ML20128E664
| ML20128E664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/02/1993 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128E631 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900271 2.206, NUDOCS 9302100540 | |
| Download: ML20128E664 (4) | |
Text
,
[7590-01]
U.S. NUCLEr., REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 99900271 ROSEMOUNT, INC.
RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 4 2.201 Notice is hereby given that by Petition dated December 31,
- 1992, Paul M. Blanch (Petitioner) has requested that the Commission take immediate enforcement action against RosemoO t, Inc., for a knowing and intentional failure to provide notice of defects in basic components, as-required by_
As a basis for this request, the Petitioner asserts that.-
Rosemount became aware, prior to 1986, that basic components consisting of-ll50 series transmitters supplied to nuclear industry purchasers contained defects, but failed to notify either the purchasers or affected licensees within five working days of the discovery of the defect, or the Commission within a timely-manner, as required by 10 C.F.R. $21.21.
Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that Rosemount became aware that the transmitters contained defects consisting of a loss of fill oil which resulted in an undetected failure of the transmitter.
The Petitioner asserts that this resulted in the severe degradation of the transmitter's response time and drift which was outside of the specified
_ procurement requirements and was in violation of NRC requirements.as defined in 10 C.F.R. 550.55 and certain IEEE Codes and Standards required by the procurement documents.
According to the Petitioner, a second failum mechanism was that certain 1150 series transmitters contained a defect which resulted in either an.
I 9302100540 930202
-PDR OA999 EMVROSM 99900271 PDR
4
' intermittent up-scale or down-scale reading which returned to normal after power was removed.
The request is being treated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.206 of the Commission's regulations.
The request has been referred to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).
By letter dated February 2,
1993, the Petitioner's request that the Commission take immediate action has been denied.
j As provided by section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this request within a reasonable time.
A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day of February 1993
Mr. Paul M. Blanch Febraury 2, 1993
[
because of a loss of oil, and developing an enhanced surveillance program to monitor transmitter performance.
In Supplement I to Bulletin 90-01, the NRC gave licensees new information on the problem and requested that licensees take additional actions. The staff is continuing to review the circumstances surrounding the Rosemount loss of oil problem regarding compliance with NRC regulations including compliance with 10 CFR Part 21.
You discussed a second failure mechanism involving intermittent up-scale or down-scale readings.
During a January 27-29, 1987, NRC inspection at the Rosemount facility (NRC Inspection Report 99900271/87-01), the NRC staff reviewed this f ailure mechanism problem and found that Rosemount appropriately informed its nuclear utility customers of the deviation in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
Rosemount informed its customers of the deviation by letters of July 24, 1986, and Nceember 25, 1986.
As provided by Section 2.206, action will be taken on your request within a reasonable time.
I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
[ original signed by)
' Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
- See previous concurrence page DISTRIBUTION: See next page OFFICE VIB/DRIL VlB/DRll VIB/DRll DRIL/NRR DRIL/NRR NAME JJPETROSIN0*
GCWAllNA*
LNORRHOLM*
RZIMMERMAN*
CEROSSl*
DATE 1/27/93 1/27/93 1/27/93 1/?8/93 1/28 /?3 COPY YES YES YES YES N0 YES NO DOC 7"
0FFICE DRCH/NRR OGC/NRR OE/NRR ADT/NRR g
NAME BAB0GER*
SSCHIDAKEL*
JLIE0ERMAN*
FMIRAGLIA*
TMURLEY DATE 1/28/93 1/28/93 1/29/93 2/01/93 2/M3 COPY YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES N0 l DOC OFFICE TECH EDITOR NAME JMAIN*
DATE 1/27/93 COPY YES YES N0 YES N0 YES NO YES NO DOC j
Off!CIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: BLANCH.LTR 1
1
y>
t,
+
w c.
N. ;
s Y 'i.r._ [ p ase y 'g a.
]'
- UNITEJ 8TATES
-~ %
I f.
. NOCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f," -
.[
j-waeonwarow,o.c.aeses-Q;_'k*****
EDO Principal Correspondw.C,4 Control b
~
~
VTROM:
DUE: 41/26/i3--
-EDO CONTROL: 0008449 DOC DT:.12/31/92
- FINAL REPLY:-
Paul H.- Blanch
-WOct Hartford, CT TO:
EDO FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC'NO:-
DESC:
-ROUTING:
2.206 PETITION TO IMPOSE-ENFORCEMENT AGAINST Taylor ROSCHOUNT INC. FOR DEFECTIVE COMPONENTS Sniezek Thompson DATE: 12/31/92 Blaha yyq,/
Knubel f [M O
CONTACT:
ASSIGNED TO:
/
Williams,.OIG SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
bh Y
pgg fykhk.' DET4/AI
~
$O
/
'u hCTION L
$<fQ DUE Tc.>.',T? 9_.gcCTOR'S dy %
89 Q:
gm 90sdM aw 9205854 i
--r s
2.
.. m
f+.
W-
!\\
/\\
~'
y UNITED STATES f
f ch@'
>.E I p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20065
\\,.v./
JAN 141993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Jack R. Goldberg Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement
SUBJECT:
PAUL M.
BLANCH 2.206 PETITION REGARDING ROSEMOUNT, INC.
Enclosed is a copy of a Petition filed on December 31, 1992, by Paul M.
Blanch (Petitioner) requesting that the Commission take immediate enforcement action against Rosemount, Inc., for a knowing and intentional failure to provide notice of defects in basic components, as required by 10 C.F.R. $21.21.
As a basis for this request, the Petitioner asserts that Rosemount became aware, prior to
- 1986, that basic components consisting of 1150 series transmitters supplied to nuclear industry purchasers contained defects, but failed to notify either the purchasers _or affected licensees within five working days of the discovery of the defect, or the Commission within a timely manner, as required by 10 C.F.R. 521.21. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that Rosemount became aware thut the transmitters contained defects consisting of a' loss of fill oil which resulted in an undetected failure of the transmitter.
The Petitioner asserts-that this resulted in the severe degradation of the transmitter's response time 'and drif t which was outside of the specified procurement requirements and was in violation of NRC requirements as defined in 10- C.F.R. $50.55 and certain IEEE Codes and Standards required by_ the procurement documents. According to the Petitioner, a second failure mechanism was that certain 1150 series transmitters contained a defect which resulted in either an intermittent up-scale or down-scale reading which returned to normal after power was removed.
I have enclosed drafts of a letter of acknowledgement to the Petitioner for your signature.
Please note that the staff will need to explain why it is_not necessary to take immediate action, as the Petitioner requests. Since the Petitioner seeks enforcement action for a violation of Part 21, this should be coordinated with OE.
I am also enclosing a Notice of Receipt of the Petition for-publication in the-Federal Register.
Contact:
Susan Chidakel 504-1688
/
jMt i
. }N*,p
4
.2-If you want the licensee to respond regarding these matters, we will assist your ataff in drafting an appropriate letter.
If you want more information from the Petitioner, we will be glad to assist your staf f in draf ting a letter requesting this information, t
Please inform Susan Chidakel of my staff of the technical contact who will be involved in preparing a response to the Petition.
Please ensure that I ata provided copies of all correspondence related to the Petition and that I am asked to conc r on all staff correspondence.
/
vl g ck R. Goldber Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
Copy of the Petition 2.
Draft Letter of Acknowledgement 3.
Draft Federal Register Notice cc w/ enclosures:
J. Scinto, OGC L. Chandler, OGC J.
Lieberman, OE T. Martin, Region I K. Smith, Region I
/
l
L Fax Transmitta: Cover Sheet 1-To:
Mr. James 0 Taylor - l'SNRC ED0's Ottice Froin:
Paul Blanch. Northeast Utilities Fax Number:
(203) 665-5579 Date:
Thu, Dec 31,1992 + 10:28 Transtuitting (4) pages, including cover sheet.
