ML20245F443
| ML20245F443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1989 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245F403 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-88-192, GL-88-07, GL-88-7, NUDOCS 8905020382 | |
| Download: ML20245F443 (3) | |
Text
- - - -
k i
i APR a 1989 NOTICE OF VIOLATION PND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L)
Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 ArkansasNuclearOne, Units 1&2,(ANZ License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Russellville, Arkansas EA 88-192 a
During an NRC environmental qualification (EQ) of equipment inspection conducted on July 14-18, 1986, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants" contained in Generic Letter 88-07, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205.
The particular violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
10 CFR 50.49(f) requires that electric equipment important to safety be qualified by certain specified methods of testing identical or similar equipment under identical or similar postulated accident conditions with analysis to show that the equipment to be qualified is acceptable.
10 CFR 50.49(k) provides that licensees are not reouired to requalify electric equipment important to safety in accordance with 550.49 if the Commission has previously required qualification of the equipment in accordance with " Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class 1E Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors," November 1979 (D0R Guidelines). Such qualification was previously required by Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21 on May 23, 1980.
Paragraph 5.2.2 of the D0R Guidelines states that a type test should only be considered valid for equipment identical in design and material construction to the test specimen unless deviations are evaluated as part of the qualification documentation.
Paragraph 5.2.6 of the D0R Guidelines states that equipment interfaces should be representative of the actual installation for the test to be considered conclusive, and as-built inspection in the field to verify that the equipment was installed as tested should be performed.
Contrary to the above, as of the date of the inspection, EQ files did not adequately document qualification of the numerous Limitorque motor operators (MO) referenced in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/86-23 and 50-368/86-24 because (1) the plant equipment was not identical in design and material construction to the qualification test specimen and deviations were not adequately evaluated as part of the qualification documentation, and (2) the licensee failed to verify that the equipment was installed as tested. As a result, for the Limitorque M0's identified, e9050203B2 890424 DR ADOCK 050 3
W 24ls Notice of Violation,
one or more of the following discrepancies was identified:
(1) unqualified Scotch 22/23 tape splices to motor winding leads, a subcomponent to the i
MO,hadnotbeenidentified;(2)unqualifiedterminalboards,asubcomponent to the MO, had not been identified; and (3) motor T-drains had not been installed as required.
This is an EQ Category B violation.
Civil Penalty - $75,000 (This problem existed in excess of 100 days of plant operation.)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Arkansas Power & Light Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a copy to this office, within 30 days of the date of this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation ~ and should include for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken te avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order, ayable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil pen,lty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may:
(1) deny the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, mitigation factors in the
" Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants," contained in Generic Letter 88-07, should be addressed. Any written
O 2 d 1989
~
Notice of Violation I answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate
)
parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions to 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the #,ct, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 10("), Arlington, Texas 76011, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2.
FOR THE, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
f/
j
{l' bb
((' f Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 24th day of April 1989
~ [*%\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES g
3 o sm moram.o.c. zones
,/
April 7, 1988
+
TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS
SUBJECT:
MODIFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO 10 CFR 50.49, " ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION 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 application and enforcement of 10 CFR 50.49, " Environmental j
Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants."
l i
Generic Letter 85-15, issued August 6, 1985, and Generic Letter 86-15, issued September 22, 1986, provided information related to the deadlines for compliance with 10 CFR 50.49 and possible civil penalties applichble to licensees who were not in compliance with the rule as of the November 30, 1985 deadline. Upon review, the Commission found that the EQ Enforcement Policy promulgated in Generic Letter 86-15, could result in imposition of givil penalties that did not properly reflect the safety significance of EQ violations with respect to civil penalties imposed j
in the past.
In the interest of continuing a tough but fair enforcement policy..
(
the. Commission determined that the EQ Enforcement Policy should be revised. The i
purpose of this. letter is to provide a modification to the NRC's enforcement policy, as approved by the Cossnission, for environmental qualification (EQ) violations. This letter replaces the guidance provided in Generic Letters 85-15 and 86-15.
Modified EQ Enforcement Policy i
The details of the modified EQ enforcement policy are provided in the enclosure.
Generally, the changes made to the policy are to:
(1) aggregate significant EQ violations together, rather than consider each separate item of unqualified i
electrical equipment, for assessment of a civil penalty, (2) assess a base civil penalty according to the number 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 sainha 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, j
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 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.
l 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 i
W O *, A(f
\\
-~
~
. April 7, 2988
' Generic Letser 88-07 adequatebasistoestablishqualification),thelicenseeisexpectedtomakea prompt determination of operability (i.e.,)the system or component is capable l
of' performing its intended design function, take innediate steps to establish and have written a plan with a reasonable schedule to correct the deficiency,le for NRC review.
justification for continued operation, which will be availab The licensee may be able to make a finding of operability using analysis and partial test data to provide reasonable assurance that the equipment will In this connection,.it must perform its safety function when called upon.also be shown that subsequ ac;ident conditions, will not result in significant degradation of any safety function or provide misleading information to the operator.
The following actions are to be taken if a licensee is unable to demonstrate equipment operability:
For inoperable equipment which is in a system covered by plant a.
technical specifications, the licensee shal1< follow the appropriate action statements. This could require the plagt to shut down or remain shut down.
For inoperable equipment not* covered by the plant technical-b.
specifications, the licensee may continue reactor operation:
~
If the safety function can be accomplished by other designated 1.
equipment that is qualified, or If limited administrative controls can be used to ensure the 2.
safety function is performed.
The licensee must also evaluate whethe'r 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 Connents on burden and duplication may of the Office-of Management and Budget.
be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Should you have questions He can on this letter, the staff contact is Howard Wong, Office of Enforcement.
be reach on (301) 492-3281.
had ?.
Frank J. MMaglia Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
Enclosure:
As stated i
ENCLOSURE MODIFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR EQ REQUIREMENTS This enclosure provides the details of the modified enforcement policy for EQ requirements for those licensees who were not in compliance with 10 CFR 50.49 as of the November 30, 1985 deadline.
I.
Scooe of the Enforcement Policy for EQ Requirements 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 III and IV.
If the licensee does not meet the " clearly knew or should have known" test, no enforcement action will be taken.
This enforcement policy applies to violations of the EQ rule identified after November 30, 1985 which relate back to action or lack of action before the deadline. Violations which occurred.after Ncvember 30, 1985 (either as a result of plant modifications or 6ecause the plant was licensed after November 30,1985) will be considered for enforcement I
action under the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C.
f In addition, E0 violations which are identified after the NRC's last first-round irispection, 1/ approximately mid-1988, will also be considered under the normal Enforcement Policy.
II. Application of the ' Clearly Knew. or Should Have Known" Test Licensees who " clearly knew" they had equipment for which qualification could not be 4 stab 11shed may have committed a deliberate violation of NRC requirements. This situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The NRC 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.
Did the licensee have vendor-supplied documentation that demonstrated that the equipment was qualified?
2.
Did the licensee perform adequate receiving and/or field ve.rification inspection to determine that the configuration of the installed equipment matched the configuration of the equipment that was qualified by the vendor?
3.
Did the licensee have prior notice that equipment qualification deficiencies might exist?
4.
Did other licensees identify similar problems and correct them before the deadline?
l 1/
First-round inspections are special team inspections to review licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 50.49.
~
O
~2-Enclosure
'In assessing.vhether the licensee clearly should have known of a deficien the infomation provided to the licensees by the NRC and the industry on This information, specific deficiencies will be taken into consideration.
and the timeliness of it being provided to licensees prior to the EQIf deadline are relevant factors.
EQ deficiency existed, it would not be assumed that all licensees sho have also come to the same conclusion unless information about the deficiency had been widely disseminated within th licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency prior to the deadline.
III. EO Violations not Sufficiently Significant to Merit a Civil Penalty Under the Modified Policy Any failure to adequately list and demonstrate qualification of equipme This does required by 10 CFR 50.49 may constitute a violatrio For example, if the escalated enforcement or be assessed a civil pena
. demonstrate or support qualification of equipment, the equipment would considered unqualified 2/ and 10 CFR 50.49 requ or is developed during the inspection to demonstrate qualification of the equipment or, basJd on other information available to the inspector, specific equipment is qua11fiable for the application in question, the r
qualification deficiency is not considered sufficiently significant assessment of civil penalties. Severity Level !Y or Severity level Y v
'l 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 l
under the modified EQ enforcement policy nonetheless may be aggregate 1
and evaluated for escalated enforcement action (generally Severity Level III) for the failure to satisfy applicable requirements of 10 CF 50.49 and/or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
violations would be assessed under the normal Enforcement Policy cf 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C (Supplement I).
Basis for Determining Civil Penalties IV.
A.
Base Civil Penalty Significant EQ violations, for which the licensee clearly should have that they had equipment for which qualification had not been establishe For purposes of enforcement, " unqualified equip 2/
will perform its intended functions in the v. levant environment.
0
(
j l
. Enclosure are to be considered together, in the aggregate, and the base civil penalty assessed in a graded approach based on the number of systems or cog onents affected. _3/
The base civil penalty would be determined as described below.
Base Civil Penalty EQ Violation Category
$300,000 A.
Extensive; EQ violations affecting many systems and many cog onents.
$150,000 B.
Moderate; EQ violations affecting some systems and some components.
$ 75,000 Isolated; EQ violations affecting a C.
limited number of systems and components.,.
The three EQ violation categories reflect the overall pervasiveness and The NRC the general safety significance of significant EQ violation
'the electrical eouipment required to be qualified were those which have The violation categories do not include those EQ importance to safety.
violations which have been determined to be not sufficiently significant standing alone to be considered for escalated enforcement and which will be normally considered as Severity Level IV or V violatiers, as described As stated in Section III, however, programmatic problems in Section III.
may be the sub.fect of escalated enforcement action under the NRC's no Enforcement Policy.
The significance of the EQ violations is considered when the NRC evaluates the number of tystems affected by the EQ violations and determines the EQ The NRC will assume, for escalated enforcement cases, that the unqualified equipment could affect operability of the associated violation category.
The NRC will not consider refinements on the operability arguments such as the actual time The equipment is required to be operable, admini-system.
strative measures or controls available to ensure the safety function is accomplished, the degree to which the operability of a system is affected, or, that through additional analyses or testing, the equipment may be This assug tion is made for demonstrated to be qualified or qualifiable.
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.
The EQ violation categories (A-C) will be used rather than the severity levels in the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C.
3/
The base civil penalty for the violations will be applied consistent with
~
the statutory limits on civil penalties under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act.
~4*
Enclosure i
.Because the NRC is considering enforcement action rather than a justif ca tion for continued operation and the EQ deficiencies i 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 num safety systems affected. quick. though conservative, view on the sa equipment and will focus on the underlying cause of the EO violations.
Cases involving deliberate violations or very serious EQ violations (more safety significant than considered in this modified enforcement policy such as widespread breakdowns or clearly inoperable systems) will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may be subject to more severe l
sanctions than those described in this policy.
)
8.
Mitication/ Escalation Factors Mitigation and escalation of the base civil pengity determined in Section
!Y.A will be considered in the determination of the civil penalty amount.
i The NRC will consider the EQ violations in aggregate, not based on Adjustment of the base civil penalty will be f
individual violations.
. considered as described below:
e Maximum Mitigation /
Mitication/ Escalation Factors Escalation Amount (from base civil penalty)__
f t 50%
Identification and prompt reporting, if required, 1.
of the EQ violations (including opportunities to l
identify and correct the deficiencies).
t 50%
Best efforts to con 9 ste E0 within the deadline.
1 4
2.
f 50%
Corrective actions to result in full compliance 3.
(including the time taken to make an operability or qualification determination, the quality of any supporting analysis, and the nature and extent of the licensee's efforts to come into compliance).
- 505 Duration of violation which is significantly below 4.
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 to emphasize that a significant environmental qualification failure is unacceptable.
The NRC will, however, consider full mitigation (no civil penalty) for
{
those EQ violations which satisfy all of the five following criteria:
{
(1) violations which are isolated and affect a limited number of systems
(
and components, (2) violations which are identified by the licensee, (3) violations which are promptly reported to the NRC compliance within a reasonable time, and (5) violation i
I
)
Enclosure The intent of full mitigation of the civil penalty for EQ violations which meet all five criteria is to increase the incentive for self.
identification of EQ deficiencies which might 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 licensee is able to convincingly demonstrate at the time of the inspection, or shortly thereafter, that an 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 consider for enforcement purposes the results i
of a licensee's after-the-fact testing for mitigation where the licensee clearly should have known that its documentation was not sufficient.
9 9
e m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _