ML20238C694
Text
, ._
1 '
j a* % g f,
[,_ h UNITED STATES
. T.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e WASHtNGTON, D. C. 20555 i a i %,
/ ,
A PR 1 I: 1987 EGM 87-03 MEMORANDUM FOR: Regional Administrators FROM:
James Lieberman, Director ,
Office of Enforcement t 4
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS OR OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES ,
IN RESPONSE TO CIVIL PENALTIES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENTACTIONS(EGM87-03) i.
Recently a question arose as to whether the staff should discuss with a licenseeI in the context of a particular enforcement case the possible reaction of a public utility comission or other state or local regulatory agency that could result from a potential enforcement action. i l
Examples of potential impacts that might occur include not allowing recovery of the cost of a civil penalty or of the replacement power for an outage necessitated by the violations at issue .
Discussions with licensees concerning enforcement actions should focus on whether the violations occurred and their causes, surrounding circusustances, and significance.
It is also appropriate to obtain information needed to However, the actions of a public utility comission or othe be considered in applying the Enforcement Policy. regulatory a matters serves no regulatory purpose and can only have the undesirable ef of putting consider thethe agency on the defensive if it needs to explain that it did not information.
Therefore, in the future the staff should not discuss in the context of a specific enforcement case the possible actions a regulato agency might take in response to a civil penalty or other enforcement action.
If you have any questions on this guidance, please call me.
Ak
'ames Lieberman, Director
( ffice of Enforcement cc: J. Goldberg, OGC Regional Enforcement Coordinators J. Taylor DEDO goI n - ?? - W o C/2. 2.
8712310164 871224 PDR FOIA GUILDB7-450 PDR
____m__._ -m __.-.-....---_______w_____a__._-
r y # a ngg p ,
[ga * $\j UNITED STATES y '
p, NUCtEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 WASHswCTON. O C- 205%
%,c ,d s t *...*- [,
MAY "6 13 'l ,
i o d EGM 87-04 MEPORANDUMNO W. Russell',1egional Administrator, RI I
J. Grace, Regional Administrator, RII A. Davis, Regional Administrator, RIII l ; ' R. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIV r J. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV FROM:
.k , .
James Lieberman, Director ,3 i Office of Enforcement li L' SUBJEC7:
< ENFORCEMENT ISSUES FOR CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY s-The purpose of this memorandum is to provide enforc system 'def!ciencies.
c
' ontrol room habitability became heightened because of a TMI NUREG-0737 room habitability. A (Item GenericIII'.D.3.4)
Issue and due to ACRS concerns in the are concerns.
Initially, the NRC surveye(d three plants and the results wer documented in NUREG/CR-4191, issued April 1985.
I These findings indicated deficiencies in the performance of the control room ventilation systems.
i the resolution of Generic Issue 83, additional plants were visited. These For plant visits revaled similar deficiencies as were found in the first three l
plants surveyed ard were documented in plant visit sun by the regional offices.
document which describes the findings. Enclosure 1 sunnarizes the plants rev While these reviews were performed by NRR, sometimes with a regional inspigtor,JRC attentien was focused on the identification and resolution of problem areas and not on enforcement aspects We must thw deal Vth the enforcement issues resulting from these reviews. .
Furthermore, w'e understand'that NRR is preparing a TI on this topic for all plants; additional NRR surveys are not planned.
The following enforcement guidance action. is provided concerning the determination of appropriat 1.
For the plants already visited, except Trojan for which enforcement action whether enforcement action (i.e., Notice of Violation a penalty) should be taken for these facilities.
s individually and evaluated to determine whether enforcement action isEach appropriate for deficiencies disclosed during these plant visits, even though the deficiencies may have been already corrected. Additional regional followup and discussions with the licensee may be necessary to of the findings. understand the licensee's view of the findings and evaluate th Fox M-!?- W o f=>pp!& g ?- Y fpa I
Regional Administrators .
Generally, enforcement action should be taken if it was reasonable to expect that the licensee should have identified the deficiency earlier; this includes items such as: (1) Inadequacies in the licensee's QA/QC program (such as inadequate design, improper construction, inadequate QC inspection, improperly controlled modification or maintenance, inadequate or iriproper reoperation 61 or post-modification testing, or the failure to correct known deficiencies), (2) inadequate 50.59 or design / design change review or testing program, or (3) willful violations.
Howeve".
if it was not reasonable to expect the licensee to identify and correct these problems, then no enforcement action should be taken provided corrective action has been taken. As an example, for the case in which the licensee had taken reasonable actions in its preoperational testing program, no enforcement action should be taken if the NRC persuaded the licensee to make available additional flow monitoring locations and only through NRC i experience in selecting the appropriate monitoring locations did the NRC ddentify system inadequacies. In such a case, the issue of instrument location should be addressed by the resolution of the Generic Issue. In i I
( addition, for those cases in which it was not reasonable to expect the L
identification not be taken if: of the deficiency by the licensee, enforcement action should (1) the licensee had implemented the requirements of the technical specifications and the NRC had approved implementation of the l
comitments regatding Item III.D.3.4 of NUREG-0737 and the licensee is meeting inadequate. these comitments, or (2) the technical specifications are 2.
As in any enforcement issue, the enforcement evaluation should include the safety significance of the deficiencies in tenns of the radiation or
- hazardous material exposure to control room personnel or the safety significance of the root cause of the problem. While keeping in mind the analyses and assumptions of the FSAR and NUREG-0737, Iteri III.D.3.4, I
the evaluations for safety significance should also consider the actual hazard which the system deficiency represented to control room personnel.
NRR assistance may be required to establish the safety significance of the deficiencies.
The Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, and the examples of violations in Supplement I should be used to establish the severity level of any violation. Violations should be cited for the failure to meet technical specification requirements, NUREG-0737 comitments,
! or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and not for the failure to meet 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A (General Design Criteria). Any resulting violation should be processed as any other violation would be, including escalated enforcement action if warranted.
to be Appendix A, please consult with OE.If the only violation cvailable appears In considering the appropriate enforcement action, the staff recognizes that the plants in Enclosure I agreed to participate in these visits and they assisted the NRC in being sources of information for the resolution of Generic Issue 83. However, it appears that some of the deficiencies are significant enough to warrant consideration for enforcement action.
For example in Trojan l
has been already issued based on a Severity Level 11 viclation for t system deficiencies.
The action was based on: (1) the significant deficiencies in system design, construction, and precperational testing which led to the potential to subject control room personnel to rrdiation doses in excess of GOC 19, (2) the lack of action on the part of the
I i
. . . MAY 2 6 1987 Pegional Administrators !
licensee when deficiencies were identified, (3) the enforcement action served to highlight to the licensee pr5vious NRC concerns, particularly in the engineering area, and (4) the enforcement action was intended to encourage this area. other licensees, by exeg le, to improve licensee performance in 3.
This general guidance is intended to pemit the initial review and evaluation cable in everyof system case. and licensee deficiencies and may not be appli-contact me or Howard Wong of my staff.Should the need for additione.1 guida
) .
A ames Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement cc: Regional Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV T. Martin, RI J. Stohr, RII J. Hind, RIII R. Bangart, RIV - ,-
D. Kirsch, RV T. Murley, NRR J. Hayes, NRR 1
J. Craig, NRR J. Wermiel, NRR .-
J. Taylor OEDRO .
l 1
I I
4 l
l
__- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .A
Enclosure 1 l
3W K1RY OF PLANTS REVIEWED BY NRC Findings I
Plant Date of Site Visit Documented In
- 1. Calvert Cliffs September 24-25, 1985 Plant Visit Summary Report
- 2. Cooper October 2-3, 1985 Plant Visit Sumary Report i 3. Vermont Yankte November 7-8, 1985 Plant Visit Sumary Report
- 4. Arkansas Nuc' ear January 22-23, 1986 Plant Visit Sumary Report
- 5. Trojan January 28-30 and Inspection Report February 24-28, 1986 No. 50-344/86-06
- 6. WNP-2 April 7-10, 1986 Plant Visit Sumary Report
- 7. San Onofre May 27-28, 1986 Unit 1 Inspection Report Nos.
50-206/86-25 and 50-206/86-38
- 8. 'Kewaunee August 11-14, 1986 - Plant Visit Sumary Report
- 9. D.C. Cook September 15-19, 1986 Plant Visit Sumary Report I
- 10. Ft. Calhoun October 27-31, 1986 -
Plant Visit Sumary Report
- 11. North Anna December 1-5, 1986 Plant Visit Sumary Report
- 12. V. C. Sumer January 12-16, 1987 Plant Visit Sumary Report
_.-.__m _______-__m _ mm___m__