If there is difficulty with this transinission, please call: (203) 665-3404
\\
I
Nonheast t)htines -(203,665-5579 - Created Thursday, December 31, '992 to 01 Page 1 of 3
- December 31,1992 wy j
Executive Director for Operations
' (,pJ 7
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C. 20555 Yl A FAX 301-504-2162
Subject:
Request for Action under 10 CFR 2.206 Since December 1988, the NRC has been aware of major defects contained within-basic components supphed by Rosemount Inc. and that these delects bad not been reported to the NRC in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 21. Since this date, I have provided information and testimony to your Office of Investigation, yet it appears that no enfercement action is being taken Therciore, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 I am requesting the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory to impose immediate enforcement against Rosemount Inc. for "A knowing and intentional failure to provide the notice required bv Part 21."1 This request is predicated upon the following information.
1 Rosemount has supplied basic components as defined by #213(a)(1) foi use in nuclear powei icactois to assuie the capability to shutdown the icactoi and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and, to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents.
2.
Rosemount has knowingly supplied these basic components to the U.S. Nucleai industry in accoidence with the iequiiements of 10 CFR 21 prior to 1986.
3.
Rosemount has been aware that the basic components supplied to the purchasers contained defects as defined by 10 CFR #21.3(d).
4.
Prior to 1986, Rosemount became aware of the fact that a defect of a basic component was being supplied to nuclear power reactors and that Rosemount intentionally failed to comply with the Notification Requirements of 10 CFR b21.21.
5.
The defect 3 contained within the basic components were that 1150 series transmitters supplied in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 21-were experiencing a loss of fill oil which resulted in en undetectable failure of I 10 CFR Pad 2 App C Supplement Vil A 5 1
l EDO --- 008449 Cf2.c75y1-s).<<
- ~.-
... -.... ~. ~ - -
Northeast Utihues - (203) 66F5579 % Created Thursday, t)ecember 31.199210 01 Page 2 of 3 j
i 9-
-i
- the transmitter. This undetected failure resulted in the severe degradation of the q
transmitter's response lime and drift which was outside of the specified.
j procurement requirements. Further, this undetected failure mechanism was in violation of NRC requiremerns as defined in 10 CFR 50.55 and certain IEEE Codes and Standards required by the procurement documents 6.
A second failure mechanism was that centain 1150 series transmitters I
contained a defect which resulted in either an intermittent up-scale or down-scale reading which rettirned to normal after power was removed. Rosemount i
attributed this defect to an " contamination of the fill oil in the sensing cell"
- )
1.
On or about January 5.1989, Rosemount was confronted by 1
representatives of NUNIARC and EPRI with evidence of the loss of oil defect, and at that time, admitted knowledge of the existence of a minimum of 78
.l confirmed defects.
R 8.
On or about January 5,1989, Rosemount acknowledged' the existence of this defect and stated that it had been resolved by design and manufacturing _
changes implemented in 1986. Rosemount also acknowledged that this defect had not been reported as required by 10 CFR 21.
9.
The existence of the defects continued after the manufacturing n
changes were implemented in 1986, 10.
Only after extreme pressure from the industry did Rosemount 'on or about February 7,1989 notify users of the defect related to loss of oil.
I 1.
Rosemount f ailed to comply _with the requirements of 10 CFR h21.21(b)in that they failed to notify either the purchasers or affected licensees within five working days of the discovery of the defect.
t 12.
Rosemount failed to comply with the requirements of.10 CFR 42](b)(1)in that they knowingly and intentionally failed to inform the Commission in a timely manner when they had "..obtained information reasonably indicating a failure to comply or a defect affecting...the construction or operation..." of a nuclear facility.
13.
Rosemount failed to comply with the requirements of"10 CFR #21.61:
in that they may have "- knowingly and consciously failed to provide-_the notice -
required by h21.21 and shall be subject to a civil penalty as provided by Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended."-
3
Northeast l'tihties - 12031665 5579 Created Thursday December 31,199210 02 Page 3 of 3
.r:....,.
4 On or about April 1990, I personally testified to the NRC's Office of investigation, yet no visible enforcement action has been taken as of this date.
Your prompt action on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincei el,s,
fb?{ $1. /$Af Paul.\\1. Blanch 135 Hyde Rd West Hartford Ct. 06117 cc:
Senator Joseph Lieberman Senator Christopher Dodd hlr. Ben Hayes, Office of Investigation hir. Leo Norton, Office of the inspector General Igor Sikorsky Ernest Hadley
.s a.
j Docket No.
