ML20248B703
| ML20248B703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1989 |
| From: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248B691 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-88-203, NUDOCS 8906090149 | |
| Download: ML20248B703 (4) | |
Text
'
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSEL POSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY GPU Nuclear Corporation Oyster Creek Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16 EA 88-203 During NRC inspections conducted on December 2-6 and 19, 1985 and March 24-27, 1986, of the licensee's program for environmental qualification (EQ) of equip-ment, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
" Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualifi-cdtion of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety of Nuclear Power Plants,"
which accompanied Generic Letter 88-07, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, andThe10 CF3 2.205. propo particular violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I.
VIOLATION ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY 10 CFR 50.49 (f), and (j), respectively require that (1) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing and/or analysis of identical or similar equipment, and the qualification i based on similarity shall include a supporting analysis to show that the equipment to be qualified is acceptable; and (2) a record of the qualifi-cation shall be maint :ned 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 approximately March 27, 1986, the qualification of sixteen Namco (Model EA740) limit switches (associated with the four Main Steam Isolation Valves, and used as inputs to the Reactor Protection System and the Primary Containment Isolation System) was not established in that required moisture seals were not installed, and there was no analyses or testing performed to demonstrate that the switches were qualified without the moisture seals.
This is a Category C violation.
Civil Penalty - $50,000 II.
VIOLATION NOT ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY 10 CFR 50.49 (f), and (j), respectively require that (1) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing and/or analysis of identical or similar equipment, and the qualification based on similarity shall include a supporting analysis to show that the equipment to be qualified is acceptable; and (2) a record of the OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYC 6/1/89 - 0011.0.0 06/01/89 9906090149 690602 PDR ADOCK 05000219 o PDC
2 qualification shall be maintained in an auditable form to permit veri-fication 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, at various- times af ter November 30, 1985, certain environmental qualification files did not include the required documen-l tation to demonstrate environmental qualification of the related equipment, i
l as evidenced by the following examples.
- 1. as of March 27, 1986, the qualification of six PVC tape splices, associated with six high drywell pressure switches and used to actuate the Containment Spray, Core Spray and Auto Depressurization Systems was not established in that documentation set forth in the file did not demonstrate that the equipment functional performance requirements were met. Specifically, the insulation resistance requirements were not addressed;
- 2. as of March 27, 1986, the qualification of the Namco (Mode D 1200G)
' limit switch (located in the Reactor Building and associated with valve V-23-18) was not established in that there was no analysis to justify that the limit switch would perform its intended function for specified functional performance requirements, specifically, a 100%
relative humidity environment;
- 3. as of March 27, 1986, the qualification of Rockbestos Firewall III 31S Cables.used at the facility was not established in that severe cable degradation which occurred during the qualification test was not adequately addressed in the EQ file, and functional performance criteria were not established and compared to the measured parameters during the type test; and,
- 4. as of December 5, 1985, the qualification of four Stanwick Electric Type SLS Terminal Blocks (associated with the RE-23A, B, C and D main steam line low pressure switches) was not established in that a qualification file did not exist to verify that the terminal blocks would perform their intended function during postu7ated environmental conditions.
This is a Severity Level IV violation. (Supplement 1)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, GPU Nuciear Corp., stion (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement of explanae- 1 to the Director, Of fice of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con . ssion, within 30 days of the date of this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a
" Reply to a Notice of Violation" and sheuld include for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged vtolation, (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 to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance was or will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYC 6/1/89 - 0012.0.0 06/01/89
- v. ,-
R !
3 i
I 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 to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulacory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty 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 issued.
within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the ci'vi'l 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 for which a civil penalty is proposed in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty skuld not be imposed. In addition.to protesting the civil penalty, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the mitigation factors in the
" Modified Enforcement policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualiff-cation of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants,"
contained in Generic Letter 88-07, should be addressed. Any written 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 of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been deter-mined 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 Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYC 6/1/89 - 0012.1.0 06/01/89
+
4 The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and answer to a Notice of Violation) should De addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, a copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA, 19406 and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Oyster Creek.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OriginaI Signed B7 r!ILI.IAE T. RUSSELL William T. Russell Regional Administrator Dated Mat King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 4 day of June 1989.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYC 6/1/89 - 0013.0.0 06/01/89 1
='
/pe ne 's, UNITED STATES
! ? NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASMiavcT088,0 C. 2MH
,{ '
April 7, 1988 Enclosure 2
\ ...* / ,,
TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS
SUBJECT:
MODIFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO 10 CFR 50.49, "ENY1RONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS' (GENERICLETTER88-07)
Background:
Generic Letters, Su11etins, and Infomation Notices have been issued to provide guidance regsrding the application and enforcement of 10 CFR 50.49, " Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants."
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 applicable to licensees who were not in compliance with the rule as of the November 30,1985 deadline. Upon review, the Comission found that the EQ Enforcement Policy promulgated in Generic Letter 86-15, could result in imposition of civil penalties that did not properly reflect the safety significance of EQ violations with respect to civil penalties imposed 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 Comission, for environmental qualification (EQ) violations. This letter replaces the guidance provided in Generic Letters 85-15 and 86-15. ,
l 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 e&ch separate item of unqualified 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 probles into one of three categories, (3) establish a maximum EQ civil penalty of 5750,000 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 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.
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
%Clhh [ ,
,Ge'ner'ic Letter 88-07 April 7, 19ss
. adequate basis to establish qualification), the licensee is expected to make a prompt determination of operability (i.e., the system or component is capable of performing its' intended design function), take imediate steps to establish a plan with a reasonable schedule to correct the deficiency, and have written justification for continued operation, which will be available for NRC review.
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 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 information to the operator.
The following actic-s 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 may continue reactor operation:
- 1. If the safety function can be accomplished by other designated equipment Dat is qualified, or
- 2. If limited adn.inistrative controls can be used to ensure the safety function is performed.
The licenses must also evaluate whether the findings are reportatle 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 deterinined to be inoperable.
This letter does not require any response and therefore does not need approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Cosinents on burden and duplication may 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.
bereachon(301)492-3281.
kX FrankJ.Mdaglia AssociateDirectorforProjects Office of Nuclear Reador Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated e
ENCLOSURE MODIFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR EQ REQUIREMENTS This enclosure provides the details of the modified enforcernent policy for EQ requirements for those Itcensees who were not in coepliance with 10 CFR 50.49 l as of the 14evester 30, 1985 feedline. i I. Scope 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 i knew or should have known' of the lack of proper environmental qualif t-cation, then enforcement action may be taken as described in Sections III l and !Y. If the licensee does not meet the ' clearly knew or should have I 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 McVember 30, 1985 (either as a result of plant modifications or because the plant was licensed after November 30,1985) will be considered for enforcement action under the normal EnforceNnt Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C.
In addition, EQ violations which are identified after the NRC's last first-roundinspection,J/approximatelymid-1988,willalsobeconsidered under the normal Enforcement Policy.
!!. Applicatio'n of the " Clearly Knew, or Should Have Known* Test Licensees who ' clearly knew' they had equipment for which qualification could not be 4stablished may have comitted 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 gus11fied?
- 2. Did the licensee perform adequate receiving and/or field verification inspection to determine that the configuration of the installed equ1> ment matched the configuration of the equipment that was qualified by t1e vendort ,
- 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?
~
1/ First-round inspections are special team inspections to review licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 50.49.
O
i I
1 Enclosure In assessing whether 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 licensees prior to the E0 deadline are relevant factors. If one licensee determined that a specific 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 or by the NRC.
The staff will carefully consider these criteria when evaluating whether a licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency prior to the deadline.
111. EO Violations not Sufficiently Significant to Merit a Civil Penalty Under the Modified Policy Any failure to adequately list and demonstrate qualification of equipment required by 10 CR 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 exag le, if the qualification file presented to the inspector during an inspection did not demonstrate or support qualification of equipment, the equipment would be considerer unqualified 2/ and 10 CFR 50.49 requirements would be violated.
However, although not in the qualification file, if sufficient data exists or is developed during the inspection to demonstrate qualification of the equipment cr. based on other information available to the inspector, the specific equipment is qualifiable for the application in question, the qualification deficiency is not considered sufficiently significant for assessment of civil penalties. These violations would be considered to be Severity Level !Y or Severity Level Y violations based on a violation of 10 CR 50.49 requirements at the time of the inspection.
Programetic 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 enforcement policy nonetheless may be aggregated and evaluated for escalated enforcement action (generally severity Level !!!) for the failure to satisfy applicable requirements of 10 CR 50.49 and/or 10 CR Part 50 Appendix B. The civil penalties for these violations would be assessed under the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CR Part 2. Appendix C (Supplement I).
!Y. Basis for Deterwinino 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 established, 2f For purposes of enforcement. ' unqualified equiprent" means equipment for which there is not adequate documentation to establish that this equipment will parform its intended functions in the relevant environment.
e
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/
4 The base civil penalty would be determined as described below, i EQ Yiolation Category- Base Civil Penalty A. Extensive; EQ violations affecting many $300,000 ,
systems and many cog onents.
B. Moderate; EQ violations affncting some $150,000 systems and some components.
C. Isolated; EQ violations affecting a $ 75,000 limited number of systems and components.
The three EQ violation categories reflect the overall pervasiveness and ,
the general safety significance of significant EQ violations. The NRC considers violations of EQ requirements to be safety significant because the electrical eculpment required to be qualified were those which have importance 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 IV or V violatices, as described in Section !!!. As stated in Section !!!, however, progransnatic problems may be the subject of escalated enforcement action under the NRC's normal Enforcement Fo11cy.
The significance of the EQ violations is considered when the NRC evaluates the number of systems affected by the EQ violations and detersines the EQ violationcatopory. The NRC will assume, for escalated enforcement cases, that the unqua ified equipment could affect operability of the associated system. The NRC will not consider refinements on the operability arguments such as the actual tim 7ee equipment is required to be operable, admini-strative measures or controls available to ensure the safety function is accoglished, the degree to which the operability of a system is affected, or, that through additional analyses or testing, the equipment may be demonstrated to be qualified or qualifiable. This assumption is sede for enforcement purposes in order to reduce the resources anticipated to be spent b licensees and the NRC to evaluate in detail whether system operabi ity was in question.
3/ 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.
The base civil penalty for the violattent will be applied consistent with the statutory liaf ts on civil penalties under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act.
O
' Enclosure Because the NRC is considering enforcement action rather than a justifica-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 nuv6er of safety systems affected. This approath has the benefits of a relatively quick, though conservative, view on the safety consequences of unqualified equipment and wil) focus on the underlying cause of the E0 violations.
Cases involving deliberate violations or very serious EQ violations (more safety significant than considered in this modified enforcement policy such as widespread bretkdowns or clear!y inoperable systems) will t,e evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may be subject to more severe sanctions than those described in this policy.
S. Mitigation / Escalation Factors Mitigation arid 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 EQ violations in aggregate, not based on individual violations. Adjustment of the base civil penalty will be considered as described below:
Maximus Mitigation /
Mitication/ Escalation Factors Escalation Amount (from base civil penalty) a 505
- 1. Identification and prompt reporting, if required, of the EQ violations (including opportunities to identify and correct the deficiencies).
e 505
- 2. Best efforts to cog lete EQ within the deadline.
t 505
- 3. Corrective actions to result in full compliance (including the time taken to make an operability or quellfication determination , the quality of any supporting analysis, and the nature and extent of the licensee's efforts to come into cogliance).
- 505 4 Duration of violation which is significantly below 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 aghasize that a significant environmental qualification failure is unacceptable.
The NRC will, however, consider full sitigation (no civil penalty) for those EQ yielations which satisfy all of the five following criterie:
(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, if required, (4) vioistions which are corrected and actions taken will result cogliance within a reasonable time, and (5) violations
\
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 tire 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 of a licensee's after-the-fact testing for mitigation where the licensee citarly should have known that its documentation was not sufficient.
\
s t
O e
1 LIST.0F RECENTLY ISSUED GENERIC LETTERS Date of
.cric Isswance Issvec To Sueject w.stGr No.
ALL POWER SL CS-06 REMOVAL OF ORGANIZATION CHARTS 03/22/89 REACTOR FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LICENSEES AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL APPLICANTS REQUIREMENTS 03/17/98 ALL LICENSEES
' lBL 88-05 BORIC ACID CORROSION OF CARBON OF OPERATING STEEL REACTOR PRESSURE PWRS AND BOUNDARY COMPONENTS IN HOLDERS OF PWR PLANTS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR PWRS
\
02/23/98 ALL NON-POWER OL 88-04 DISTRIBUTION OF GEMS REACTOR 1RRADIATED,!N RESEARCH LICENSEES REACTORS l 02/17/88 ALL LICENSEES.
SL 58-03 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC SAFETY APPLICANTS FOR ISSUE 93, " STEAM SINDING OF OPERATING AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMPS" LICENSES, AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR
' PRESSUR12ED WATER REACTORS 01/20/88 ALL POWER
.0L SS-02 "!NTEGRATED SEFETY ASSESSMENT REACTOR
- PROGRAM !! (ISAP !!)" LICENSEES {
01/25/08 ALL LICENSEES CL SS-01 "NRC' POSIT!ON.ON IGSCC IN BWR OF OPERATING AUSTEN! TIC STAINLESS STEEL BO! LING WATER P! PING" REACTORS AND j
HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR BWRS I
11/12/87 ALL POWER AND E7-16 NUREG-1262, " ANSWERS TO NONPOWER SL E DUESTIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS REACTOR RE IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR55 LICENSEES AND ON OPERATORS APPL: CANTS FOR LICENSES LICENSES 11/04/87 ALL HOLDERS OF SL 37-15 POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFERRED CONSTRUCTION PLANTS PERMITS FOR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
\ ___ m, %