments on the 13 proposed regulatory impact' analysis.
14 We then made adjustments to those risk 15 values to account for two things: one, the fact that 16 not all improvement in risk can be attributed to 17 maintenance.
18 We used the NUMARC suggested value that only 19 50 percent of the improvement in risk can be 20 attributed to maintenance and we gave credit for the 21 industry initiatives.
.22 If they continue, they will achieve 23 improvement in maintenance and, accordingly, some 24 reduction in risk. And we gave credit, another 50 25 percent reduction in our estimated value, to give NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
(
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 l
38 1- ' credit for the industry initiatives, i.
2 This . resulted in our best estimate risk 3 value.of 50,000 person REMS. To estimate.the range in 4 risk of 0 to 100, we looked at the two extremes, 5 mainly that the rule causes no improvement in risk, 6 which equates to 0 and, conversely, that the industry 7' initiatives cause no further improvement, which 8 equates to the 100,000 person REM.
- 9. Turning to the costs to implement the rule,.
10 we estimated a base case of $658 million. We-11 considered all 110 plants and discounted costs over 30 12 years.
13 We followed the structure of the draft 14 regulatory guide in defining the cost elements. We 15 used the maintenance tomb inspection results to 16 identify the areas needing improvement, as well as the 17 number of plants needing improvement.
18 This resulted in the poor plants having a 19 higher cost to implement the rule than the 20 satisfactory, and the satisfactory having a higher 21 cost than the good plants.
22 We did assume some costs for the good plants 23 as well, primarily for initial implementation and then 24 to maintain this feedback corrective action steps that 25 the reg guide calls for, that the rule calls for.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W j (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600 u ;
39 1 We tried to use actual data as .aach as L 2 possible in estimating the costs to implement the 3 rule. And, similarly, to the addressment made in the 4 risk calculation, we reduced many of the costs by 50 5 percent to account for the fact that some of the costs 6 will be realized as part of implementing the industry 7 initiatives. .
l 8 To estimate the range in cost, we took two ;
i, 9 extremes using data supplied by NUMARC. For the lower 10 REM cost, we used the results of a recent March 29, l
11 '89 NUMARC survey, which was directed toward updating
.L 2 the information that went into putting together NUREG i
13 1212. l 1
i 14 Based upon this survey, NUMARC indicated 15 that many of the desired improvements in maintenance 16 were already in place. Therefore, we adjusted our 17 cost estimates accordingly to remove the cost.s for 18 these items that resulted in the lower range cost 19 number. The upper end cost number was t..e number 20 supplied by NUMARC in their comments on the proposed 21 rule.
22 Cost savings to industry, we assumed that 23 improvement in maintenance on improved plant
)
24 performance would result in reduced down time. We 1
25 looked at 1988 capacity factor data to estimate the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W i (2023 234 4 33 WASH!NGTON D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
- .
- . 40 ti ..
L l' improvement > possible '. in going from the poor. to the 2 ' satisfactory plants to a good plant, plant with a good .
I 3 maintenance program. i a n.
4 -We assumed ' for the best estimate or base
- 5 case that the improvement in capacity factor'for the 6 four plants was 16 percent and' for the satisfactory, 7 plants 1 percent. Again, we gave credit-for industry.
8 initiative to 50 percent, and we ended up with a cost 9 saving to industry of $1.3 billion.
10 To estimate the range in cost savings, we 11 -assumed for the lower end that no change in down time 12- or capacity . factor would result from this rule.
13 Therefore, there would be no cost savings.
14 For the high end, we assumed all plants 15 achieved at capacity factor, each to the upper. 25 16 percent, but gave full credit for industry initiatives 17 to achieve INPO goals for availability. What this all 18 boils dc,wn to is the rule gets credit for a seven 19 percent increase in plant capacity factor for the 20 upper end value.
21 This leads me to the nest slide, Page 23, 22 which numerically illustrates the sensitivity of the 23 results to any improvement in capacity factor or, 24 stating it another way, that this rule would result in 25 -- just an improvement of one-half of one percent in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEPS AND TRANSCRIBERS i 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W I
(202) 2M WASHINGTON. O C 20006 (202) 232-6600
41 i
.. J 1' capacity factor, .it would be cost beneficial' to 2 implement this rule, using the staff's best estimate,
.1 3 base. case cost values.
4 The sensitivity of the' results' to '1 5 improvement'in. capacity factor also indicates our view 6 that in many cases, it would be cost beneficial for a
'7 licensee to shoot for and attain a- level of 8 performance in maintenance consistent with the . top 9 performers in the industry.
10 Finally, on the last page, this leads to our 11 conclusion that, based on the potential of the rule ~to 12 affect greater improvement in maintenance and to 13 prompt' industry participation in the development of a 14 maintenance standard, we recommend that when the 15 Commission proceed with promulgation.of the final rule 16 and publication of the draft regulatory guide for 17 ' comment, that the staff continue development of the 18 regulatory guide and that industry participation 19 strictly to develop a standard in third party 20 certification process continue to be sought.
21 This completes the presentation.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very 23 much.
24 Questions, comments by my fellow 25 Commissioners? Commissioner Roberts?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 2324400 (202) 234 4 433 i
7 ,.,
l 42 l
1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I-have'no questions, 2- Ljust a comment.. I'.think most of the things NRC staff lI 1
3 undertakes', they do quite well, and I think there cre.
4 a number of things that-the staff undertakes that they )
-5 'do in outstanding fashion.
6 But, in my observation, assigning dollar ')
7 values to claims , such as risk reduction of cost 8 implement and cost savings, we are imminently t
9 unqualified to do. And I am quite skeptical of these 1 l
10 numbers on Pages 22 and 23 of your presentation.
11 That's all. Thank you.
l 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Commissioner 13 Carr?
14' COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, I've got some 15 comments on it. I, too,. am convinced that a
'16 maintenance rule is needed, but I'm not any more 17 convinced that we know how to write a good one than we 18 did when we started.
19 The rule looks to me a lot like our policy I
. 20 statement, which is about where we were when we i
21 '
started. I'm uneasy about the reg guide because I 22 think it needs a lot of improvement. As I say, 23 though, I think a rule is needed, and I think we ought 24 to proceed in that direction.
25 I'm concerned. My personal opinion is you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 1
43 I water.down the balance-of plant when you've corrected 2 it,in accordance~with the industry's request. I'think 3 I would rather you hadn't have done that.
4 It-looks to me like you've attempted a weak 5 definition of what's important-to safety and. haven't 6 .really come.up with anything. I don't know who's 7 going to decide what that significant to safety 8 section is, and that worries me.
9 If we're going,to leave that to the resident 10 inspectors, we're going to have a compendium in there, 11 and there's nothing in there that' defines it any 12 further. And if each plant defines their own, I'm not 13 sure I like that piece of the action.
14 I guess I like least of all the letter 15- campaign that was generated by industry and NUMARC.
26 They might as well have sent me a form letter. I got 17 multitudiness from people I know don't know as much 18 about maintenance as I do. And that didn't do me any 19 good from a morale standpoint.
20 I would rather they would have cooperated 21 instead of deciding to stonewall me. I don't like 22 being stonewalled, and I almost just voted for a rule 23 of good or bad. And if they stonewall me for the next 24 year, they might get a bad rule.
25 I think the maintenance inspections have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 2G005 (202) 232 4600 {
i 44 1 been good. I think we're learning.a lot from them. I 2 think they're doing a lot of good for the industry. I 3 think we should continue those.
4 And when we get through, I think ve'11 know 5 more about what we want to write in that rule and 6 they'll know more about what we're looking at.
.7 I think we can write a. good rule. I don't 8 think we have, and I don't know how long it will be 9 until we can, but I, too, think we need one.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you.
11 Commissioner Rogers?
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, a couple of 13 questions, maybe some observations. In the AEOD 14 special study report " Maintenance Problems in Nuclear 15 Power Plants" in May of 1989, you looked at the 16 quality of plant maintenance and various modes of 17 common failures due to poor maintenance practices. {
18 Have any comparable analyses of plant 19 maintenance efficacy been undertaken and published by !
- 20 the industry, such as INPO, NUMARC, or EPRI?
21 MR. JORDAN: Commissioner Rogers, individual 22 issues have been published, like on motor-operated 23 valves or on service water systems, by industry, but l
24 no compendium in the fashion that I think you're 25 asking, to our knowledge.
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
_ _ _ _ - -- - o
6 45 1- COMMISSIONER ' ROGERS : Well, has industry 2 taken any exception - to 'the data presented in the 3 findings or the conclusions of the AEOD special study?
'4 MR.-JORDAN: Not to my knowledge, no, sir.
5 COMMISSIONER ' ROGERS: What is the staff's-6 view with regard to the consequences of issuing a 1
7 policy statement now? Would, in your view, that 8 represent the end to rulemaking on this subject?
9 MR. STELLO: Well, no, because the 10 Commission can, any time it decides, issues a rule.
11 So it wouldn't necessarily -- it should not: signal to 12 anyone that it's an end. ,
1 13 However, I think it would have the side 14 effect of sort of sensing the heat's off in this area, 15 maybe easing up a little bit. And that has me i
16 concerned.
17 I agree completely with Commissioner Carr..
18 I don't think we are really expert at writing such a J 19 rule. That expertise really resides in the industry.
. 20 I don't know how we can get their attention and say, ;
21 " Sit down. Do a good job. Put together a third party 1
22 system. Do it right."
23 Saying it over and over again maybe isn't 24 going to make it happen, but perhaps having a rule, 25 maybe a bad one, having that hanging over their head j NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W i
{202) 2Mg WASHINGTON, D C 2000$ (202) 232-6600 l l
46 {
( y 1 may make it right end it will go to '. the ' third party -
2 ; certification and we'll get it done.
3 I think if we.give policy,~it will postpone l'
1 4 that time. I think it will just put it off.
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Has industry commented
- 6. on ' the economic analysis contained in the proposed 1
7 rule? Mr. Roberts had some skepticism about 'it. I 8 don't have any basis for judging the quality of it one 9- way or the other, but my understanding is that you 10 have looked at this again, haven't you, on the basis i
11 of comments? '
12 MR. STELLO: The numbers really are not that i
13 mysterious in terms of what benefit do you get out of 14 an increased capacity factor of "X" percent? We've i
15 done an awful lot of studies on --
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Normally, it has to do 17 with the cost.
18 MR. STELLO: -- the replacement power costs, I i
19 and they range anywhere from --
somebody help my
. 20 memory -- a quarter of a million to three-quarters of 21 a million dollars per day per plant as a range. Is 22 that about right?
