ML20205A820
| ML20205A820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1988 |
| From: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205A818 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-87-16-01, 50-309-87-16-1, EA-88-206, NUDOCS 8810260106 | |
| Download: ML20205A820 (2) | |
Text
,
i NOTICE OF VIOLATION Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Docket No. 50-309 Maine Yankee License No. OPR-36 EA 88-206 i
During an NRC inspection conducted on July 20-24, 1987, of the licensee's program for environmental qualification (EQ) of equipment, violations of NRC requirements identified by the licensee were evaluated.
In accordance with the "Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety of Nuclear Power Plants," contained in Generic Letter 88-07, as well as the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the particular violations are set forth below:
I.
VIOLATION CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERIC LETTER 88-07 10 CFR 50.49(d), (f), and (j), respectively, require, that (1) a list of electric equipment important to safety be prepared, and information concerning perfonc.nce specifications, electrical characteristics and postulated environmental conditions for this equipment be maintained l
in a qualification file; (2) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing of identical or similar equipment under identical or similar postulated conditions, and qualification based on similarity shall include a supporting analysis to show that the equip-ment to be qualified is acceptable; and (3) a record of the qualification shall be maintained in an auditable form to permit verification that each item of electrical equipment important to safety is qualified and that the equipment meets the specified performance requirements under postulated environmental conditions.
Contrary to the above, from November 30, 1985 until May 26, 1987, Continental Cable used in four of the Reactor Coolant System hot and cold leg Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTO), and a States terminal t
block, used in the Reactor Coolant System cold leg RTD loop circuit, i
were not included on the list of equipment important to safety and were not demonstrated to be qualified in that documentation did not exist in a qualification file to verify that this cable and terminal block, which are items important to safety, would perform their intended safety function under accident conditions.
l l
This violation constitutes an EQ category C problem.
l II.
VIOLATION CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR PART 2, APPENDIX C f
10 CFF. 50.49(f) requires that qu. ification of each item of electrical equipment important to safety be qualified based on testing of, or experience with, identical equipment or similar equipment with supporting analysis to show that the equipment is acceptable.
j I
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG MAINE YANKEE 10/17 -
i 0005.0.0 l
8810260106 881017 10/17/88 l
l PDR ADOCK 05000309
)
O PDC
2 Contrary to the above, a.
from November 30, 1985 until May 26, 1987, documentation did not exist in a qualification file to establish qualification of two Weidmuller terminal blocks (associated with the containment sump level instrument) to verify that the blocks would function properly in a post accident condition.
b.
from November 30, 1985 until June 22, 1988, documentation did not exist in a qualification file to establish the qualification of four 1
solenoid operated valves (used to isolate the HPSI charging pump suction from the Primary Vent and Drain System) to verify that the valves would function properly in a postulated high radiation condition.
1 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Because both the violations set forth above were identified, corrected, as well as reported, as required, by the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company and the NRC has no outstanding concerns relative to them, no response to this Notice is required.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Oricinal Signed By liI:.kl.:i T. LuSSILI.
William T. Russell Regional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this/// day of October 1988.
l i
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG MAINE YANKEE 10/17 -
0005.1.0 10/17/88
~.
T/j' April 7, 1988 Enctosure 2_
]
a TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS 1
SUBJECT:
MODif!ED ENTORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO 10 CFR 50.49, 'ENYlRONMENTAL QUAllflCATION Of ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS' (GENERIC LETTER 88-07)
Background:
Generic Letters, Bulletins and Information Notices have been issued to provide guidance regarding the appIication and enforcement of 10 CFR 50.M. "Environmental Qualification of (lectric Equipment Inportant to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants.'
Generic Letter 85-15, issued August 6,1985 and Generic Letter 85-15, issued September 22, 1986, providedinformtionrelatedtothedeadlinesforcompliance with 10 CFR 50.49 and possible civil penalties applicable to Itcensees who were not in compliance with the rule as of the November 30, 1985 deadline. Upon review, j
the Comission found that the EQ Enforcement Policy promulgated in Generic Letter 1
could result in imposition of civil penalties that did not properly reflect 86-15,fety significance of EQ violations with respect to civil penalties imposed the sa
)
in the past.
In the interest of continuing a tough but fair enforcement policy, the Comission determined that the EQ Enforcement Policy should be revised. The purpose of this letter is, to provide a modification to the NRC's enforcement policy, as approved by the Conmission, for environmental qualification (EQ) violations.
This letter replaces the guidance provided in Generic Letters 85-15 and 86-15.
Modified EQ Enforcement Policy The details of the modified EQ enforcement policy are provided in the enclosure.
Generally, the changes made to the policy are to:
(1)aggregatesignificant EQ violations together, rather than consider each separate item of unqualified electrical equipment, for assessment of a civil penalty, (2) assess a base civil penalty according to the nurber of systems or components which are affected by the unqualified equipment in a graded approach by assignment of the aggregate EQ problem into one of three categories, (3) establish a maximum EQ civil penalty of $750 000 for most cases, (4) maintain a minimum civil penalty of $50,000 for a significant EQ violation in most cases, and (5) consider mitigation or escalation of the base civil penalty based on the factors of identification and reporting, best efforts to complete EQ within the deadline, corrective actions, and duration of the violation.
This modified policy should not be interpreted as a lessening of the NRC's intention to assure that all plants comply with EQ requirements. The modified policy is intended to give a significant civil ?enalty to these licensees with significant EQ violations.
The NRC's view is t14t the modified policy more closely reflects the relative sai'ety importance of EQ violations with other enforcement issues.
Safety 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 q
adequate basis to esttblish qualification), the licensee is expected to u ke a prompt deterinination of operability (i.e.,)the system or component is capable of performing its intended desifin function, take imediate steps to establish l
a plan with a reasonable schedu e to correct the deficiency, and have critten l
justification for continued operation, which will be available for NRC review.
The licensee may La able to make a finding of operability usinfl analysis and partial test data to provide reasonable assurance that the equ'pment will In this connection, it must perform its safety function when called upon.
also be shown that subsequent failure of the equipment, if Itkely under accident conditions, will not result in significant degradation of any safety function or provide misleading information to t,he operator.
The following actions are to be taken if a Itcensee is snable to demonstrate equipment operability:
For inoperable equipment which is in a systes covered by plant a.
technical specifications, the licensee shall follow the appropriate I
action statements. This could require the plant to shut down or remain shut down.
b.
For inoperable equipment not coverad by the plant technical specifications, the licensee may continue reactor operation:
1.
If the safety function can be accomplished by other designated equipment that is qualified, or 2.
If limited administrative controls can be used to ensu:w the safety function is performed.
The Ifeensee 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 therefc>re does not need approval l
of the Office of Management and Budget. Cossnents on burden and duplication may i
be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Should you have questions l
on this letter, the staff contact is Howard Wong, Office of Enforcement.
He can bereachon(301)492-3281.
M.
Frank J. M Waglia Associate Director for projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated 2
0 l
l
K00lFIE0 EhTORCEMENT POLICY FOR EQ REQUIREMENTS This enclosure provides the details of the modified enforsement policy for EQ requirements for those licensees cho were not in coepliance with 10 CFR 50.49 as of the November 30, 1985 deadline.
I.
icopeoftheEnforcementPolicyforEQRequirements If violations of the EQ rule identified at plants operating after November 30, 1985 existed before the deadline and the licensee ' clearly knew or should have known" of the lack of proper environmental qualifi-cation, then enforcement action may be taken as described in Sections !!!
and !Y.
If the Itcensee does not meet the ' clearly knew or shoofd have kiiown' test, no enforcement action will be taken.
This enforcement policy a pplies to violations of the EQ rule identified j
after November 30, 1985 wsich relate back to action or lack of action before the deadline. Violations which occurred after McVember 30, 1985 (either as a result of plant modifications or because the plant was Ifcansed after November 30,1985) will be considered for 6nfe-coment action under the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
In addition, EQ violations which are identified after the NRC's last first-round inspection, 1/ approximately mid-1988, will also be considered under the normal EnforceEent Policy.
!!. Application of the ' Clearly Knew, or Should Have Known' Test Licensees who ' clearly knew' they had equipment for which qualification could not be estabitshed may have comitted a deliberate violation of NRC requirements. This situation will be evaluated on a case by-case basis.
The NAC will examine the circumstances in each case to determine whether the licensee "clearly should have known' that its equipment was not quali-fled. The factors the NRC will examine include:
1.
D*d the licensee have vendor-supplied documentation that demonstrated that the equipment was qualified?
2.
Old the Itcensee perform adequate receiving and/or field verification inspection to determine that the configuration of the installed equi > ment matched the configuration of the equipment that was qualified l
by tse vendort 3.
Did the licensee have prior notice that equipment quellfication deficiencies might exist?
4.
Did other licensees identify similar problems and correct them before the deadline?
1/
First-round inspections are special team inspections to review licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 50.49.
~
l l
~
tswswwuu j
In assessing ahether the licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency.
the information provided to the licensees by the NRC and the industry on specific deficiencies will be taken into consideration.
This information, and the timeliness of it being provided to Itcensees prior to the (Q If one licensee determined that a specific deadline are relevant factors.
EQ deficiency existed, it would not be assumed that all licensees should have also come to the same conclusion unless information about the specific deficiency had been widely disseminated within the industry er by the NRC.
The staff will carefully consider these criteria when evaluating whether a l
licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency prior to the deadline.
!!!. EQ Yiolations not $ufficiently Significant to Merit a Civil Penalty Under the Modified Policy l
Any failure to adequately list and demonstrate qualification of equipment This does required by 10 CFR 50.49 may constitute a violation of the rule.
not require, however, that all violations of the rule be considered for escalated enforcement or be assessed a civil penalty. For example if the qualification file presented to the inspector during an inspection did not demonstrate or support qualification of equipment, the equipment would be considered unqualified 2/ and 10 CFR 50.49 requirements would be violated.
However, although act in the qualification file, if sufficient data exists or is developed during the inspection to demonstrate qualification of the equipment or, based or, other information availsble to the inspector, the specific equipment is qualifiable for the application in question, the qualification deficiency is not considered sufficiently siv ificant for n
assessment of civil penalties. These violations would be considered to be Severity Level IV or Severity Level V violations based c,a a violation of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements at the time of the inspection.
Programmatic violations or problems that are identified as a result of the EQ inspections that involve several EQ violations which themselves would not be considered sufficiently significant to merit a civil penalty under the modified EQ anforcement policy nonetheless may be aggregated and evaluated for escalated enforcement action (generally Severity Level I!!) for the failure to satisfy applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 and/cr 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix B.
The civil penalties for these violations.would be assessed under the.3rmal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C ($upplement !).
!Y. Basis for Determining civil Penalties A.
Base Civil Pens _1ty Significant EQ violations, for which the licensee clearly should have known that they had equirment for which qualification had not been established.
l urMser, of enforcement. ' unqualified equiprent" means equipment for 2/
For whic ttere is not adequate documentation to establish that this equipment will perform its intended functions in the relevant environment.
4 l
l l
are to be considered together, in the aggregate, and the e on the nuder of base civil pensity assessed in a graded approach bas systems or corponents affected. _3/
The base civil penalty would be determined as described below.
Base Civil Penalty EYiolationCategory A.
Extensive; EQ violations affecting many
$300,000 systems and many cog onents.
Moderates EQ violations affecting s'ome
$150,000 8.
systems and some components.
C.
Isolated; EQ etolations affecting a
$ 75,000 limited nud er of systems and components.
The three EQ v!olation categories reflect the overall pervasiveness and The NRC the tenert.1 safety sfgnificance of significant LQ violations.
cons <ders violations of EQ requiiements to be safety significant because the electrical equipment required to be qualified were those which have importance to safety.
The violation categories do not include these EQ violations =tich have been determined to be not sufficiently significant i
standing alone k be considered for escalated enforcement and watch will be normally considered as Severity Level !Y or V violatices, as described in Section !!!. As stated in Section !!!, howver, prograsmatic problems may be the subject of escalated enforcement action wnder the NRC's normel Enforcement 9011cy.
The sfyniffcance of the EQ violations is considered when the NRC evaluates the number of systems affected by the EQ violations and determines the EQ t
The MAC will assume, for escalated enforcement cases, vfolation catepory.that the unque ified equipment could affect operability of the associated such as the actual tim _noiconsider refinements on the o system. The MRC v111 e the equipment is required to be operable, admini-strative measures er controls available to ensure the safety function is accom11shed, the degree to which the operability of a system is affected, the equipment may be or, that through additional analyses or testing,is assugtion is made for demonstrated to be qualified or qualifiable.
h enforcement purposes in order to reduce the resources anticipated to be spent by licensees and the NRC to evaluate in detail whether systes operability was in question.
The EQ violation categories (A-C) will be used rather than the severity 3/
levels in the normal fnforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C.
The base efyll penalty for the violations will be applied consistent with the statutory limits on civil penalties under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act.
I 0
4
Because the NRC is considering enforcement action rather than a hstifica-tion for continued operation and the EQ deficiencies. ve been corrected in most instances, the NRC will make a conservative judgment as to the overall safety significance of the EQ violations based on the nur6er of safety systems affected. This approach has the benefits of a relatively quick, though conservative, v1=w on the safety consequences of unqualified l
equipment and will focus on the underlying cause of the E0 violations.
I Cases involving deliberate violations or very serious EQ violations (more safety s19nificant than considered in this modified enforcement policy such as w<despread breakdowns or clearly, inoperable systems) will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may be subject to more severe sanctions than those described in this policy.
8.
Mitiostfon/ Escalation Factors Mitigation and escalation of the base civil penalty determined in Section
!Y.A will be considered in the determination of the civil penalty amount.
The MAC will consider the EQ violations in aggregate, not based on Individual violations. Adjustment of the base civil penalty will be considered as described below:
Mitigation / Escalation factors Maximum Mitigation /
Escalatin Amount (from
~
base civil oenalty).
1.
Identification and prorpt reporting, if required.
505 of the EQ violations (including opportunities to identify and correct the deficiencies).
2.
Best efforts to conplete EQ within the deadline.
t 505 3.
Corrective actions to result in full ccapliance 2 505 (including the time taken to make an operability or qualification deterstnation, the quality of any supporting analysis, and the nature and extent of the Itcensee's afforts to come into compliance).
4.
Duration of violation which is significantly below
- 505 100 days.
In order to be fair and equitable to those licensees who took appropriate actions prior to November 30, 1985 or shut down prior to this date to be in compliance, civil penalties generally should not be less than $50,000 t
to enpiasize that a significant environmental qualification fativre is unacceptable.
The MRC will, however, consider f311 mitigation (no civil penalty)iafor those EQ violations which satisfy all of the five followine criter (1) violations which are isolated and affect a limited num6er of systems and components, (2) vloistfons which are identified by the licensee, (3) violations which are protnptly reported to the NRC, if required.
(4) violations which are corrected and actions taken will result in full compliance within a reasonable time, and (5) violations for which the licensee has demonstrated hest efforts to complete EQ within the deaditne.
The intent of full mitigation of the c1'vil pensity for EQ *itohttons which meet all five criteria is to increase the incentive for self-identification of EQ deficiencies which night not otherwise be found by
~
~
NRC.
The NRC will generally issue only a Notice of Violation for violations which meet all these criteria.
If the Itcensee is able to convincingly demonstrate at the time of the inspection, or shortly thereafter, that en item is not required to be on the EQ list, then the item would not be considered for enforcement action.
The NRC does not intend to concider for enforcement purmses the results 1
of a licensea's after the-fact testing for ef tigation w)ere the Itcensee clearly should have known that its documentation was not sufficient.
l i
l l
4 l
l
.l
Deto of Gonoric Issuance Issued To Lotter Ns.
Subjoct GL 88-06 HEMOVAL OF ORGANIZATION CHARTS 03/22/88 ALL POWER REACTOR FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICA. TION ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS REQUIREMENTS 80RIC ACID CORROSION OF CAR 80N 03/17/88 ALL LICENSEES SL 88-05 OF OPERATING STEEL REACTOR PHESSURE SOUNDARY COMPONENTS IN PWRS AND HOLDERS OF PWR PLANTS CONSTRUCTION PERMITE FOR I
PWRS 02/23/88 ALL NON-POWER SL 88-04 DISTRISUTION OF GEMS REACTOR 1RRADIATED IN RESEARCN LICENSEES REACTORS CL 88-03 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC SAFETY 02/17/88 ALL LICENSEES.
APPLICANTS FOR ISSUE 93 "STEAM SINDING OF OPERATING AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMPS" LICENSES, AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR PRESSUR!tED WATER REACTORS i
OL 88-02 "fNTEGRATED SEFETY ASSESSMENT 01/20/88 ALL POWER REACTOR PROGRAM !! (! SAP !!)"
LICENSEES SL 88-01 "NRC POSITION ON IGSCC IN BWR 01/25/GS ALL LICENSEES f
OF OPERATING AUSTEN! TIC STAINLESS STEEL 80! LING WATER i
P! PING" REACTORS AND HOLDERS OF
\\
CONSTRUCTION 1
PERMITS FOR SWRS SL 87-16 NUREG-1262, "ANSWERS TO 11/12/87 ALL POWER AND NONPOWER QUESTIONS AT PU8LIC MEETINGS RE IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR55 REACTOR LICENSEES AND ON OPERATORS APPLICANTS FOR LICENSES LICENSES GL 87-15 POLICY STHTEMENT ON DEFERRED 11/04/87 ALL HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PLANTS PERMITS FOR A NUCLEAR POWER J
PLANT GL 87-14 REQUEST FOR OPERATOR LICENSE 08/04/87 ALL POWER REACTOR SCHEDULES LICENSEES 1
_ _ _ _ _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _
_