(10 C.F.R. & 2.206)
Mr. Paul M. Blanch 135 Hyde Road West Hartford, Connecticut 06117
Dear Mr. Blanch:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your Petition - filed December 31, 1992, requesting that the Commission take ir. mediate enforcement action against Rosemount, Inc.,
for a knowing and intentional failure to provide notice of defects in basic components, as required by 10 C.F.R. $21.21.
As a basis for your request, you assert that Rosemount became aware, prior to 1986, that basic components ' consisting of 1150 series transmitters supplied to nucl' ear industry purchasers contained defects, but failed to notify either the purchasers or affected licensees within five working days of the discovery of the defect, or the Commission.
within a
timely
- manner, as required by 10 C. F.R. - ~ S21.21.
Specifically, you assert that Rosemount became ' avare that the transmitters contained defects consisting of - a loss of fill oil which resulted in an undetected failure of the transmitter.
- You assert that 'this-resulted in the severe degradation of-the-transmitter's response time and drift which was outside of the.
specified procurement requirements and was in violation of NRC requirements as defined in 10 C.F.R. 550.55 and certain IEEE Codes and Standards required -by the procurement ' documents. You assert further that a second failure mechanism was that certain-.1150 series transmitters contained a defect which resulted in either an intermittent up-scale or down-scale reading which returned to normal after power was removed.
- Your Petition has been referred to me pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
Your request that the Commission 2ake immediate action has been.
denied.
The reason for - this denial is that (STAFF _ PROVIDE RESPONSE].
As provided by section 2.206, action will be taken on
4 m,.. o..
w
..=-
- _ s ;-
.i g
yourirequestLwithin a:-reasonable time.- I: have~ enclosed' for your-information ai copyf of the notice 1 that fis; being ' filed 'with --: the -
~
Office-of-the-Federal Register for.. publication..
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley,: Director 1 office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-
Enclosure:
As stated i
cca Northeast Utilities o
E
'b Y
P l
u e
u y
J I
[w
'I
.t r
k 5
.-['.
l f $.
~
. ~ _ -
Mr. Paul M. Blanch Febraury 2, 1993 o
because of a loss of oil, and developing an enhanced surveillance program to monitor transmitter performance.
In Supplement 1 to Bulletin 90-01, the NRC gave licensees new information on the problem and requested that licensees take additional actions.
The staff is continuing to review the circumstances i
surrounding the Rosemount loss of oil problem regarding compliance with NRC l
regulations including compliance with 10 CFR Part 21.
You discussed a second failure mechanism involving intermittent up-scale..
down-scale readings. During a January 27-29, 1987, NRC inspection at the Rosemount facility (NRC Inspection Report 99900271/87-01), the NRC staff reviewed this failure mechanism problem and found that Rosemount appropriately informed its nuclear utility customers of the deviation in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
Rosemount informed its customers of the deviation by letters of July 24, 1986, and November 25, 1986.
j As provided by Section 2.206, action will be taken on your request within a reasonable time.
I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
{ original signed by)
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
- See previous concurrence page DISTRIBUTION: See next page 0FFICE VIB/DRIL VIB/DRIL VIB/DRIL DRIL/NRR DRIL/NRR NAME JJPETROSIN0*
GCWALINA*
LNORRHOLM*
RZIMMERMAN*
CEROSSI*
DATE 1/27/93 1/2733 1/27/93 1/28/93 1/28 /93 COPY YES YES YES YES NO YES NO DOC 0FFICE DRCH/NRR OGC/NRR DE/NRR ADT/NRk E,MURLEY@ F, NAME BAB0GER*
SSCHIDAKEL*
JLIEBERMAN*
FMIRAGLIA*
1 DATE 1/28/93 1/28/93 1/29/93 2/01/93 2/M3 COPY YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO DCC g_ _
-.g.-
g 0FFICE TECH EDITOR NAME JMAIN*
DATE 1/27/93 COPY YES YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO DOC OFFICIAL RECTJRD COPY DOCUMEN1 NAME:BLAtCH.LlR