ML20127N162
| ML20127N162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1985 |
| From: | Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127N039 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8507010461 | |
| Download: ML20127N162 (18) | |
Text
,
e Y 3EMIEDCORESPOND8gg
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION $fshC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 035 JJN 28 pt :43 In the Matter of $ck7f,lg} gygy;p, BRANCH P0USTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-498 ET AL. ) 50-499 (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2)
Testimony of Robert F. Heishman Q.1 Would you please state your name and your position?
A.1 My name is Robert F. Heishman. I am Chief of the Reactor Construction Programs Branch, Division of Inspection Programs, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Q.2 What are your professional qualifications?
A.2 They are set out in my attached statement of professional qualifications.
Q.3 What guidance relative to construction Deficiency Reporting has been provided to inspectors and supervisors?
8507010461 PDR 850626 ADOCK 05000498 PDR
A.3 Reportability of significant construction deficiencies under 10 CFR 50.55(e) has histcrically been subject to various interpretations.
To address these differences, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) has issued guidance for use by inspectors and supervisors as a part of the IE Manual. This guidance has been changed from time to time with the latest change issued in 1980.
Copies of this guidance has previously been provided to the Board in the Staff submittal of August 24, 1984 (another copy attached).
This guidance does allow for the application of judgment as to the reportability of construction deficiencies and this fact is exemplified by the current review of 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR 21 to more clearly indicate the intent of these rules.
R. F. HEISHMAN PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS CHIEF, REACTOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS BRANCH DIVISION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE, SAFEGUARDS, AND INSPECTION PROGRAMS OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I am Chief of the Reactor Construction Programs Branch in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD.
In this position, I am responsible for the development and maintenance of inspection programs for reactors under construction, evaluating the implementation of these programs by the Regional offices and assessing the effectiveness of these programs including the conducting of Construction Appraisal Team inspections at selected facilities. I have been assigned to i this position since early 1982.
During the period September 1981 - January 1982, I was the supervisor of the Performance Appraisal Team which conducted indepth team inspections of selected reactors in operation from the Bethesda, MD office.
From February 1979 - August 1981, I was assigned as Branch Chief of the Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch in the NRC Regional Office in Chicago, IL. In this position, I managed the inspection program for the reactors in operation in the midwestern U.S.
I was assigned as Branch Chief of the Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch from October 1976 - February 1979. This assignment included the responsibility for the management of the inspection program for reactors under construction in the midwestern U.S.
From October 1969 - October 1976, I served in the NRC Regional office located near Philadelphia, PA. During this time, I served as a reactor inspector for operating, research and construction reactors and as a first-line supervisor
- for these programs.
During the period 1959 - 1969, I was a member of the U.S. Army Engineer l
Reactors Group serving on numerous military reactor systems as operator, supervisor and plant manager.
! I am a graduate of the Army Nuclear Power Program and have attended Upper Iowa University.
e 0
-,.7-. ,. ----- .- , , - - -_ - , - . _ - . , , - --.
Issue Date: 4/1/80 Guidance - 10 CFR 50.55(e) Construction Deficiency Reporting
- 1. PURPOSE Deficiency reporting based on the requirements of Part 50.55(e) is designed to provide the NRC staff with prompt notification and timely information of deficiencies encountered during construction of nuclear power plants.
The intent of the Rule is to provide a basis for evaluation on the part of the NRC with respect to potential safety consequences of deficiencies and the need for further action by NRC.
- 2. DISCUSSION - GENERAL The conditions of construction permits are contained in 10 CFR 50.55.
Subpart 10 CFR 50.55(e) imposes a reporting requirement on construction permit (CP) holders to report each deficiency found in design and construction which if it were to have remain uncorrected could have adversely affected the safety of operations of the nuclear facility at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant. Reporting is limited to deficiencies which meet certain other requirements as discussed below.
- 3. RESTATEMENT OF THE REGULATION The entire subsection of 10 CFR 50.55(e) is included here for convenience.
50.55(e)(1) If the permit is for construction of a nuclear power plant, the holder of the permit shall notify the Connission of each deficiency found in design and construction, which, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant, and which represents:
(1) A significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program conducted in accordance with the i requirements of Appendix B; or (ii) A significant deficiency in final design as approved and released for construction such that the design does not conform to the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report or construction permit; or
- (iii) A significant deficiency in construction of or significant damage to a structure, system, or component which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to meet the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report or construction permit or to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perform its intended safety function; or
, . - _ - _ ~ - _ -
Issue Date: 4/1/80
. 1
- 5. CRITERIA FOR REPORTING
- a. Deficiency (1) must have been identified, i.e., found (2) related to activities conducted as authorized by a construction permit holder (design, construction or modification)
(3) could adversely sffect the safe operation of a facility if it were not corrected, i.e., it is significant (4) significant deficiency relates to one or more of the following:
(a) breakdown in QA program (b) design released for construction (c) damage to a structure, system or component (d) construction of a structure, system, or component (e) deviation from performance specifications
- b. Timeliness (1) Initial report - within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (2) Written report - within 30 days (initial or final)
(3) Supplemental written report (s) as necessary to provide all information.
- c. Reporting Organization The CP holder is responsible for implementing instructions which will provide for licensee reporting of all reportable deficiencies identified by organizations authorized by him to conduct construction phase activities.
- 6. CLARIFICATION OF 50.55(e) PHRASES
- a. Could adversely affect If a deficiency meets all the criteria and it could affect adversely safe operations of the facility, it is reportable. "Could" does not imply that it would absolutely adversely affect safe operations. It implies a probability that safe operations may be adversely affected if the proper conditions existed. "At any time" means that all service and accident conditions of operation must be considered.
Issue Date: 4/1/80
- c. Extensive An item is reportable if it requires extensive evaluation to determine if it is adequate to perform its intended safety function or will not impair the accomplishment of a safety function through adverse interaction.
Extensive means the expend ture of resources (time, manpower, money) to a degree disproportionate with the original design, test or construction expenditure. The inspector should use caution - this requires judgement and experience. For example, the lack of extensive evaluation may be used as a justification for not reporting. But it also may indicate an inadequate evaluation due to expense involved or a failure to consider interactions and therefore should be considered suspect.
Redesign may appear to be not extensive; the inspector should verify that all interactions and interfaces have been considered and that sufficient design margin is available.
- d. Sionificant Breakdown in Quality Assurance O A breakdown in the QA program related to any criteria in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, may be a reportable deficiency depending upon its significance.
This applies to those design and construction activities affecting the safety of plant operations, including activities such as design verification, inspection, and auditing. For example QA program breakdown may result from an improper identification system for safety related materials. More specifically, the implementing procedures may be incomplete or othenvise inadequate, or the execution of adequate procedures may be incomplete, improper or completely ignored. In the latter case, not following established procedures to assure that specified quality related requirements are met, for example, may constitute a breakdown in the QA program that is reportable.
Similarly, an inadequate record keeping system that makes it impossible on a broad scale to deterinine whether quality requirements have been met, is another example. In such a case extensive evaluation and testing may be required to establish that applicable requirements have been met.
Conversely, occasional, incomplete or otherwise inadequate records e that do not indicate a significant breakdown in the QA program nor an unsafe condition are not considered reportable. For example, if during site construction, delivery times (from mixing to placing) of a few of many truckloads of concreta are not recorded as required,
. and it can be shown by other records that requirements important to y
safety have been met, the matter would not be reportable. These other records may be related concrete truck trip tickets, batch plant records or acceptable test results of concrete samples representing concrete from these trucks. The lack of complete records in this example would not lead to unsafe plant operation, nor would it con-stitute a significant breakdown in the QA Program.
Issue Date: 4/1/80 (iv) A significant deviation from performance specifications which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to establish the adequacy of a structure,
. system, or component to meet the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report or construction pemit or to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perform its intended safety function.
(2) The holder of a construction pemit shall within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notify the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection and Enforcement Regional Office of each reportable deficiency.
(3) The holder of a construction permit shall also submit a written report on a reportable deficiency within thirty (30) days to the appropriate NRC Regional Office shown in Appendix D of Part 20 of this chapter. Copies of such report shall be sent to the Director of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555. The report shall include a description of the deficiency, an analysis of the safety implications and the corrective action taken, and sufficient information to permit analysis and evaluation of the deficiency and of the corrective action. If sufficient information is not available for a definitive report to be submitted within 30 days, an interim report containing all available information shall be filed, together with a statement as to when a complete report will be filed.
(4) Remedial action may be taken both prior to and after notification of the Division of Inspection and Enforcement subject to the risk of subsequent disapproval of such action by the Commission.
4.
APPLICABILITY Subsection 10 CFR 50.55(e) applies to the CP holder and his contractors.
The CP holder is responsible for reporting each deficiency in accordance with the criteria and requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e). The regulation applies to design and construction and encompasses all of the activities inherent in design and construction even though they may be performed by
. agents, contractors, subcontractors or consultants. The CP holder must establish and implement a system that assures all reportable deficiencies are identified and reported and the reporting requirement must be imposed on his agents, contractors and subcontractors.
Issue Date: 4/1/80
- 5. CRITERIA FOR REPORTING
- a. Deficiency (1) must have been identified, i.e., found (2) related to activities conducted as authorized by a construction permit holder (design, construction or modification)
(3) could adversely affect the safe operation of a facility if it were not corrected, i.e., it is significant (4) significant deficiency relates to one or more of the following:
(a) breakdown in QA program (b) design released for construction (c) damage to a structure, system or component (d) construction of a structure, system, or component (e) deviation from performance specifications
- b. Timeliness (1) Initial report - within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (2) Writtenreport-within30 days (initialorfinal)
(3) Supplemental written report (s) as necessary to provide all information.
- c. Reporting Organization The CP holder is responsible for implementing instructions which will provide for licensee reporting of all reportable deficiencies identified by crganizations authorized by him to conduct construction phase activities.
- 6. CLARIFICATION OF 50.55(e) PHRASES
- a. Could adversely affect If a deficiency meets all the criteria and it could affect adversely .
safe operations of the facility, it is reportable. "Could" does not imply that it would absolutely adversely affect safe operations. It implies a probability that safe operations may be adversely affected if the proper conditions existed. "At any time" means that all service and accident conditions of operation must be considered.
- Issue Date: 4/1/80 The fact that a deficiency is obvious and could not possible go uncorrected and therefore could not adversely affect safe operation does not negate the requirement to fonnally report the deficiency if it meets the criteria of 50.55(e).
- b. Significance To be reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e) a deficiency must be sir.ificant.
Significant is interpreted as having an effect or likely to Tiave an effect on, or influence, the safe operation of the facility in an adverse manner.
Although "significant" is not defined in 50.5S(e), it is not the intent that trivia be reported. Significance primarily pertains to operational safety and not to the cost of the corrective action.
However, as indicated below, the cost to repair or redesign provides on indicator of the term " extensive." Trivial situations such as cosmetic defects are not reportable.
The test of significance includes but is not limited to safety related items / activities as discussed below.
(1) It is important to note that the regulation does not specifically state that 50.55(e) applies only to safety related structures, systems and components although this may be inferred from the wording.
The 50.55(e) reouirement applies to any structure. system or component (SSCs? if it contains a deficiency which were it to have remained uncorrected could have affected adversely the safety of operation of the facility. This includes those SSCs that, even if not classified as safety related, could cause or contribute to the dearadation of integral plant safety as a result of an adverse interaction with safety related SSCs.
Frimary examples of this are undesirable conditions or failures in a nonsafety system, structure, or component which could impact or degrade safety systems or a safety function.
The inspector must use caution in applying 50.55(e) to nonsafety SSCs and must satisfy himself that the licensee has considered the interactions that a deficiency in a nonsafety SSC could
- create.
(2) If a deficiency involves inadequate management reviews, it may be significant.
i
.=. _ - ,_ _ . . _ - - _. ..
Issue Date: 4/1/80
- c. Extensive An item is reportable if it requires extensive evaluation to determine if it is adequate to perform its intended safety function or will not impair the accomplishment of a safety function through adverse interaction.
Extensive means the expenditure of resources (time, manpower, money) to a degree disproportionate with the original design, test or construction expenditure. The inspector should use caution - this requires judgement and experience. For example, the lack of extensive evaluation may be used as a justification for not reporting. But it also may indicate an inadequate evaluation due to expense involved or a failure to consider interactions and therefore should be considered suspect.
Redesign may appear to be not extensive; the inspector should verify that all interactions and interfaces have been considered and that sufficient design margin is available,
- d. Significant Breakdown in Quality Assurance O A breakdown in the QA program related to any criteria in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. may be a reportable deficiency depending upon its significance.
This applies to those design and constructioit activities affecting the safety of plant operations, including activities such as design verification, inspection, and auditing. For example, QA program breakdown may result from an improper identification system for safety related materials. More specifically, the implementing procedures may be incomplete or otherwise inadequate, or the execution of adequate procedures may be incomplete, improper or completely ignored. In the latter case, not following established procedures to assure that specified quality related requirements are met, for example, may constitute a breakdown in the QA program that is reportable.
Similarly, an inadequate record keeping system that makes it impossible on a broad scale to determine whether quality requirements have been met, is another example. In such a case extensive evaluation and testing may be required to establish that applicable requirements have been met.
Conversely, occasional, incomplete or otherwise inadequate records that do not indicate a significant breakdown in the QA prugram nor an unsafe condition are not considered reportable. For example, if during site construction, delivery times (from mixing to placing) of a few of many truckloads of concrete are not recorded as required,
, and it can be shown by other records that requirements important to safety have been met, the matter would not be reportable. These i other records may be related concrete truck trip tickets, batch plant )
racerds or acceptable test results of concrete samples representing ;
concrete from these trucks. The lack of complete records in this er. ample would not lead to unsafe plant operation, nor would it con-stitute a significant breakdown in the QA Program.
Issue Date: I/1/80
(
- e. Notification and Reporting s, (1) Notification - Reportable Deficiency 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2) specifies that the CP holder shall notify the appropriate NRC Regional Office within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of each reportable deficiency. Notification means: (a) telephone report; (b) telegraphic report; and (c) verbal report to the NRC Regional Office after becoming aware of a reportable deficiency, excluding holiday or weekend elapsed times. A notification to a NRC representative present at the CP holder's facilities does not satisfy the regulation.
The threshold for notification (not reporting) is considered to be within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after licensee (CP holder) becomes aware of the reportable deficiency (or potentially reportable deficiency as clarified below). Aware of the deficiency means that any cognizant licensee individual has knowledge of the deficiency as a result of:
(d) observation of condition (e) a formal submittal by any organization involved in the design, construction, evaluations or inspection of the /'
facility \
(f) an infomal report, or allegation, by any organization or person.
(2) Notification - Potentially Reportable Deficiency Allofthereportabilitycriteriaof50.55(e)maynotbesatisfied when a deficiency is initially discovered. It is not always possible for the licensee to decide promptly during an evaluation whether the identified deficiency is reportable. However, in most cases, significance can be partially satisfied, or sound judgement will indicate potential significance. In these cases, it should be considered that the deficiency is a potentially reporta)1e deficiency, and the Regional Office should be notified. Tie CP holder should specify that it is a potentially reportable deficiency.
The following IE position has been established to alleviate the apparent conflict between prompt notification and necessary evaluation time for those cases where an extended period of time could lapse in completing a adequate evaluation of the identified deficiency: 1 Notification by telephone to the Regional Office within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after a cognizant licensee individual becomes aware of .
a potentially reportable deficiency is considered acceptable.
A potentially reportable deficiency is considered to exist (s)
Issue Data: 4/1/80 when: (1) an intial prompt review of available infomation indicates' that the problem could be significant (i.e. -
partial significance is established) but, for various reasons, additional time is required to complete the i evaluation; and (2) the deficiency may be considered significant, but neither a prompt review or full evaluation can be completed within 14 days due to lack of specific infomation.
For example, an extensive evaluation period may exist when
! the licensee cannot determine without testing and analysis whether the physical properties relative to the material used for a section of reactor coolant piping were met, the licensee should promptly notify the Regional Office of this matter. If the results of the above ant. lysis indicates that the material is not acceptable, extensive evaluation and/or rework may be required. If this is the case, it is clearly 4 a reportable deficiency. Conversely, if the analysis in the above example confims acceptability of the material.
the licensee should document these results in his records and notify the Regional Office that this deficiency was detemined not to be significant based on the results of farther analysis or investigation. Consequently, some matters which require notification may not, subsequently, require a written report.
In sumary, the intent is to require a prompt notification :
in cases where a potentially reportable deficiency has been
, identified but the formal evaluation required to confirm whether the item is reportable can not be completed imediately.
I (3) Interim Report
. The CP holder'may meet the 30 day written report requirement by submitting an interim report in lieu of the complete report if sufficient information is not available for a definitive report.
The interim report should specify:
(a) the potential problem and reference the notification (b) approach to resolution of the problem (c) status of proposed resolution (d) reasons why a final report will be delayed r
(e) projected completion of corrective action and submittal date of the complete report.
O i
^
Issue Date: 4/1/80
,..~
'. a 1
- (4) Complete Report The regulation requires that the CP holder submit a written
=
report to the appropriate Regional office within 30 days after l f nntial notification. If an interim report is submitted the <
!- final report shall be due on the date committed in the interim report. The complete report shall contain:
(a) description of the deficiency (b) analysis of the safety implications. This should include ,
an identification of interfacing systems and possible inter-actions.
i (c) corrective actions taken. Corrective actions should be
'l sufficient to correct the deficiency and prevent future '
identical or similar occurrences. To prevent future i
- occurrences the causes of the deficiency must be fully I i explored and identified.
I (d) sufficient information to pemit analysis and evaluation "
of the deficiency and of the corrective action. /
- 7. ENFORCEMENT l If a CP holder is aware of a reportable deficiency and it can be shown by ;
! objective evidence that he has not met the time reporting requirements, then he is in noncompliance with the reporting requirement of 50.55(e) l and enforcement action should be taken. r 1
} The licensee should be encouraged to discuss "reportability" with the i responsible IE inspector whenever he has a question or doubt regarding i
" this matter. It is appropriate for the inspector to indicate his views on whether a particular matter is reportable, but the licensee should understand that the ultimate responsibility remains with the licensee,
- and the inspector's judgement may change during e future inspection 1
wherein he has an opportunity to fully review the circumstances asso-i ciated with the matter. ,
- Another aspect of this Regulation related to remrtability detemina- ,
tion pertains to judgement--judgement used by tie licensee in deter- i mining whether a matter is reportable. The licensee has to make a ,
,,.. judgement based on his (or others) evaluation / analysis. If the !
licensee decides, on the basis of the above. that a matter is not
! reportable, he may have satisfied the intent of this part of the Regulation. However, the inspector can exercise his option and ;
- challenge the licensee's decision of nonreportability. A challenge c';
j may be valid if: (
. the evaluation is clearly faulty by way of omission of facts i .. engineering or othercalculations are in error i
- . - - - - - . . - _ _ _, . -- . ~ ---_ - - , - - _
Issue Date: 4/1/80
.g.
the evaluation is not supported by adequate records the evaluation has not considered interactions past IE experience (including that of the inspector) provide a basis as precedent for reportability
- the licensee has established a trend or pattern of habitually evaluating deficiencies as non-reportable
- evaluation is performed by a person (s) or organization without expertise in the subject.
The inspector has the right and the responsibility to examine the technical validity of the licensee evaluation and if an inappropriate or unsupported decision of nonreportability has been made by the licensee, enforcement action should be considered. Regional management should review and, when valid, determine the appropriate enforcement action to take. If there is evidence that superficial evaluations are being made to procedurally satisfy or bypass NRC requirements, strong escalated enforcement action should be considered. (MC-0800 will be changed, accordingly)
- 8. RELATION TO app. B REQUIREMENTS 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, requires procedures to be established and records maintained to handle required actions relative to resolution of identified deficiencies. Proceduresandrecords(asin(1)and(2)below)are required to assure prompt notification and adequate reporting under 50.55(e). Means to do this should be an integral part of each licensee's QA program.
(1) Implementing Procedures Although the specific requirements of 50.55(e) are few (notify, evaluate, report), implementing procedures to assure that these requirements are met should be established by the CP holder. For example, some means (such as procedures or instructions) are required to assure that deficiencies found in design and construction activities delegated by the licensee to others are handled properly and reported in a timely manner to the CP holder. The procedures should assure that the evaluation of the significance of the deficiency to the
,,, safety of plant operations is performed by a person (s) with adequate expertise in the subject and that adequate management review is provided.
(2) Records The ifcensee should maintain records to demonstrate that adequate evaluation / analysis of all deficiencies was made regarding the impact on safe operations. It is appropriate for the IE inspector to inform the licensee that without such records the appropriate licensee management cannot establish whether such evaluations were made or whether the NRC requirements associated with this activity were overlooked.
Issue Date: 4/1/80 .
- 9. RELATIONSHIP TO 10 CFR 21 REPORTING Reporting of Defects and Noncompliances (10 CFR 21) imposes a reporting requirement on licensees and pemit holders to inmediately notify the Comission of defects, in basic components or the facility which could create a substantial safety hazard. There are certain situations which can result in duplicate reporting of the same defect under 50.55(e) and Part 21 requirements. Guidance that duplicate reporting is not the intent of the NRC regulations has been promulgated via NUREG-0302, Rev.1 and in correspondence supplied to the Atomic Industrial Forum. This guidance is reproduced below:
(1) NUREG-0302 Rev. I Guidance Q. Must items reported as Significant Deficiencies (under 50.55(e)) or Reportable Occurrences (under 50.36) also be reported as required in 10 CFR 217 A. Duplicate reporting is not required. Care should be exer-cised, however, to assure "that the Comission has been adequately in 121.21(b )infomed" (121.21b)
(3) is provided shouldand the the infomation reporting specified party's evaluation show that a notification is required.
Q. How do we detemine when to report a " problem" under the pmvisions of 50.55(e) vs the provisions of Part 217 A. 150.55(e) requires initial reporting in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the time licensee or his agent first identifies a significant defi-ciency. A followup report is required in 30 days. If evaluation requires substantial time to complete, interim report (s) are acceptable.
821.21(b)(1) requires reporting within two days of when the director or responsible officer obtains infomation reasonably indicating a failure to comply or a defect with a written report required within five days.
In all cases, the exercise of reasonable judgement is expected in reporting potentially reportable problems to avoid the severe penalties, which could be imposed should
- the pmb1m turn out to be reportable.
Q. 10 CFR 50.55(e) Conditions of Construction Pemits, requires that the holder of a pemit notify the Comission of certain designs and construction deficiencies which are also the i subject of 10 CFR 21. Why has not 10 CFR 50.55(e) been deleted?
. Issue Date: 4/1/80 11 A. 550.55(e) requires reporting that would not be reported under Part 21. For example,1) significant damage to a basic component following delivery to the site is report-able under 50.55(e) and not under Part 21; and 2) a signifi-cant break down in quality assurance is reportable under 50.55(e) and not under Part 21.
Q. Is the detemination of a " defect" based on the same cri-teria as provided in Part 50.55(e) and/or the requirements for technical specifications for operating plants?
A. No.. In the case of the pemit holder, however, a defect reportable under Part 21 would also be reportable under 10CFR50.55(e). In the case of the licensee some items could be reportable under Part 21 that are not reportable as LER.
- Q. Forpossibleproblemsnotedunder10CFR50.55(e)wereport
- . to the Connission "possible significant deficiencies." Will we be allowed to report "possible defects and noncompliances" t
under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 217 l A. Yes, a report may be made during the evaluation before the ;
I conclusion is reached that the deviation is a defect. A report is not required, however, until 2 days after the !
responsible officer or director is informed of the conclu- i sion reached as a result of the evaluation, j Q. It appears to us that there will be more reports filed with )
the Commission under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 than under 10 CFR 50.55(e). :Does the Connission have this same l l '
t belief? ,
(
- A. No. The majority of items subject to reporting under 50.55(e)
I would not fit the definition in Part 21 for a ' defect" involv-l ing a " substantial safety hazard." For those cases where l
both 50.55(e) and Part 21 reporting requirements may apply, tt is expected that pemit holders will report only under 50.55(e) as long as they include the infomation required ,
, by Part 21 to adequately infom the Connission. ,
- (2) Supplemental Guidance Supplied to Atomic Industrial Forum on 0/A ,
15 and 16 under 21.21(b)(1) of NUREG 0302. Rev.1 l l
The regions are authorized to use the enclosed staff positions on
' 10 CFR Part 21 in connunications with licensees. These positions were prepared in response to inquiries from AIF and supplement ,
those of NUREG 0302, Rev. 1. In particular, until pertinent l'
reporting regulations are amended, the staff position response to
> AIF should be used in answering licensee questions on how and when
> 50.55(e) reporting may be used in lieu of dual reporting under !
both 50.55(e) and Part 21. _.
)
- Issue Date
- 4/1/80 :
When a combined 50.55(e)/Part 21 event is reported by a licensee to the regional office by telephone, the region should use 150.55(e)(3) i and 521.21(b)(3) information requirements for guidance to assure that the Comission is " adequately informed." Where an event is reported under 50.55(e) and it is (subsequently) established that the event is i also reportable under Part 21 the licensee should be informed that 4 it is gcceptable for the licensee to provide the information required under s21.21(b)(3) via a supplement to the initial 50.55(e) report.
i (From N. Moseley to Reg. Director memo of 5/8/79 forwarding 4/26/78 r letter sent to AIF)
It is the staff's position that the ifcensee is not required to report '
under Part 21 an occurrence that falls within the scope of either Part 21 or 50.55(e) or Reg. Guide 1.16 if that occurrence is reported in accordance with 50.55(e) or Reg. Guide 1.16 requirements. In such cases, it is also the staff's position that the time requirements
! (oral, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> under 50.55(e) and R.G.1.16) of the reporting method i used would be controlling and, for the licensee, the Part 21 reporting 3
times would not be applicable. (Does not change prior staff position relative to information (21.21(b)(3)) requirements)
I However, a director or responsible officer of a non-licensee j organization upon receiving inforination of a reportable defect I would be subject to Part 21 reporting time requirements unless he has actual knowledge the Connission has been adequately informed. Therefore, in those cases where a non-licensee has '
provided the licensee, or licensees (i.e., the defect is generic
! in nature) with the reportable information and that information
{ is in fact reported by the licensee (s), the non-licensee is not required to duplicate the reporting.
! In this instance it is also the staff's position that the non-
! licensee must have actual knowledge that the reporting was exe- 1
{ cuted prior to expiration of applicable Part 21 reporting time -
j requirements before he would be relieved of reporting the defect.
' It should also be noted that non-licensees are not relieved of reporting until the Connission is " adequately infomed." Your attention is s'pecifically directed to 121.21(b)(3)(vi). If
- licensee 50.55(e) report (s) do not adequately address the generic applicability, i.e., informstion on all such components, which
~~ ^ the non-licensee may'be uniquely quaTTTied to prcvide, the Part 21 ;
reporting responsibility would remain with the non-Itcensee for
- providing that part of the unreported infomation. ,
The reverse is not true because Section 50.55 M does not have a .
i provision like that included under 521.21(b) E est sentence) to ~
f relieve the licensee of report na under 50.55Ke) where he had 4
actual knowledge that the Com9ssion has been adequately informed !
j via a Part 21 report. However, the staff has stated that where '
v., y . -,-_n,~, ,nnw -nw-,nc--,,,--rennenm--+,-n~-,--~~~-.~~ - ~ _ - - -
Issue Date: 4/1/80 t
13 -
the Part 21 report includes all information required for 50.55(e) reporting it would be acceptable for the licensee's 50.55(e) report to simply reference the previously submitted Part 21 report.
(3) Additional Guidance - Information Notice 79-30 Recent IE exoerience (i.e., enforcement issued to S&W, B&W and
' 5 Region II licensees) clarifies "The staff position permitting alternate reporting via 50.55(e) or LER of a defect was intended to avoid duplicate reporting of the same event. The use of alternate reporting methods by a licensee does not relieve him from assuring- compliance with 10 CFR Part 21. Therefore, each licensee must maintain a system which will assure compliance with all requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 and, in particular, in cases where .the deficiency being reported under an alternste method is also a ' defect', to assure that all information required under Part 21 is forwarded to the liEC via the initial or a followup written report."
- 50. 10 CFR 50 55(e) EVENT FLOW DIAGRAMS Th'5 flow'dfagramo$thefollowingpagesillustratethesequenceofsteps and' considerations relative to determining whether an identified construction
-deficiency 'is reportable.
Figure 1 is 'a duplication of the guidance previously made available to licensees.via'NUREG-0302, Rev. 1.
l
( Figure 2, ir,corporates the IE position for assuring prompt reporting of
' reportable and potentially reportable deficiencies.
l l
.g' l
I 8
-<-m y
Issue Date: 4/1/80 .
d F,IGURE 1 10 CFR 50.55(e)
IDENTIFIED PROBLEM I
BREAKDOWN t + +
DEFICIENCY DEFICIENCY DEVIATION FROM IN IN IN PERFORMANCE QA PROGR AM FINAL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS I I I I OR OR OR OR I I I
AND DEFICIENCY ADVERSELY AFFECTSSAFETY OF OPERATIONS I
AND
~
DEFICIENCY IS SlGNIFICANT I
AND DEFICIENCY IS IN DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION LICENSEE ACTIDN REOUIRED 4
Issue Date: W80 FIGURE 2 10 CFR 50.55(e) - IE POSITION DEFICIENCY, PROBLEM OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY IDENTIFIED i I BREAKDOWN DEFICIENCY DEFICIENCY DEVIATION FROM IN OR IN OR IN OR PERFORMANCE QA PROGRAM FINAL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS CONCLUSION OF PROMPT CONSIDERATION ir 9#
COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANCE SAFE OPERATION - I.E., IS ESTABLISHED - ADDITIONAL A REPORTABLE DEFICIENCY INFORMATION IS REQUIRED MAKE NOTIFICATION OF MAKE P0TENTIAL REPORTABLE NOTIFICATION DEFICIENCY
~ SUBMIT CONTINUE EVALUATION l REPORT-l _
REPORT SUBMIT WITHDRAWAL DEFICIENCY OF NOTIFICATION
-- ._ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _