ML20205A675

Notice of Violation Re LERs 86-040-00 & 86-040-01.Violation Noted:Licensee Environ Qualification Files Did Not Contain Record of Testing or Analysis for Terminal Blocks,Per 10CFR50.49 & Generic Ltr 88-07

ML20205A675
Person / Time
Site:	Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	10/19/1988
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205A660	List: ML20205A654 ML20205A675
References
EA-88-199, GL-88-07, GL-88-7, NUDOCS 8810260064
Download: ML20205A675 (1)

Text

-

O e l

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-295 Zion, Unit 1 License No. OPR-39 EA 88-199 As a result of Licensee Event Report No. 86-040-00 dated November 25, 1986 and Supplemental Licensee Event Report No. 86-040-01 dated May 1, 1987, and in accordance with the Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, "Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to safety I for Nuclear Power Plants," contained in Generic Letter 88-07, the following violation was identified:

10 CFR 50.49(f) and (g) require that, prior to November 30, 1985, each item of i i electric equipment important to safety be environmentally qualified by test and/or analysis.

k ntrary to the above, from November 30, 1985 untti January 1987 terminal blocks were installed in the circuitry for Barton Pressure Transmitter 1PT-403 and Rosemount Level Transmitters ILT-503 and ILT-504, electrical equipment ,

important to safety, which were not demonstrated to be environmentally qualified in that the licensee's EQ files did not contain any record of testing or analysis to environmentally qualify the terminal blocks for use in these applications. I l'

This is an EQ Category C violation. ,

The licensee provided information which showed that action had been taken to correct the identified violation. Consequently, no reply to this Notice is r required and the NRC has no further questions regarding this matter.

l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N f AtLL

/s,A.BertDavis l

' Regional Administrator i i

i Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois l this 144 day of October 1988 l

L SS10260064 8s1019

{DR ADOCK 0500035 PDC

_ _ _ _ - _ . . . . _ - - _ - _ _ _ ._ __ _ _ _ _ ~ ..- ____ _ _. _ _ -- - - - ---___

g West?tJstAres f d -

, NUCLE AR REOULATORY C0hthAIS$60N j i nasmussfeu,cA e. ssess

• l April 7, 1988

\*...* - -

i i TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICEN5tt5 AND APPLICANT 5  !

SUBJECT:

M00lfit0 (NFORCEMENT POLICT RELATING TO 10 CFR 50.49

• ENVIRONMENTAL  !

! QUALIFICATIONOFILECTRICALEQUlPMENTiMPORTANTTO$dFETYFORNUCLEAR j i POWER PLANT 5' (GENERIC LETTER 84 07)  ;

I l

Bacharovad: j Generic Letters Bulletins and Information hotices have been issued to provide i idanceregardInstheappI1cationandenforcementof10CFR50.49 'invironmental j alification of Electric Equipment !sportant to Safety for Nuclear, power plants.' .

neric Letter 45 15, issues August 6 1985 and Generic Letter 86-15 issued  !

> 5eptes6er 22,1986, providedinormatIonrelatedtothedeadlinesfor, o

compliance  !

i with 10 CFR 50.4g and possible civil penalties applicable to licensees who were }

J not in compliance with the rule as of the Noveu6er 30,1945 deadline. Upon review,  !

the Cosmission found that the (Q Enforcement policy promulgated in Generic Letter  :

M the15,fety sa significance of IQ violations with respect to civil snelties imposedcould ;l in the past. In the interest of continuing a tough but fair en"orcement policy,  !

the Commission determined that the EQ Enforcement policy should be revised. The  !

3 purpose of this letter is to provide a modification to the NRC's enforcement  !

policy, as approved by the Cosmission, for environmental qualification (EQ) l violations. This letter replaces the guidance provided in Generic Letters 85-15 -

i and 86-15. l Modified EQ Enforcement Policy

{ i j The details of the modified (Q enforcement policy are provided in the enclosure, i

(1)aggregatesignificant l

' GenerallyIonstogetherthe EQ violat rather changes than consider made to theseparate each policy are to:of unqualified item j electrical equipment for assessment of a civil penalty, (2) assess a base t 1 civil penalty accordIng to the nus6er of systems or components which are affected  !

f by the unqualified equ'puent in a graded approach by assignment of the ajigregate EQ problem into one of three categories, (3) establish a manteum EQ civt ; penalty of $750 000 for most cases. (4) maintain a sintaun civil penalty of $50,000 for asijinificantEQviolationinmostcases,and(5)considermitigationor esca atton of the base civil penalty based on the factors of identification and I reporting best efforts to com and duration of the violation.plete EQ within the deadline, corrective actions, i

This modified policy should not be interpreted as a lessening of the NRC's

! intention to assure that all plants cosply with EQ requirements. The modified policy is intended to give a significant civil penalty to those licensees with significant EQ violations. The NRC's view is that the modified policy more closely reflects the relative safety importance of EQ violations with other enforcement issues.

Safe'ty Issues When a potential deficiency has been identified by the NRC or licensee in the

! , environmental qualification of. equipment (i.e., a licensee does not have an i

fN Yy p a Sr --

, Generic Letter CJa07 Apcil 7, 1988 adequate basis to establish qualification), the licensee is expected to u ke a prompt determination of operability (i.e., the system or component is capable of performing its intended design function), take tsunediate steps to establish a plan with a reasonable schedu e to correct the deficiency, and have written justification for continued operation, which will be available for NRC review.

The Itcensee my be able to make a finding of operability using analysis and partial test data to provide reasonable assurance that the equipeent will perform its safety function when called upon. In this connection, it must also be shown that subsequent failure of the equipment, if likely under accident conditions, will not result in significant degradation of any safety function or provide aisleading informtion to the operator.

The following actions are to be taken if a licensee is unable to demonstrate equipment operability:

a. For inoperable equipment which is in a system covered by plant technical specifications, the licensee shall follow the appropriate action statements. This could require the plant to shut down or remain shut down,

b. For inoperable equipment not covered by the plant technical specifications, the licensee my continue reactor operation:

1. If the safety function can be accocplished by other designated equipenent that is qualified, or

2. If lir.ited administrative controls can be used to ensure the safety function is performed.

The licensee must also evaluate whether the findings are reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, 10 CFR Part 21, the Technical Specifications or any other pertinent reporting requirements, including 10 CFR 50.9(b), particularly if equipment is determined to be inoperable.

This letter does not require any response and therefore does not need approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Coments on burden and dupiteation my be directed to the Office of Management and Budget. Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Should you have questions on this letter, the staff contact is Howard Wong. Office of Enforcement. He can be reach on (301) 492-3281.

M Frank J. M Waglia Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated f

< l ENCLOSURE  ;

M00!FIED EWORCDetNT POLICY FOR EQ REQUIREENTS l This enclosure provides the details of the modified enforcement policy for EQ requirements for those licensees who were not in cospliance with 10 CFR 50.49 l t as of the Noved er 30, 1985 deadline. l I. Scoee of the Enforcement Policy for EQ Requirements 4 ,

If violations of the EQ rule identified at plants c:erating after  !

November 30, 1985 existed before the deadline and t se licensee "clearly l knew or should have known" of the lack of proper environmental qualifi-  :

, cation, then enforcement action may be taken as described in Sections !!! ,

and IV. If the licensee does not meet the ' clearly knew or should have known' test, no enforcement action will be taken.

l This enforcement policy applies to violations of the EQ rule identified I after Novee er 30, 1985 which relate back to action or lack of action 3 before the deadline. Violations which occurred after Neves6er 30,1985 l

) (either as a result of plant sedifications or because the plant was I licensed after Noven6er 30,1985) will be considered for enforcement 4 action under the normal Inforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C.  ;

i In addition. EQ violations which are identified after the NRC's last ,

j first-round inspection. 1/ approximately mid 1988, will also be considered under the normal Enforcement Policy.

!!. Aeolication of the ' Clearly Knew. or Should Have Known* Test ,

i i

Licensees who ' clearly knew" they had equipment for which qualification  !

t could not be established may have coasnitted a deliberate violation of NRC I requirements. This situation will be evaluated on a case by-case basis.  !

]

. The NRC will examine the circurstances in each case to determine whether  ;

i the licensee ' clearly should have known* that its equipment was not que?1-  ;

j fled. The factors the NdC will examine include  !

I 1. Dirt the licensee have vendor-supplied docusentation that demonstrated l that the equipment was qualified? '

i

2. Did the Itcensee perform adequate receiving and/or field verification i inspection to determine that the configuration of the installed i equi nt matched the configuration of the equipment that was qualified j by t: e vendor?

3. Did the licensee have prior notice that equipment qualification deficiencies might exist?

-l 4. Did other licensees identify similar problems and correct thes l before the deadline?

r

] ~

1/ First-round inspections are special team inspections to review licensees' 1

cospituce with 10 CFR 50.49.

A5 . _ _ _ . _ . _ . - - - - . - - _ - - - . _ _ . - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _

Inclosure ' '

In assessing Aether the licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency, the information provided to the licensees by the MC and the industry on specific deficiencies will be taken into consideration. This information, and the timeliness of it being provided to licensees prior to the EQ deadline are relevant factors. If one licensee determined that a specific EQ deficiency existed it would not be assumed that all Itcensees sSould have also come to the same conclusion unless information about the specific deficiency had teen widely disseminated within the industry or by the 20.

The staff will carefully consider these criteria when evaluating whether a licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency prior to the desditne.

!!!. l0 Violations not sufficiently $1onificant to Merit a Civil Penalty Under

he Rodif' fed PoHCJ i Any failure to adequately list and demonstrate qualification of equipment  !

required by 10 CFA 50.49 may constitute a violation of the rule. This does  ;

not require, however, that all violations of the rule be considered for  ;

escalated enforcement or be assessed a civil penalty. For exasple if the l cualification file presented to the inspector during an inspection did not  !

cemer. strate or support qualificattor of equipment, the equipment would be considered unqualified I/ and 10 CFR 50.49 requirements would be violated. ,

However, although not in the qualification file if sufficient data exists l or is developed during the inspection to demonstrate qualification of the i equipment or, based on other information available to the inspector, the I specific equipment is gus11fiable for the application in question, the  !

quellfication deficiency is not considered sufficiently significant for i assessment of civil penalties. These violations would be considered to be  !

Severity Level !Y or Severity 1.evel Y violations based on a violation of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements at the time of the inspection. l Frogramatic violations or problems that are identified as a result of the EQ inspections that involve several EQ violatir.ns which therselves would not te considered sufficiently significant to serit a civil penalty ,

under the modified EQ enforcement policy nonetheless may be aggregated i and evaluated for escalated enforcement action (generally severity r Level !!!) for the failure to satisfy applicable requirements of 10 CFR (

50.49 and/or 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix B. The civil penalties for these t

violations would be assessed under the normal Enforcement Policy of

. 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C (Supplement !).

l

!Y. Basis for Determining Civil Penalties

] A. Base Civil Penalty

' Significant EQ violations, for which the licensee clearly should have known that they had equipment for which qualification had not been estabitshed. ,

1 i 2/

~ For pur>oses of enforcement.

• unqualified equiprent" means equipment for j which tiere is not adecuate documentation to establish that this equipment  :

! will perform its intenced functions in the relevant environment.

l l

f -

/', ,

1

.- l Enclosure '

are to be considered together in the aggregate, and the i l

base civilor systems penalty assessed co9onents in a gdraded approach based on the nuder of affected. l The base civil penalty would be deterstned as described below. l l

EQ Yiolation Category ,

Base Civil Penalty l A. Extensive EQ violations affecting many 3300.000 i systems and many cogonents.

I B. Moderates EQ violettens affecting some $150.000 l systems and some components. '

C. Isolated EQ violations affecting a 3 75.000 lisitted nuder of systems and cosponents.

The three EQ violation categories reflect the overall pervasiveness and the general safety significance of significant EQ violations. The NRC  !

cons' ders violations of EQ requirements to be safety significant because the electrical eculpment required to be qualified were those which have imortance to safety. The violation categories do not include those EQ  ;

violations which have been determined to be not sufficiently significant  :

standing alone to be considered for escalated enforcement and which will i be normally considered as Severity Level !Y or Y violatters, as described in Section !!!. As stated in Section !!!. hewever, progressmatic problems r may be the sub ect of escalated enforcement action under the NRC's normal Enforcement Fa icy.

The significance of the EQ violations is considered when the NRC evaluates i the nud er of systems affected b the EQ violations and determines the EQ violation catopory. The NRC wil assume, for escalated enforcement cases.

I that the unque ified equipment eculd affect operability of the associated I system. The NRC will not consider refinements on the operability arguments l 1 such as the actual time the equipm nt is required to be operable, admini- 1 i strative measures er controls available to ensure the safety function is '

2 accomplished, the degree to which the opershility of a system is affected.

or, that through additional analyses or testino, the equipment may be j demonstrated to be qualifted or qualifiable. "his assusetton is made for j enforcement purposes in order to reduce the resources anticipated to be spent by licensees and the NRC to evaluate in detail whether system operability was in question.

l i 3/ The EQ violation categories (A C) will be used rather than the severity i

levels in the normal Inforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C.  !

l The base civil penalty for the violaticas will be applied consistent with  !

the statutory limits on civil penalties under section 234 of the Atomic l Energy Act.

l b l

) l

, \

l J

-. _N

' Er, closure Because the MRC is censidering enforcement action rather than a justifica-tion for continued oMration and the EQ deficiencies have been corrected in most instances, t%e NRC will aske a conservative judgment as to the overall safety significance of the EQ violations based on the nuder of safety systems affected. This approach has the benefits of a relatively quick, though conservative, view on the safety consequences of unqualified equipment and will focus on the underlying cause of the EQ violations.

Cases involving deliberate violations or very urlov> EQ violations (more safety significant than considered in this modified enforcement policy such as widespread breakdowns or clearly traperable systems) will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may be subject to more severe sanctions than those described in this rulicy.

B. Mitigation / Escalation Factors Mitigation and escalation of the base civil penalty determined in Section IV.A will be considered in the determination of the civil penalty amount.

The NRC will consider the EC vio1Jtions in aggregate, not based on individus) violations. AdjustwAt of the base civil penalty will be considered as described belu:

Mittoation/ Escalation Factors Maximum Mitigation /

Escalation Amount (from base civil oenalty)

1. Identification and prorgt reporting. if required, a 505 of the EQ violations (including opportunities tc identify and correct the deficiencies).

2. Best efforts to cog lete E0 within the deadline. 501

3. Corrective actions to result in full cogliance t 505 (including the time taken to .ake an cperability cr qualification determination, the gus11ty of any supporting analysis, and the nature and extent of the licensee's efforts to come into cogliance).

4. Duration of violation which is significantly b9 low - 505 100 days.

In order to be fair and equitable to those licensees who took appropriate actions prior to Noveetar 30. 1985 or shut dem prior to this date to be in compliance, civil penalties generally should not be less than $50.000 to e g hestre that a significant environmental qualification failure is unacceptable.

The NRC will, however, consider full mitigation (no civil penalty) for those E0 violations which satisfy all of the five following criteria:

(1) violations which are isolated and affect a limited nuder of systems and cog onents. (2) violations d ich are identified by the licensee.

(3) violations which are promptly reported to the NRC. if required.

(4) violaticas which are corrected and actions taken will result in full

. compliance within a reasonable time, and (5) violations for which the licensee has deconstrated best efforts to cuplete EQ within the deadline.

O

teclosure The intent of full mitigation of the civil penalty for EQ violations  ;

which meet all five criteria is *o increase the incentive for self- <

identification of EQ deficiencies dich s*phe not otherwise be found by MC. The NRC will generally issue chly J Notice of Y1olation for viola't tons which meet all these ariteris.

If the licensee is able to convincingly doinonstrate at the tire of the inspection, or shortly thereafter. that an item is not required to be on the E0 list, then the item would not be considered for enforcement action.

The NRC does not intend to consider for enforcement pur>oses the results of a licensee's after the fact testing for mitigation wiere the licensee clearly should have known that its documentatien was not sufficient.

d l

l l

l i

1 I

i l

i l l l

l 1

r

<,../*.

LIST DF RECENTLY ISht3D GENERIC LETTERS Generic Date of LCtter No. ,

Subject Issuance ,

Issued To GL 88-06 REMOVAL OF ORGANIZATION CHARTS 03/22/88 ALL POWER FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REACTOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL LICENSEES AND REQUIREMENTS APPLICANTS GL 88-05 BORIC ACID CORROS!ON OF CARBON 03/17/88 ALL LICENSEES STEEL REACTOR PRESSURE OF OPERATING BOUNDARY COMPONENTS IN PWRS AND PWR PLANTS HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR PWRS GL 88-04 DISTRIBUTION OF GEMS C2/23/88 ALL'NON-POWER 3RR'JIATED IN RESEARCH REACTOR REALTORS LICENSEES GL 88-03 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC SAFETY O2/17/88 ALL LICENSEES.

ISSUE 93, "STEAM BINDING OF APPLICANTS FOR l AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMPS" OPERATING l LICENSES, AND l HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS GL 88-02 "!NTEGRATED SEFETY ASSESSMENT 01/20/88 ALL POWER PROGRAM 11 (ISAP !!)"

REACTOR LICENSEES GL 88-01 "NRC POSITION ON IGSCC IN BWR 01/25/8B ALL LICENSEES I AUSTEN> TIC STAINLESS STEEL OF OPERATING PIPING' BOILING WATER i REACTORS AND i HOLDERS OF l CONSTRUCTION l PERMITS FOR BWRS CL 87-16 NUREG-1262, "ANSWERS TO 11/12/87 ALL POWER AND QUESTIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS NONPOWER RE IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR55 REACTOR ON OPERATORS LICENSEES AND LICENSES APPLICANTS FOR LICENSES GL 87-15 POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFERRED 11/04/87 ALL HOLDERS OF PLANTS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GL 87-14 REQUEST FOR OPERATOR LICENSE 08/04/87 ALL POWER CCHEDULES REACTOR y _ _ _ _

LICENSEES