23 MR. MORRIS: I think it's about right, 24 depending on location.
25 MR. STELLO: Depending on location, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REFORTEPS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234g WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
o' ,
47
-s-1 would be. If you take 100 plants, you know, 1 parcont 2 change is equivalent'to 1 plant.
I raised the issue, i
3 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
4 I have less problem with the accuracy of that number.
5 than-the numbers on Page 22. Certainly, if you can 6 posit we're going to increase capacity factor by "X" 1
7 percent, I think you can come up with a reasonably 8 accurate number for that. I question the numbers on 9 Page.22.
10 MR. STELLO: Okay. But I think the real 11 number-that drives the system is the end result of do 12 you get any increased availability of capacity as a 13 result of improved maintenance? I am convinced beyond 14 any doubt you will.
15 And you can see that the number is driven 16 basically by that fundamental conclusion. If I do a 17 good job at maintenance in those plants that have done 18 a good job at maintenance, in fact, operate their i
19 plant at much higher availability capacity than 20 others.
21 And that's an inevitable conclusion. And 22 that number itself drives the cost benefit.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think that's ve'ry 24 clear. There shouldn't be any argument on that one.
25 You've been looking at maintenance
}
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS ]
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W i (202, m3 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 u
I
48
~
1 inspections and with a view toward plant life 2 extension possibilities. What . is your view with 3 = respect to the adequacy of the maintenance equipment 4 history data as to whether it's in sufficient detail 5 that reliable trending can be'made to support a plant l 6 life' extension proposal right now?
1 7 MR. STELLO: I think we. have enough 8 information where we could start to answer, but I' l 9 don't think we've done that yet. I think we ought to 10 probably put off definitive about- an answer until 11 we've'actually done it. We haven't.
12 A good maintenance program will clearly go a 13 long way in helping it because it will, almost 14 inevitably, include the very answer to that question 15 as part of the implementation and program.
16 If a component wears out, you start to track 17 it. You know-it. You know when it wears out, and you 18 know when it needs to be replaced.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I believe we 20 need a rule, but I also am not sure that we're all 21 together on what we think a rule ought to look like 22 and what it ought to do. And we're having a great 23 deal of difficulty with that.
24 I myself feel very strongly that a rule 25 should be a non-prescriptive rule and that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W q (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202)2324600
- . 49
^
- 1. ultimate responsibility has to be with the licensees i
- 2. for how they carry out a maintenance program, but that it should perform in a way which is satisfactory to j 3'l
'I 4 us.
5 In other words , I think we . should be- 1 1
6 measuring outcomes and not process, a point that was 1
7 made at the workshop, I . think , at least ' that we 8 shouldn't be measuring process, at any rate.
9 However, I must say that I agree with 10 Commissioner Carr that the industry's reaction here 31 has been less than exemplary. I've read the comments 12 in the proposed rule. And I must say that I have to 13 shake my head at many of them for the lack of 14 substance to them and that issues, important issues, 15 are reduced to absurdities and then dismissed.
16 I'm very disappointed to see how little 17 assistance that we've gotten in trying to take a step 18 which, in my view, is a very necessary one, namely to 19 be able to assure ourselves that maintenance 'is 20 adequate.
]
21 And I don't think we've gotten any help with l
22 this at all, and I hope that if we in the months j 23 ahead, to whatever we do, that we will not be -- our ,
i 24 actions will not be interpreted as a lack of forceful 25 attention to the importance of maintenance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ )
,m 50 A 1 Now, it's certainly trus'that the smarts for 2 doing this reside in the industry. I think we all 3 agree on that, and we need help on it. But we also 4 have a job to do for the American people here, and 5 that is to watch very carefully and to be able to 6 assure them that, in our opinion, plants are being 7 maintained safely.
8 And'I don't know that we're getting any help 9 whatsoever in discharging our responsibility in that 10 direction. And I must say-I'm very disappointed.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Curtiss?
12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Well, I guess I'm 13 puzzled about a number of aspects of this whole-14 initiative, and I'm not even quite sure. where to 15 start. Let me just roam through my thoughts that I've 16 written down in this briefing.
17 I'll just go out to a point that Mr. Stello 18 made at the outset. I gather the undertone that 19 exists here is a concern that if the Commission should 20 back off the initiative in its present form --
in l 21 fact, you pretty much said this at the outset -- that i
22 the progress that we've seen to-date in the industry 23 that's been documented as recently as the May report 24 that Commission Rogers referred to in the maintenance 25 team inspections, that progress will flag and that we NEAL R. GROSS )
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 2 02) 232 6600
51' 1 won't oee the kind of improvement, either in the 2 . development of plans, which I gather are coming along-3 pretty'well, or in the implementation of those plans,
- 4 which may not 'be coming .along quite as well as we 5 would like.
6 I guess. I'd like to ask two questions on.
7 that point. One, if.you were able to wave a magic-8 wand over the maintenance program today and to assure 9 that the progress that we have seen to-date in the 10 industry on maintenance, both plans and implementation 11 of programs, were to continue at its current pace, 12 would you recommend a maintenance rule if that were a 13 predictable and certcin outcome?
14 MR. STELLO: You tell me --
and I.want to 15 make sure that I understand your assumption --
that 16 maintenance will continue to improve and all plants 17 will do a good job, independent of whether we have a 18 rule or not; therefore, would I still recommend a 19 rule?
- 20 And the answer is obvious: No, I won't.
21 COMMISSIONER CARR: You already said if they 22 were to continue to improve at the current rate of j 23 improvement, which you --
4 24 MR. STELLO: At that current base.
25 COMMISSIONER CARR: -- that they have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 200Db (202) 232 6600
52 y .
1 improved over the last three years. j
- 2. MR. STELLO: I said if it clearly continues 3 to where they all get very good --
I I
4 COMMISSIONER CARR: At that rate. !
5 MR. STELLO: -- at that rate, I'd be happy. '!
'la 6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: We're not -
7 dissatisfied with the progress that the industry has 8 made or the pace of the progress that.they've made-and 9 the projections.
10 And I gather, with a few exceptions, you 11 estimate that there are 6 bad plants, 81 satisfactory 12 plants,-23 or 22 --
13 MR. STELLO: We haven't been to all of them.
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: -- excellent plants.
15 MR. STELLO: 25 or 26, something like that. >
16 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: But if you were able l l
17 to lock in the progress that is being made, that's the !
I 18 curious thing about the rule, that it's almost the 19 threat of the rule.
20 We all agree that we don't know how to write 21 a very good rule. I think the staff's done a good job i 22 trying to put together its best effort. And I, too, 23 am disappointed that we haven't seen more progress 24 from the industry, but I guess I'm almost on the fence 25 on this question of whether we're likely to see the )
NEAL R. GROSS .
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODI IS!.AND AVENUE, N W (202) 23u.433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202)232 4 600
_ - - _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . - _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ._. . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - . - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ . .. b
s..
_53
, x: ,
-*b >
1.' progress _in the industry' flag'if-the Commisoion takes
' . 2' - note of,; recognizes, and applauds the industry for the.
3 . progress they've made-and crosses its fingers and 4' : hopes that it will continue.
T- 5: What do you think ~ is the-basis for the 6 conclusion that the industry will. flag in its progress
'7 in;the_ future if the Commission'doesn't move forward?'
8 MR. STELh0: Twenty-three . years ' worth of' 9 . the ': AEC , NRC. It's been my experience that those 10 things that we emphasize and regulate, we see the-
-11 industry respond and-they start to do a good job.
12- Those-things that we take or let alone, they 13- tend to let alone. It's just my experience, my 14 observation that's the way the solution seems to work.
15 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Although I guess it's-16 not clear- that we're just going to leave the issue i
17 alone, we do have the SALPs and the maintenance team 18 inspections and the SSFIs, and we have a considerable 19 effort in the maintenance area at this point,
, 20 And let me add to that, as the maintenance 21 team inspections have shown, the shortcoming is really 22 on the implementation side, which suggests, at least 23 to me, that maybe there's an enforcement shortcoming.
24 Maybe what we need to do is recognize that ,
25 the plans are pretty sound and, through the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W Q02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.DC 20005 0 02) 232-6600
54 1 enforcement machanism that we hava, and,.I take it, if 2 used under Appendix B and elsewhere, the SALP process, 3 the maintenance' team inspections, do what-needs to be i done to bring about improvement on the. implementation 5 side.of maintenance.
6 MR. STELLO: If we don't have a rule, that's i
7 the only course we can follow and surely one we will.
8 COMMISSIONER CARR: Have we detected any 9 maintenance programs that have gone downhill and they j 10 were better than they are now?
11 MR. STELLO: Well, . there are some that I'd 12 say'over the years, I can't get ecstatic that they've 13 gotten very good or any better, like Turkey Point.
14 COMMISSIONER CARR: Yes, but I'think --
15 MR. STELLO: I think I would -- from recent 16 experience --
17 COMMISSIONER CARR: There wasn't much room 18 for them to go.
19 MR. STELLO: Well, they stayed pretty much
. 20 the same, not improved.
21 Calvert Cliffs would be probably an example l
22 of a plant where it's a little frustrating of recent 23 experience overall, including maintenance.
l 24 COMMISSIONER CARR: From my personal 25 feeling, I think that --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2 % 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232-6600 t
_ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
j-
.. 55-
~
1 MR. STELLO: If you really had some time, I 2 probably could come up with others, and I think maybe 3 there has been a slide,
- 4. COMMISSIONER CARR: ' My. personal' feeling on 5 whether they'll get better'or not if'we don't do 6 anything is they will finally realize that's where the 7 money is.
8 If' they maintain their plants and stay on l 9 the line, they make more money than they would, but I 10 don't think that. they will do it as rapidly as they 11 would if we urged them on.
12 MR. STELLO: That's been so obvious for so 13 long that that's where the money is to really run the 14 plant well, and you get your money back, that we think 15 that that.would have been enough to have caused,this 16 turnaround by itself over the last 10 or 15 years.
17 And it certainly didn't get done. l 18 Yes. My best shot, or my best judgment, is 19 that if we oack off, I just sense I see the industry i
. 20 back off.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: We certainly have seen 22 some plants that have been good performers at one time 23 that are on.our black list. We certainly have seen I
24 that, that what was an excellent performing plant 10 25 years ago or so is suddenly -- not so suddenly, but
]
NEAL R. GROSS j I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE *JUE. N W rr 2)234 g WA$HINGTON. D C. 20005 @ 2) 232-6600 ]
I l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ !J
56 I has slipped into a condition where we're really.
s.
2 concerned about. it and have taken some rather severe 3 ' action against some of these.
4 I don't really see any reason why 5 maintenance is any different from any other part of 6 managing the plant. If it goes sour in one area, why 7 shouldn't it go scur in maintenance? Bad decisions, 8 bad management can lead to a slippage.
9 I'm concerned. I'm very pleased to see'the 10 improvements that industry- has .been making in 11 maintenance. I think they're excellent. I think we 12 have seen very good progress. l 13 My concern, however, is: Where's the 14 backstop to this? Where's the break that's going to 15 stop it from slipping back down again? If there's 16 some change.in the management of a particular company, l
17 or something like this, and somebody gets a bright 18 idea of how to save some money and start deferring 19 some maintenance and it becomes a way of life, then
. 20 you're back down again on something.
21 And yes, it is our responsibility to watch 22 for that and blow the whistle when it happens. But it 23 would be better to have a more systematic way of the 24 . organization itself coming to that conclusion. That i
25 gives us confidence. It's a question, again, of '
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANCCHIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.O C 20005 (202) 232-6600
57 '
. 4 3
. l' accountability in a certain sense.
l 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner.Curtiss, do you i: 3 have any-other comments? l 4 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: No, I t h i n k ' t h a t s 5 all. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, my views are ;
7 reasonably well-known, I believe. I, .too, am very 8 disappointed in the utilities' response to 'this i
9 rulemaking effort that we 'have had out. I feel 10 somewhat responsible for beginning this initiative 11 some time ago.
12- I, frankly, do believe it's in the 13 utilities' best interest to do a good job 'in l
14 maintenance'. Clearly, it's a safety matter, in my .
15 judgment.
16 Maintenance improves safety. I don't think i
17 anyone can doubt that. Maintenance improves 18 reliability. I think that's very clear. Maintenance 19 certainly should improve capacity factor. And I think
. 20 we can all agree that that should be an evident l \
l 21 conclusion. i
)
22 Therefore, it seems to me that l' I were a 23 utility executive, no-one would have to tell me now 24 important its maintenance is. Now, the fact that this 25 Agency has gone to the extent we have to develop a NEAL R. GROSb COUR ' he,-unTERS AND TRAF JCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUL N W (pop 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
.J
L E 58 1
'. .. 1
( '1 maintenance' rule should be a very clear signal to the.
2~ utilities' that this Agency believes, because . of our i
3 safety responsibilities, that maintenance is important !
I L. 4 and to our being able to carry out our mission for j l
5 public health and safety and protecting the.public. J
$ On the other hand, it is very disappointing I'
7 to.me to recognize that the utilities themselves have 8 ~ banded together so unif ortaly in opposing something 9 that ma'ces such plain common sense to me. It's been a i k
10 big disappointment to my tour, I must say, on the 11 Commission to get such a negative response from the 12 utilities.
13 And it 's an even bigger disappointment 14 because, as you know, I visited every plant in our 15 country. I've talked to most all of the senior 16 management people, senior executives, as well as the 17 operational people at the plant. And I just simply 18 don't understand the position that they have taken so 19 uniformly in this regard.
. 20 So I'm not impressed with that and I'm 21 d%A; appointed in it. It is in their best interest, in 22 my judgment, clearly in their best interest. Setting ,
i 1
23 aside the safety considerations and thinking only of 24 economics, if I were a utility executive, I would have d
25 a very difficult time trying to explain to my board of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600
?
A ,2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
l i
- 59 L1. directors. why . I didn't support a' strong maintenance 2 program in my plant.
3 Setting aside safety again, if you only.
4 considered economic factors, I think we all-know that 5 the formula has been discussed earlier that if we 6 increase one percent. capacity factor in all the plants
'7 in our country, that would be the same as having one 8 more power plant in our country, essentially, roughly, 9 1,000 megawatts a yesr in our country for 1 percent -
10 capacity factor.
11' My conclusion -- I don' t ref t f.e' your figures 12 on the cost ' benefits. I thirt tney're reasonable..
13 'But whether they are or not, the point is, I think, it 14 makes - good common sense to concluce that increased 15 maintenance is going to increase not only the safety 16 of your plant cad your reliability, but increase your 17 capacity factor, therefore increase your profit of 18 )
your company.
19 From that standpoint, it's very oifficult
, 20 for me to understand why that kind of an investment 1
21 doesn't make sense to utility executives.
22 A rule is coming. I feel confident of that.
23 It's just a matter of time. My only advice to the 1
24 utilities would be: Let's get with it. Just because 25 it's not coming, maybe not now, it's going to come NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
60 1 .some day.
- 2. And if I were the utilities, I would take 3 the lead and recognize that it truly'is in their best 4 . interest and - improve their own- maintenance to the 5 point where - they could be proud of it and certainly 6 prouder than I think most of them can be now.
7 Well, let me thank the staff for their fine 8 work and for this excellent presentation. I' would 9 like to personally thank all of you staff members; Mr.
f 10 King, you, in particular, and your colleagues who 11 directly worked on this - particular matter with so.
12 little support from the utilities.
13 You did conduct a workshop, which was very 14 meaningful. It's my understanding you conducted it 15 with a great deal of dignity, a great deal of 16 statesmanship, with very little cooperation from the 17 utilities, but you did that with good grac.e, 18 integrity, competence. And I commend you for that, 19 all of you who participated in that workshop.
. 20 Mr. Stello, you and the Agency leadership 21 who have participated in this difficult effort, I 22 commend you, too, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Miraglia, and others 23 who have participated in this effort.
