ML20238C646: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| page count = 2 | | page count = 2 | ||
| project = | | project = | ||
| stage = | | stage = Approval | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:18, 24 May 2023
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - -
f u
8<y muc ,]o, UNITED STATES
{, ,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, wAssmoTow. o. c. rosss
\ **"* /
APR 101981 EGM 87-02 MEMORANDUM FOR: T. Murley, Regional Administrator, RI N. Grace, Regional Administrator, RII A. Davis, Acting Regional Administrator, RIII R. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIY J. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV FROM: James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide further guidance in the application of the Enforcement Policy involving violations of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements.
Althou 86-15)gh the " Enforcement criteria for Enforcement" (Enclosure to Generic Letter has been approved by the Commission, there appears to be some confusion ds to what types of and when Environmental Qualification (EQ) violations should be assessed daily civil penalties. This confusion appears to result from the difficulty in the detennination of significance of the identified EQ deficiencies.
Any failure to adequately demonstrate qualification of equipment required by 10 CFR may 50.49 and constitute included of a violation in the the licensees rule. Master Equipment List, or equivalent, Footnote (1) to Generic Letter 85-15 clearly states, "For purposes of enforcement, unqualified equipment means equipment for which there is not adequate dochinentation to establish that this equipment will perform its intended functions in the relevant environment."
This does not require, however, that all violations of the rule be considered for escalated enforcement or assessed daily civil penalties.
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 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 or, 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 dssessment of Civil penalties.
These violations Would be considered to be Severity Level IV or Severity Level V violations because the ifcensee was in violation of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements at the time of the inspection, and corrective actions were required to achieve compliance with the rule. These violations should be prepared and submitted to the Chief, Special Projects Section, Vendor Inspection Branch, NRR, prior to issuance. A copy should also be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement.
Programmatic violations or problems that are identified as a result of the EQ inspections that involve several Severity Level IV violations can be aggregated and processed as escalated enforcement actions for failure to satisfy applicable 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B requirements. The civil penalties for these violations 8712310127 871224
/~df/9 - f 7' D~8 PDR FDIA GUILDB7-4SO PDR @// a l
1 would be assessed under Supplement I of the Enforcement Policy. These and other escalated enforcement actions for significant violations of 10 CR 50.49 requirements should be developed and processed in accordance with the norw.al escalated enforcement process. A copy of the proposed action should also be sent to Chief, Special Pro.iects Section, Vendor Inspection Branch, NRR. Civil !
penalties for significant violations of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements should be I assessed in accordance with the guidelines described in the Enclosure to Generic Letter 86-15.
In determining whether or not civil penalties should, in fact, be assessed for '
violations of 10 CFR 50.49, it is clear that the violations should be significant and be characterized to at least a Severity Level III if they are cause for ;
j significant concern. This would include those cases where the licensee could ;
not demonstrate or support qualification of equipment. The Enclosure to Generic Letter 86-15 states, "...the base civil penalty levied should not be lower than
$50,000, the base civil penalty for Severity Level III violations in any case in which significant deficiencies remained at the close of the inspectico for which further testing or analysis was required to establish qualification and which the licensee already knew or should have known existed before the l November 30 deadline."
Violations that involve deficiencies in the qualification of internal wiring for Limitorque motor o'perated valves should not be processed unless significant programmatic weaknesses exist or inadequate licensee responses or corrective actions are identified. Because of the generic nature of these deficiencies, SECY-87-32 recommended that no enforcement action be taken for these types of deficiencies. This paper was approved by the Comission on March 23, 1987.
In sumary, Severity Level IV or Severity Level V violations should be prepared and submitted for review by the Chief, Special Projects Section, Vendor Inspection i Branch, NRR prior to issuance. Programmatic violations or significant violations of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements should be developed and processed in accordance with the normal escalated enforcement process. Violations involving deficiencies in the qualification of internal wiring for Limitorque motor operated valves where licensees have taken reasonable corrective actions should not be cited tnless programmatic.
/
W
/ 1 J mes M. aho'r irector ffice of Insp tion and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 2. SECY-87-32
l.N C C5U E I' j.# * *' *%**
- uw Teo states j
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "s ' m enewofow,c.c.zo***
s...../ SEP 21 1986 TO ALL Ll'ENSEES AND HOLDERS OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN OPERAT Gentlemen: '
i
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION RELATING TO COMPL!ANCE hl!TH 10 CFR 50.49," ENVIRONME QUALIFICATION POWER PLANTS", (GENERIC OF LETTER ELECTRIC 8615) EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAF Generic Letters, Bulletins, and Infonnation Notices have been issued to provide guidance and clarify the intention of 10 CFR 50.49, " Environmental Qualification Plants". of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear. Power Generic Letter 85-15, issued August 6,1985, provided infonnation related to the deadlines for compliance with 10 CFR 50.49 and possible civil penalties should licensees operate in non-compliance with the rule. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional guidelines on appropriate licensee actions in situations where e' environmental qualification of equipment
- is suspect and on current NRC pplicy with regard to enforcement of 10 CFR 50.49 .
When a licensee discovers a potential deficiency in the environmental qualifi-cation of equipment (i.e., a licensee does not have an adequate basis to
- establish qualification), the licensee shall make a prompt detennination of operability, shall take innediate steps to establish a plan with a reasonable schedule operation.
continued to correct the deficiency, and sh'll a have written justification for -
This justification does not require NRC review and approval.
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 perfonn its safety function when called upon to mitigate the accidents for which it is needed.
I In this connection, it must also be shown that subsequent failure of the equipment under accident conditions will not result in significant degradation of
! any safety function or provide misleading infonnation to the operator.
If the licensee is unable to demonstrate operability:
A.
For inoperable equipment included in systems covered by plant technical action specifications, the licensee shall follow the appropriate statements.
a limited period of time (or remain shut down).This could require 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 that is qualified, or
) 2.
If limited safety administrative function is performed. controls can be used to ensure the h6092302 -9
-~.n.-. 800922.
2 The licensee should also evaluate whether the findings are reportable under 50.72, 50.73, Part 21, the Technical Specifications or any other pertinent reporting requirements, particularly if equipment is determined to be ineperable.
Enclosed is a copy of enforcement guidance related to Generic t.etter 85-15.
This letter does c.ot require any response and therefore does not need ap;reval of the Of fice of Management and Budget. Coments on burden and duplication may be directed to the Of fice of Management and Budget. Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Butiding. Washington. 0.C. 20503. Should you have any questions, the staff contacts are Gary Holahan for technical questions and Jane Axelrad for enforcement questions. Mr. Holahan can be reached on (301)492-4410 and Ms. Axelrad can be reached on (301)492-4909.
Sincerely.
/
I Harold R. Denton. Nrector g Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation W
Enclosure:
S.s stated ,,
l l
l t
.I
I i ENCLOSURE ENFORCEMENT CRITERIA FOR EQ ENFORCEMENT c'
Application of the " Clearly knew. or should have known" test The staff believes it is unlikely that Itceasees will be. identified that
" clearly knew" they had boutpment for which qualification cannot s ed.
be estab The e staff believes are before November 30 from that discussions they had equipmentwithforlicensees that a which qualification not betheestablished under daily penalty elected provision.to shut down rather than operate in noncomplia Thus, the issue in most cases will b theequipment its staff to detemine whether the licensee " clearly should have known" e for was not qualifted. that each case to make the determination.The staff will examine the circumstan
- 1. The factors the staff will examine include:
Did theequipment that the licenseewas have vendor-supplied documentation that demon qualified?
~
2.
Did the licensee perfom adequate receiving and/or field verification inspection to deterintee that the configuration of the installed equipewnt by the vendor?matched the configuration of the equipment that was qu 3.
qualification deficienctss alght entst?Did the licensee have a.
Did some licensees identify similar problems and correct them befo the evadline?
To illustrate how these factors would be applied in specific cases
, the staff qualification identified at several plants. of the internal wiring of certain e- valve were antiguous qualified by the reports.regarding whether the internal wiring of the op It has now been detemined that vendor EQ test and that the wiring used in the test operators could b wiring installed in production units.
Subsequent wiring modifications by the j
valve vs manufacturer not covered or byqualification by the operator the installer have introduced additional wiri reports.
( several valve operators.has shown instances of unf dentified e n or not qualified 1
l cases were used on valves which were part of syst specifications (TS) such as containment isolation valves.
many operators should have been qualified by November The wiring in the
) 30. 1985. Thus, plants at which further testing or analysis is required and to estab which operated in noncomp11&nce are subject to a possible penalty of!
per ites per day if such Itcensees clearly knew or clearly should the deficiencies.
w of have kno1 In some plants, this could amount to a substantial penalty. i i
, i with regard to the first two factors, rtilence on vendor-supplied information on testing of equipment and performance of receiving and/or field verification inspections. the licensees took the position that the EQ test reports provided G by the vendor covered the wiring and did not perform adequate receiving or field verification inspections to positively identify the internal wirtag.
We and wiring inthe thelicensees now know that the vendor test reports did not cover the operators.
In addressing qualification by test, paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49 requires that each item of electrical equipment important to safety must be qualif ted by testing an identical ites or testing a similar item with supporting analysis that the equipment to be qualified is acceptable. It may not be reasonable to rely entirely on vendor-supplied information in establishing sta11arity since changes to complex equipment are likely to occur during the manufacturing process and/or installation.
A comprehensive receiving and/or field verification inspection of the equipment by the Itcensees should be conducted to identify significant discrepancies between the as-installed vs. qualified configurations.
With regard to the third factor. prior notice of similar problems, the results of one field verification inspection of equipment prompted IE to issue an Information equipment Notice in 1983 to alert licensees to several deficiencies affecting qualification.
This Notite discussed a construction deficiency report related to inspection of valve operators at a plant under construction. Among several specific qualification-related concerns, this Notice stated that "No identification was evident on certain materials internal to the valve operators (e.g., wiring, insulation. etc.)" and stated that "It is not presently known whether these types are qualified for the service conditions." This Information Notice also highlighted the fact that *Information obtained from purchase order files and qualification files does not agree with the installed components."
Based on the above. the staff concluded this document provided prior notice of the potential problems with certain valve operators. Given this information, it was unreasonable for licensees to rely entirely on the vendor reports without doing additional work to ensure that the wiring was quellfled.
With regard to the fourth factor, some licensees did identify and correct this problem before the November 30, 1985 deadline. The unqualified wiring was identified by these licensees as a result of walkdown verification of the installed equipment or comprehensive review of qualification files.
After consideration of all of these factors, the staff has concluded that in the case of the wiring, licensees " clearly should have known" that the vendor documentation was not adegwate to support qualification.
Time Period to be Considered for Daily Civil Penalty Once the staff concludes that the " clearly knew or should have known" test is applicable, the staff must determine the appropriate period over which to assess a daily civil penalty. The staff has concluded that the appropriate g period is from November 30. 1985 to the time the licensee completes its evaluation and schedules corrective action. .This approach should encourage l!
l timely identification and evaluations by licensees of the qualification of the i equipment. A licensee should not be penalized for each day after the problem
1s teentified and appropriate corrective action is scheduled that it elects to operata that it wasuntti safethe problem to allow is fised continued assuming a reasonable determination *8s made operation.
until the violation is corrected would provide strong incentives for shutdownI even reasonablethoughperiod the licensee of timehad determined is not unsafe. that continued operation for some .
required and the Ifcensee may be subject to daily civil penalt penalties are itkely to quiqkly become abnormally high, particularly as theSince such length of time between the November 30 deaditme and the date of inspection !
increases the staff hasbedetermined !
the civil penalty should imposed. that some cap en the postible amount of !
The staff has determined that this is appropriate especially for those cases in which the " clearly should have known=
test were they is applied not in as opposed to cases in which the Itcensee 'clebrly know* that compliance.
The staff has selected a cap of $500.000 per item or forapproximately 100 days after the the amount deadline.that would be japosed for one ites that was def tetent to attigate from 3500.000 per ites The downattigation factors would then be applied if appropriate. Similarly. since the for attigation of the daily civil penalty, if the licensee fails to mee schedule. additional civil penaltiss will be considered.
In the case of the valve operators described above in one hypothetical situation, supposh that a Resident Inspector notified one licensee two weeks after the deadline that the qualtftcation of the valve operators was suspect.
That the wiringlicensee couldevaluated not be verified.the situatica.and concluded that the qualification of The Itcensee performed a final evaluation two weeks later justifying continued operation with the unqualtfled equipment andmonths.
two planned to replace the equipment at the nest scheduled refueling outage in The staff would conclude that this licensee would be subject to a daily civil penalty of 55.000/ item / day for 28 days.
Application of the Mitication Factors Once it has 6een determined that a licensee may be subject to a daily etyt1 penalty under this test. Generic 1.etter 85-15 specifies that the staff showle apply certain mitigation factors to determine the amount of the proposed penalty. The factors spectfled in the letter were:
1.
Did the50.49?
10 CFR Itcensee identify and promptly repnrt the noncompliance witn 2.
Did thetcation qualif licenseewithin apply thebest efforts to complete environmental deadline? l 3.
Has the licensee proposed actions which can be expected to result m full compliance within a reasonable time?
These factcrs are self. explanatory.
In addition, the staff would consider the circumstances of each particular case including the significance of the deficiencies identified, the opportunities available to identify and correct
)
I I
_- - - - _ - .- i
4 thee, the time taken by the Itcenset to make a deterwinattan. the quality of the supporting before analysts, and the length of time the deff etencies esistee identificaties. The following discussion fitustrates how these mitigation facters usu14 be applied in the hypothetical case of a licensee which identified the valve operator problem.
' of the internal wiring of valve operators af ter conversations wtth the Resident !nspector.
nee assume that ifr f amediately initiated a timely investigation, deterstaed that qualification of its valve operators was not fully supported due te problems with the internal wiring, and motified the NAC of this detennisation via telephone and continued to etelmate the problem.
Wtthin tw weeks of becoming aware of the probles, the Ifcassee submitted a 10 CFR Part 21 report to the NRC. Included in this submittal was the )icensee's justification for continued operation of the plant and a plea for corrective a c tion.,
Further we assume ttat the ifcensee actively worked to achieve its 10 CFA $0.49 l
deadline of the second refueling outage after March 31. 1982 and was able to l
! meet tt except for same 1tems of equipment for which justificattens for continued operation (JCOs) had been approved. Later. NRC was nottfled by telephone that all work on equipment scheduled for replacement and/or relocation and covered by the previously approved JCOs had been accomplished. Therefore, all equipment within November the 30, scope 1985ofdeadline.
10 CFR 50.49 was believed to be qualf fled well before the Finally, we assume tsat this 1tcens'e'e's 10 CFR Part 21 report submitted to the NRC included a schedule for corrective actions to establish qualification of the wiring of all valve operators within the scope of 10 CFR 50.49 and that i tats schedule called for the replacement of entsting wiring.with qualified wiring on all affected operators within two mont,hs.
l The staff has mitigation concluded under that this licenses would be entitled to complete these factors. However, to be fair and egettable to those licensees who either took appropriate actions prior to November 30 or shut down on November 30 in creer to be in compitance some civil penalty should be imposed Thus, the staff has concluded that the daily civil penalty should be adjusted in accordance than 550.000, with the factors but the civil penalty levied should not be lower the base civil penalty for an ordinary Severity Level til violation, in any case in which significant deficiencies remained at the close of the inspection for which further testing or analysts was required to establish qualification and which the licensee ' clearly knew or should have known" existed before the November 30 desaline.
Other Enforcement Regarding Violations of EQ Requirements identified at Plants operating Af ter Noveamer 30 If violations of the IQ rule identified during first round 1# inspections at plants operating after Movember 30. 1985 apparently entsted before the deadline, then the " clearly knew or should have known" test should be applied. If the 1/
First-round Inspections are special team inspections to review licensees' comp 1fance with 10 CFR 50.49.
f
l ;
5-licensee meets the test, enforcement should be taken as described above, gf the Ifcensee does not meet this test no enforcement action should be taken.
If the licensee could not havo reasonably been espected to discover the probitm before the November 30 dead 1tne, presumably the noncompliance could not have l
been avoided and enforcement action to deter future noncompliance would serve no purpose. -
If the violations of the EQ rule identified after November 30, 1985 do not i
relate back to action or lack of action before the deadline; e.g.. a modification was made in January 1986 that created the violation, or are identified after first-round inspections are completed, enforcement should be taken under the current Enforcement Policy. The present policy states as an example of Severity Level III: "2. A system designed to prevent or mitigate a sertoes safety event not being able to perform its intended function under certain conditions (e.g., safety system not operable unless offsite power is availablet materials or components not environmentally qualified)." Thus, no changes to the Enforcement Policy are necessary to take into account Ett violations.
Consistent with the interpretations of the Enforcement Policy in other areas.
less significant violations that indicate a programmatic breakdown can also be grouped and categorized as Severity Level !!! violations.
~
For licensees that were not in Spapitance with the rule before the November 30, 1985 deadline and did not submit timely requests for extension, but which did not operate in noncompliance after the deadline, consistent with the Coserission's direction in response to SECY 85 220. (Memorandum from 5. J. Chilk to id. J.
Dircks, August 27,1985) the staff will exercise enforcement discretion af ter considering whether edequate JCO's were provided and whether an extension would have been granted if timely filed.
)