ML20128Q504
| ML20128Q504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1996 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Beach A, Ebneter S, Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128Q489 | List: |
| References | |
| EGM-96-002, EGM-96-2, NUDOCS 9610210075 | |
| Download: ML20128Q504 (90) | |
Text
.
gano
,*b
)*.
[$
j
. )^
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pa
\\;wa) wAsHtNcioN. o.c. 20eas-ooot
- =*
August :1, 1996 i
ECM 96-002 MEMORANDUM T0:
Hubert J. Miller, Regional Administrator Region I Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrater Region II I
A. Bill Beach, Regional Administrator Region III L. Joe Callan, Regional Administrator Region IV Roy Zimmerman, Associate Director for Projects, NRR Ashok C. Thadani, Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment, NRR Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS Donald A. Cool, Director, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, HMS5 John T. Greeves. Director, Division of Waste nagement yS j
FRON:
ak',A n'g irector J6 h
0 ic of Enfo nt
SUBJECT:
ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM INTERIM 10 CFR 50.65 - THE MAINTENANCE RULE This Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM maintenance rule inspections of licensee facilities. enfo Controls and Human Factors of NRR.have been developed in clos The guidelines in the attachment are intended to provide guidance to staff to facilitate consistent categorization of severity levels for fail to comply with the requirements of the maintenance rule.
note that these Policy and are, guidelines are not currently contained in the EnforcementIt is imp therefore, not controlling.
applying the definition in Section IV of the Policy for:They should be used to assist significant regulatory concerns for Severity Level II violations,(2) instances of very significant regulatory concerns ((for Severity Level III violati 2
more than of minor concern (for Severity Level IV violations).
quality assurance and operability.It is recognized that maintenanc issues relative to the case may re:; ult in another enforcement app taken.
In some cases, the issues can be categorized by either result or the e ng root cause.
For example, in some instances, the root cause m&y be more 9610210075 960927 PDR ORG NRCCO PDR
j l,
Multiple Addressees i i significant than the result, whereas in other 1
hold true.
i Supplement I to the Policy, the selection should normally be whi h e may g
}
provides the higher severity level and the clearer message i
c ever The form and philosophy of the rule encourages " maximum fl j
i licensees in establishing their programs to meet the intent and re i
y or of the rule.
appropriate for licensees who have inadequately im quirements rule or whose performance demonstrates a continuing ineffectiven e
of the maintenance activities.
of 1
Escalated enforcement would be appropriate where there was a fa reasonable efforts to implement the requirements of the rule or where e to make significant degradation of SSCs could have been prevented th implementation of the maintenance rule.
guidance that is more fully expanded in the examples in the atta e
A single violation would be a Severity Level IV violation NOTE: In ccuidering whether to make a citation for a violation involving a relatively isolated, low safety significant SSC consider the flexibility in the rule rule, including consideraSSC; the reasonableness of the lic operating experience; anc tion of its and industry's prior the licensee has acted reasonably, a citation might not b If warranted.
A single violation involving a high'saf'ety significant SSC that causes a plant transient that would have been prevented by effective implementation of the maintenance rule would be a Severity Level III violation.
Supplement I, Example C.9 that equipment failures caused by inadequate or improper, provide maintenance that substantially complicates recovery from a pla transient is considered a Severity level III violation or problem Multiple examples of maintenance failures that demonstrate a "programatic breakdown,' would normally be considered a Se Level III violation.
This is consistent with Supplement I, licensed activities involving a number of violati related that collectively represent a potential carelessness toward licensed responsibilities is considered a Severity Level III violation or problem.
Multiple examples of maintenance failures of h recovery from a plant transient,, indicate a programmatic breakdown in implementation of the requirements of the rule and would be considered a very significant regulatory concern and should be
Multiple Addressees
. considered for issuance as a Severity Level II violation or problem.
The maintenance rule does not supersede any existing requirem those contained in 10 CFR Part 50 (including Appendix B and oth ents, such as a licensee's technical specifications.
When preparing notices of violation forTh for maintenance activities.
maintenance activities, the maintenance rule should be used fo whenever a licensee. has violated a specific requirement of the rule.
a ons When a set of facts indicates that there are viola maintenance rule and another NRC regulation, cite both requirem enance one " contrary to."
e licensee activities not covered by the maintenance ruleHowev with oni; requirements of Appendix B or the plant technical specifications, cite ag please note that the failure to perform the safety assessment p
- Also, 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(3) requires special attention.
Paragraph D in the attachment.
or in This is addressed in Part A, Because the maintenance rule takes a performance based approa enforcement experience in these types of perfo nspecting e
will require modification as more inspections are ent experience is gained.
required until sufficient information can be collected.It is estimated Office,of Enforcement expects to revise the En At that time, the ng on.
Additional enforcement guidance has been provided in EGM 96-001 July 3, 1996, which established a Maintenance Rule Enforcement R
, dated that will meet periodically to review enforcement issues that are dis anel during the performance of maintenance rule and other rr ; tine NRC ins osed This should contribute to the consistency of enforcement actions in pections.
s area, J. Milhoan OEDR cc:
H. Thompson,, DEDS W. Russell, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC F. Gillespie, NRR
ATTACM' ENT 1:
MAINTENANCE RULE VIOLATIONS d
1.
[xp oles of Activities That Would Be Violations of the Mainten A.
Failure to include safety rel_ated' or non-safetv 2 systems, and components (SSCs) (as defined in 10 CFR 50.65 (b related structures, (2)) within the scope of the program.
1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
Failure to include one or more SSCs d.
where they should result of the failure to include the SSC: clearly be i
- 1) complicates the safety significant SSCs, causes a plant transientr example applies and indicates programatic failures (if this Severity Level II should be considered). involvin b.
Failure to include multiple SSCs within the scope of the rule which indicates a pro requirements of the rule. grammatic failure to implement the
- 2.,
, violations involving, for example:
Failure to include an SSC within the scope of the rule.
a.
B.
Failure to establigh goals for SSCs in (a)(1) or performance criteria for SSCs in (a)(2).
Establishment of goals that are inconsistent with
'All safety related SSCs should be clearly defined in th quality assurance program and should be identified and included within the e licensee's scope of the rule.
2 Because of the flexibility in the rule, special consideration needs to be given to determine whether a non-safety related SSC was properly exc from the scope of the rule.
10 CFR 50.65 b In determining whether a violation o(cc)u(2) governs non-safety related SSCs.
rred, consider the experience and existing analyses (e.g. FSAR,. IPE, etc that would indicate that a particular non-safety related SSC should have b'ee included within the scope of the rule.
consider hypothetical scenarios, it is possible that some SSCs (with no l
history of industry--wide and plant experience of failures) that were excluded from the scope of the rule, may fail and cause an event.
SSC or event would nat be considered a violation. include such The failure to be expected to include the SSC within'the scope of the rule following theHo first failure of the SSC.
3 the performance or condition of the SSC is being effective through the performance of appropriate preventive maintenance such that the
)
4 considered sufficient goals to meet the rule and wo violations.
1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
A single failure to establish 'a goal for an SSC under (a)(1) a.
or a performance criterion under (a)(2) that:
the recovery from a plant transient or 2) in the cce of1) complicates high safety significant SSCs, causes a plant transient (if this example applies with more than one failure and indicates programatic failures involving high safety significant SSCs, then a violation at Severity Level II should be considered).
b.
Multiple examples of failures to establish either goals for SSCs under (a)(1) or performance criteria urder (a)(2) that indicate a programmatic failure to implement the maintenance rule.
Multiple examples of the failure to take industry-wide c.
operating experience into account when establishing goals or performance criteria, where industry-wide operating experience was readil available, that indicate a programmatic failure )to :mt this requirement of the rule'.
2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
A single failure to establish a goal for any SSC under a.
(a)(1) or a performance criterion for any SSC under (a)(2).
C.
Failure to establish a monitoring' program (this would include the failure to take timely and appropriate corrective action in the evaluation of monitoring activities) that adequately supports the goals set under 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(1) or the performance criteria set under 10 CFR 50.65(a)(2).
The monitoring program must be sufficient in scope and SSC ren.ains capable o'f performing its intended function.
the establishment of performance criteria to accomplish this.NUMARC 93-01 uses The licensee also has the option of not establishing goals or performance criteria if a determination is made that low safety significant SSCs are inherently reliable or could be allowed to run to failure.
made and documented in advance of the failure.However this determinati
' Evidence that industry-wide operating experience was taken into consideration is not required for every goal.
However, if multiple examples of goals and performance criteria are reviewed where industry-wide operating experiences are readily available and examples are not found where the licensee can demonstrate that they were taken into consideration, then the licensee's program indicates a prograrnatic failure.
j 1
^~~
i ;
meeting their assigned goals or performance cr j
4 er SSCs are 1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for exarnle:
a.
A single failure to establish a monitoring program that
}
adequately supports a goal set under (a)(1) or a perfo criterion under (a)(2) that:
i from a plant transient or 2
- 1) complicates the recovery i
significant SSCs, causes a p)lant transient (if th in the case of high safety i
applies with more than one failure and indicates i
SSCs, then a violation at Severity Level II sh considered).
b.
Multiple failures to establish a monitorin i
criterion under (a to implement the re)q(u)rements of the maintena 2
i c.
A failure to establish a monitoring program that adequa supports a goal set under (a) 1 under (a)(2) that results in r(ep)etitiveor a performance criterion preventable functional failures (MPFFs), maintenance 2.
Severity level IV - violations involving, for example:
A single failure to estabV,sh a monitoring a.
criterion under (a)(2).
D.
Failure to take timely and appropriate corrective action (this wou include evaluation of monitoring activities) when a goal or oerformance criterion is exceeded. Repetitive failures due to inappropriate or ineffective corrective action could be considered violation under this rule for all SSCs within the scope of this rule 1
a violation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B for safety-related SSCs.
1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
A single failure to take timely and appropriate corrective a.
action when a goal or performance. criterio.n for an SSC is exceeded (failed) which 1) complicates the. recovery from a plant transient or 2) in the case of high safety significant 5
Maintenance Preventible Functional Failures (MPFFs) a Maintenance Rule to perform its intended function failure of the SSC is attributable to a maintenance-related activity staff has endorsed the use of MPFFs as a tool for monitoring SSC mai The performance in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.160 (January 1995).
i 1 SSCs, causes a plant transient (if this example applies indicates programmatic failures involving high safety significant SSCs, then a violation at Severity Level II should be considered).
b.
which results in repetitive MPFFs.The failure to ev Multiple failures to take timely and appropriate corrective c.
action when a goal or performance criterion is exceeded j
(failed the requ)irements of the maintenance rule.that indi 2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
A single failure to take timely and appropriate corrective a.
action when a goal or performance criterion is exceeded (failed).
E.
of MPFFs of SSCs covered under (a)(2) would be develop a rationale or justification for continuing to cover an SSC Failure to under (a)(2 violation. ) after it has experienced a repetitive MPFF would be a 1.
Severity Lever III - violations involving, for example:
Multiple failures to make a reasonable effort to determine a.
the cause of MPFFs of SSCs covered under (a)(2).
b.
Multiple failures to develop a rationale or justification
^
have experienced a repetitive MPFFs that ind programmatic failure to implement the requirements of the rule.
2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
A single failure to make a reasonable effort to determine a.
the cause of a MPFF of an SSC covered under (a)(2).
b.
The failure to develop a rationale or continuing to cover that SSC under (a) justification for (2) after it has experienced a repetitive MPFF.
F.
described under (a)(3) would be a violation. Failure to perfo
i ?
1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
The failure to perform any required periodic assessment a.
which indicated a programmatic failure to meet the requirement of the rule.
2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
i The failure to include a review of performance and a.
monitoring activities and associated maintenance activities (i.e., all (a) goals and preventive t
activities) in the periodic assessment.(1) and (a)(2) i b.
Completing this assessment in an untimely manner'.
The failure to take industry-wide operating experience into c.
i consideration when performing the periodic assessment.
G.
Failure to periodically (once per refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 I
months between evaluations) balance reliability and unavailability due to monitoring / maintenance activities would be a Severity Level IV violation.
1 H.
A failure to develop, implement or adhere to any of the procedures developed by a licensee to implement the rule may be a violation and j
could be assessed as a violation of the licensee's technical specifications or 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
{
1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
A single failure to develop or follow procedures involving
.a.
the maintenance of an SSC that 1) complicates the recovery from a plant transient or 2 significant SSCs, causes a p)lant transientin the case of high safety applies and indicates programmatic failures (involving highif th safety significant SSCs, then a violation at Severity Level II should be considered).
b.
The failure to develop or follow procedures that results in repetitive MPFFs.
Multiple examples of failures to develop or follow c.
procedures that indicate a programmatic failure to implement the requirements of the maintenance rule.
2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
A single failure to develop or follow procedures.
a.
'At least one assessment during each refueling cycle provided the interval between assessments does not exceed 24 months.
l
. II.
Examoles of Activities That Would Not Necessarily Be Vio Maintenance Rul_e:
e~
A.
A failure to meet a licensee developed goal under (a)(1) w be subject to enforcement action as long as appropriate c not action had been taken when the goal was not met.
ve B.
It is intended that licensees be allowed flexibility when 3
establishing goals and not be subject to enforcement on goa selection as long as these goals are reasonably based and industry operating experience.
second guess the details of these goals.The NRC does not intend to 2
safety and industry operating experience. review thes However the NRC will C.
The details of the monitoring program would not be subject to enforcement action as long as the monitoring was sufficient to 4
adequately support the goals and provided for an evaluation whenever a goal was exceeded (See example of violations C above).
D.
Since the rule states that, in performing monitoring and 4
preventive maintenance activities plant equipment that is out of ser,vice should be taken intoan ass functions, the failure to perform this assessme violation of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3).
to perform this assessment.
However, licensees are expected If the inspector finds that a licensee is not performing this assessment using the methods detailed in NUMARC 93-01, Section j
or equivalent methods, then the inspector should consider this to be an issue that should be referred for resolution to NRC management and the Maintenance Rule Enforcement Review Panel established by EGM 96-001.
In a case whe~ e this failure to perform a safety assessment r
contributed to the severity of another violation of the regulations, or exacerbated the consequences of an event or taken into account as an escalating factor in any enforcement action.
equipment out of service that:In addition, the failure to con ~
programmatic issue, (2) cauces the initiation of a plant trip transient with the potential for a trip, or (3) demonstrates the potential for a high risk system configuration is of significant regulatory concern and should be considered for enforcement action.
Depending on the circumstances, the enforcement related action (enforcement conference, Demand for Information, Order, etc.) should be utilized to focus the licensee on the need to
l g
. modify its maintenance activities because of its demonstrated failure to consider the overall safety impact of removing squipment from service.
E.
Deficiencies in records and documentation would not in the be subject to enforcement.
However.,if they contribute to an inappropriate action or inaction to correct the performance of an SSC, these record or documentation deficiencies may be cited as contributing factors in an enfor:ement action.
1
- l 9
0 4
4 o
[
!