24 I think the staff deserves tremendous credit l
- 25 for taking on this very important issue. And I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE; N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232-6600 I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ 1
- n. -
61
,1 1- they've brought great credit to.this Agency in this 2 effort. Anyway, I'm proud of the all'of the staff for 3- the effort'they've done in this regard.
4 And I would encourage my fellow l 5 Commissioners to give careful consideration of the 6 proposal that I.have made, and I make it with great 7 reluctance, to defer rulemaking -at this time, but I I 8 believe it's the right thing to do.
9- When we vote on the maintenance' rule that 10: the staff has brought to the Commission, I would i
11 recommend to my colleagues th ts i, we at that time state 12 your individual views with respect to .the proposal 13 that I have made to defer rulemaking.
14 I support, and I fully support, a rule on I
15 maintenance. I believe, though, that the rule should 16 be developed by the staff to be the best rule we can i 17 make' it. I think it can be improved. I think it 18 should be imprcved. It would have been improved if 19 you had had utilit.;' assistance.
. 20 Should the Commission adopt my proposal for 21 deferring the rulemaking and, in place, put out a 22 strengthened policy statement, 'I would recommend that 23 we retain the basic elements of the present policy 24 statement with the appropriate revisions that are 25 based on the staff's efforts in this rulemaking.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W I (202) EW33 WASHINGTQN. D C 20005 ?202) 232-6600 )
l
m .
.;, ., 62 1 Because of the direct impact of maintenance i
2 on operational safety,- I would further revise the 3 current policy statement to encourage expanded t 4 industry use and participation in the nuclear plant 5 reliability data system; to encourage the further 6 ' development and use of maintenance performance 7 indicators; to emphasize the need for continued 1 I
8 -improvement in maintenance of nuclear power plants; to f l
a
- 9. indicate the Commission's intention to further refine 10 a uniform standard for maintenance; to indicate the i
11 Commission's intention to closely monitor the I
12 utilities' improvements in maintenance through our own-13 maintenance team inspections, routine inspectior.i and j 14 maintenance' performance indicators; to acknowledge the
.l 15 importance of well-executed and documented maintenance 16 programs to the Agency's efforts for plant life 17 extension program; and to state the Commission's q 18 resolve to issue plant-specific orders to those plants i l
19 that need specific improvements in maintenance. I 20 would ask you to take those thoughts into 21 considerations in developing the policy statement.
22 A good rule, in my judgment, on maintenance 23 for custom-built plants, like we have in our country, 24 is very difficult, in any case, to come up with. And 25 without the support of the utilities, a good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (102) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202)22 06 !
63 I 1 maintenance rule for these custom-built plants is
.i 2 extremely difficult, if near impossible, for our own j 3 staff to conclude that we can come up with confidence 4 with a rule.
5 And for that reason, although I continue to 6 support a rule, I'm willing to defer the rule at this 7 time in place of a policy statement.
8 I do believe that the utilities should 9 recognize that the Commission is serious about that.
10 I hope that the utilities will not take a deep breath 11 and think it's going away. I don't think it should go 12 away. I think this Agency, this Commission, has a 13 responsibility in due time to issue a rule that can be 14 satisfied with.
15 I would ask my fellow Commissioners, in i 16 reflecting on this matter and in casting your votes on 17 the maintenance rule and using it as a vehicle to l
18 bring forward your thoughts on this, that you proceed 19 reasonably promptly to conclude this issue so that we
. 20 can get on with the effort, hopefully, of developing a 21 stronger policy statement and continuing to develop 1 22 the reg guide, which would be required for the l I
23 rulemaking effort in the future. )
24 Those are my thoughts. And I say, with 25 great reluctance, that I think I've come to this NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBES l 1323 RHCDE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W (202) 2 % 4 33 WASHING 7ON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ I
64 4 , -
1~ conclusion. I thinkiwhat.we need is a good rule, a 2 solid ' rule, a rule that can be very confidentive.
3 .That does not mean that I detract in any way from the 4 staff's effort to develop such a rule.
-5 Again, I- commend the staf f for what they've 6 done in this regard. I think we'll all feel better in 7 the future when we can put a rule out on maintenance, 8 that we recognize the impacts on safety, . reliability, ll 9 as well as capacity factor, that will serve our 10 Agency, the American people, as well as the utilities.
11 That's what I look forward to some day, and 12 I feel confident that this Commission will bring that 13 forth in the not too distant future.
14 Any other comments?
15 (No response.)
16 If not, thank you very much for an excellent 17 presentation. We stand adjourned.
18 (Whereupon, the foregoing meeting was 19 adjourned at 3:32 p.m.)
. 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600 j
___1______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ ._
o
-;n... '.
?
I CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER.
This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting p
l of the United' St&tes Nuclear Regulatory Conunission entitled:
1 TITLE OF MEETING: COMMISSION BRIEFING ON THE FINAL RULEMAKING i AND MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
, DATE OF MEETING: MAY 31, 1989 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said' transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and.that the-lli transcript is a true and accurate record of-the foregoing events.
bM Reporter's name: Miles Anderson NEAL R. GROSS COURT RfPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
1333 RHODI ISLAND AVENUE. H.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASNTHOTON D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
4 4
i 1
l COMMISSION BRIEFING ON THE FINAL RULEMAKING ON MAINTENANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS MAY 31, 1989 4
i i
I
+
F i.
L- . . .
[
1 l
l l
i OUTLINE OF BRIEFING 0 BACKGROUND 0
SUMMARY
OF PUBLic COMMENTS 0 OBJECTIVES OF. RULE / REG. GUIDE 0
SUMMARY
OF FINAL RULE O
SUMMARY
OF DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE O SUPPORTING dASIS FOR RULE / REG. GUIDE O RECOMMENDATION 1
i
Jr.' .*
i
... j 1
I i
I BACKGROUND l q
0 PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF MAINTENANCE (SALP, NUREG-1212, ETC.)
{
0 POLICY STATEMENT.- MARCH- 23, 1988- i 0 WORKSHOP - JULY 11-13, 1988 i 0 PROPOSED RULE - NOVEMBER 28, 1988 0 CLOSE OF COMMENT PERIOD -
~
FEBRUARY 27, 1989 0 PROPOSED FINAL RULE-AND DRAFT REG.
GUIDE 4/28/89 (SECY-89-143) l i,
l l
-l i
2 i i
^
.;_._____._____________. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ J
. ~ .
3 , H' l
. 1 e, ,
i l -j
.i I
PUBLIc' COMMENT
SUMMARY
PRIOR To -AFTER- !
COMMENTERS ~2/27/89 2/27/89
- UTILITIES 19 44
- INDUSTRY. GROUPS 3 2
- VENDORS 0 3.
- FEDERAL AGENCIES 2 '0
- STATE GROUPS. 2 0
- PUBLIC INTEREST 10 3 GROUPS /INDIV.
TOTAL- 36 52 3
__ - - - - - - - - - - - d
j i
1 l
l l
J 1
i
)
PUBLIC COMMENT
SUMMARY
(CONT'D,)
PRIOR TO AFTER 2/27/89 2/27/89 i
- FOR RULE 7 0 !
- AGAINST RULE 29 52 1
l
\
4
)
i t)
Y
my . .
.q
.: I-( .. ? ,- - , 'f
- 1- 1
'd
, 7, 4-
^ :!
i MAJOR'PUBLIC COMMENTS O. PROPOSED RULE IS UNBOUNDED
^
0 N0'DEMONSTRAT' ION THAT. RULE INCREASES SAFETY' 0 MAY HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT BY DIVERTING 1
INDUSTRY RESOURCES 0 INDUSTRY.HAS BEEN IMPROVING; INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ALREADY EklST p-5
h &
W UAJOR PUBLIC COMMENTS (CONT'D.)
O NRC SHOULD CONCENTRATE 0N THE FEW POOR. PERFORMERS 0 JUSTIFICATION ON BASIS OF ADEQUATE-PROTECTION-QUESTIONED 0- COST-BENEFIT. ESTIMATES IN REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS QUESTIONED O' NO COMMITMENT FROM. INDUSTRY TO' l DEVELOP A STANDARD t-4 l
l i
i l
6
- _ - - =____-____-_-_-__. _ - _ - i
- q. , ,
7-----------
i k ', -
! NN-7 OBJECTIVES OF' RULE /R.G, O DEFINE BASIC: MAINTENANCE STANDARD, INCLUDING SCOPE l0F ACTIVITIES AND
- STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS,'AND COMPONENTS-(SSC)S COVERED. ,l 0 IMPROVE LICENSEE' MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS, WHERE NECESSARY, AND SUSTAIN GgDD PERFORMANCE.
O FACILITATE NRC TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION, WHERE NECESSARY, TO iPROVE MAINTENANCE.
)
4
.i 7
r
" ~ ~
[7. og .yy .
- ,e --
p: ..j r ..
..s , ;
1
/ . ,
.i g .
l, q
l.
t.
j l
'0BJECTIVES (CONT'D.)
.I 0 PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR LICENSEE TO ESTABLISH DETAILS.0F MAINTENANCE PROGRAM,
.q
.,l 1
0' PROVIDE OPTION FOR INDUSTRY.PARTICIPA-TION THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARD 1
.AND THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PROCESS 1
.I l
8
p -.-
,4 ..
/
. t.-
SUMM%RY OF FINAL RULE i
BASIC APPROACH UNCHANGED FROM PROPOSED-RULE:
- NONPRESCRIPTIVE
- PERFORMANCE.0RIENTED
- EMPHASIS IS ON IMPLEMENTING AND MAINTAINING A PROGRAM AND UTILIZING EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING WITH APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION TO MAKE IMPROVEMENT, WHERE WARRANTED -
4 1
i
-)
i 9
MAJOR CHANGES FROM PROPOSED RULE O SCOPE OF SSCS COVERED HAS BEEN EXPLICITLY DEFINED.
0 IMPLEMENTATION SECTION MODIFIED TO INCLUDE TWO OPTIONS:
- 1. INDIVIDUAL LICENSEE CERTIFICATION
- 2. UTILIZATION'0F.NRC APPROVED THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH INDUSTRY DEVELOPED MAINTENANCE STANDARD 10
4 r
)
1 l
SCOPE OF RULE i
PROGRAM SHOULD ADDRESS SSC'S:
0 DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY 10 CFR 50.34 (E.G. FSAP) AND 0 WHOSE FAILURE COULD SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT SAFETY OR SECURITY .
O J
l 11 Il
} IMPLEMENTATION REG. GUIDE + IND. STANDARD +
IND[V,, J RT. 3Rr) PARTY CERT, RULE EFFECTIVE 12/89 12/89 STANDARD EFFECTIVE 12/89 12/90 COMPLIANCE 12/91 12/92 CERTIFIED e
12 j
SUMMARY
OF DRAFT REG. GUIDE 0 PRovlDES BASIC GUIDANCE - NOT DETAILED MAINTENANCE PRACTICES 0 CLARIFIES NRC POSITION REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF BOP 0 STRESSES SELF ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT I
13
. - ------ -- - - - = -
7__ _ , .,
, u. j. . ..:, ,
I 2.,, ,
.1; L. '
d 1
l
_ c,, . I J
t
SUMMARY
OF DRAFT REG. GUIDE (CONT'D.)
O ALLOWS FLEX 1BILITY FOR LICENSEE TO DETERMINE. SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE a PRACTICES APPLICABLE To HIS PLANT COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR SIGNIFICANCE TO SAFETY.
O ALLOWSLUSE OF INDUSTRY GUIDES AND PROGRAMS FOR' DETAILS OF PRACTidES 0 LITTLE OR NO IMPACT ON LICENSEES WITH .,
EXISTING GOOD MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS i
t 14
-:2____---____________-_.
lg. , ,
)
-l I
f-Li
SUMMARY
OF DRAFT REG. GUIDE (CONT'D.)
DEFINE OVERALL I~~~ MAINTENANCE. POLICY l
I ESTABLISH AINTENANCE i
i GOALS AND OBJECTIVES COMMENSURATE WITH SAFETYSIGNIFICANCE-o CONDUCT OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES v
ASSESS PROGRAM & MONITOR PROGRAM EXECUTE CORRECTIVE EFFECTIVENESS ACTION P 15 i
i I
i l
I
{
SUPPORTING BASIS FOR RULE AND REG. GUIDE O JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS-OF ENHANCED SAFETY:
QUALITATIVE BASIS QUANTITATIVE BASES (REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS) l l
I 1
16 t
1
,, .. .i l+
i CUAtlTATIVE BASl$
0 MAINTENANCE HAS DIRECT IMPACT ON PLANT-SAFETY:
RELIABILITY OF SAFETY SYSTEMS CHALLENGE TO SAFETY SYSTEMS AND OPERATORS THEREFORE, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR NRC TO' CONSIDER REGULATING IN THE*
MAINTENANCE AREA.
4 17 f
-.z j'.
QUALITATIVE BASIS CONT'D.)
0 MAINTENANCE TEAM INSPECTION (MTI)
RESULTS TO DATE CONFIRM VARIATION ACROSS THE INDUSTRY IN MAINTENANCE l
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION. /
.0 RULE WILL FACILITATE COMMISSION'S ABILITY.'TO TAKE ACTION TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENT
- 1. .
l l l l
l l
L___________.____.________________________ _ ._l j
- o 3
L in l
.i 00ALITATI VE B ASIL (CONT'D) 0 -RULE WILL STABILIZE AND BETTER DEFINE REQUIREMENTS TO:
. HELP ENSURE GOOD-MAINTENANCE IS ACHIEVED-AND SUSTAiNEE.
HELP ' ENSURE THE EFFECTS OF AGING
'ARE CONSIDERED IN MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.
FACILITATE LIFE E'(TENSION DECISIONS i
k i
4
.1 i
REGULATORY IMPACT ANAL 13.lS (RIA)
'O MANY COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED RIA 0 RIA REVISED TO REFLECT SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND mil RESULTS 0 RIA SHOWS OVERALL POSITIVE NET BENEFIT CONSIDERING:
REDUCTION IN PUBlic RISK
. INDUSTRY COSTS
' . INDUSTRY COST SAVINGS 4
3 l
\
l TO
'i
K l
- j l
I i
RIA (CONT'D.) ;
i 0 RIA NOT USED AS SOLE BASIS FOR RULE, BUT AS CONFIRMATION THAT RULE CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IN A FASHION THAT ENHANCES SAFETY IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER, i
1 i
21 E_--- . _.
C l
]
I I
l
SUMMARY
OF RIA RESULTS BEST EST. RANGE 0 RISK REDLCTION $50M 0 To $100M (50,000 PERSON-REM) !
O COST TO IMPLEMENT -$658M -$283 To -4,000M (30 YR. DISCOUNTED) 0 COST SAVINGS $1350M 0 To $12,000M (30 YR. DISCOUNTED)
NET $742M k
I i
l i
1 h
C i
f SUMMAR1 0F RIA RESULTS CONT'D,)_
NOTE: 0 ALL VALUES BASED ON 110 PLANTS 0 1% IMPF,0VEMENT IN CAPACITY FACTOR CORRESPONDS TO: j
- $160 - $2f40M/R-1988 D01.LARS
- $1500 - $2260 M/30 YR-DISCOUNTED 23
p.
,. s ;; ::-- ; w
- e
+ ,
y t
- g< .. ,
w-: y-t-
1 l
1 RECOMMENDATION-0 THAT COMMISSION'. PROCEED WITH PROMULGATION OF FlWAL RULE AND PUBLISH DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE FOR COMMENT.
0 THAT STAFF CONTINL'E DEVELOPM':NT OF.
REG. GUIDE.
0 THAT INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION-(STARDARD +
3RD PARTY CERTIFICATIOld CONTINUE TO BE SOUGHT.
- - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _