ML20040H071
| ML20040H071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PII, TASK-SE SECY-82-031, SECY-82-31, NUDOCS 8202170114 | |
| Download: ML20040H071 (2) | |
Text
pg l
January 22, 1982
/#>R Rf Gg%
SECY-82-31 Yr 3*
-mo 2
POLICY ISSUE c-me (InfOrmatIOn) e new b D For:
The Commission g
mem rwar n From:
William J. Dircks c
Executive Director for Operations y
Subject:
POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR UNQUALIFIED EQUIPMENT
Purpose:
To respond to the Chairman's request to provide the Commission with information on enforcement actions NRC should take if equipment is not properly qualified for any reason.
Discussion:
The proposed rule on equipment qualification, 10 CFR 50.49(h),
will require licensees to install qualified electrical equipment in specific safety related areas in accordance with a specified schedule.
A licensee utilizing equipment not properly qualified as required by the rule may be subject to enforcement actions in accordance with the Commission's enforcement policy.
Under the proposed rule a licensee will not be in violation for utilizing unqualified equipment if equipment is undergoing qualification in accordance with the schedule provided for in 10 CFR 50.49(h).
Any equipment not demon-strated to be qualified by the time permitted in 10 CFR 50.49(h) will be assumed to be not qualified and the licensee may be found in violation.
In addition, irrespective of a finding of violation, all affected equipment shall be qualified or replaced. As is current practice, if continued safe operation of the facility cannot be justified, the facility will be required to be shut down pending equipment qualification or replacement.
In determining the appropriate enforcement action, Supplement I of the Enforcement Policy will be used as guidance.
The severity levels for violations involving unqualified equipment may vary depending on the functions of particular equipment and the circumstances surrounding the cause for the violation.
For example, an unqualified component may make a safety system inoperable under certain conditions resulting in a Severity Level III violation.
In such cases a civil penalty may be appropriate.
On the other hand, if the unqualified component
Contact:
J. Lieberman, IE 492-4909 8202170114 820122 PDR SECY 82-031 PDR
The Commission is in a redundant system, a Severity Level IV violation may result.*
In such cases a Notice of Violation may be the appropriate enforcement sanction.
Enforcement actions based on unqualified equipment where the licensee contends that the equipment is in fact qualified may result in substantial litigative risk.
This is because the standards for qualification describe basic principles, pro-cedures and methods and frequently require the exercise of engineering judgment. In cases where reasonable differences in engineering judgment occur, the Staff, if unable to negotiate a timely solution, will utilize Orders to obtain the desired results.
However, if the licensee's position is clearly inconsistent with the Staff's published position and unreasonable technically, the Staff will utilize Orders and civil penalties.
4l William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations i
l It should be noted that a particular component found to
^
be unqualified in use due to inadequate maintenance or faulty installation may result in a citation for non-compliance notwithstanding the fact that similarly designed components are properly qualified.
However, the citation for noncompliance will not necessarily be for failure to qualify, but rather for violation of quality assurance or other requirements.
t DISTRIBUTION l
Commissioners Commission Staff Offices ACRS Secretariat
_. - - -