NRC Generic Letter 1988-07
UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D. C. 20555April 7, 1988TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS
SUBJECT: MODIFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO 10 CFR 50.49, ENVIRONMENTALQUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY FOR NUCLEARPOWER PLANTSO (GENERIC LETTER 88-07)Background:Generic Letters, Bulletins, and Information Notices have been issued to provideguidance regarding the application and enforcement of 10 CFR 50.49, EnvironmentalQualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants.'Generic Letter 85-15, issued August 6, 1985, and Generic Letter 86-15, issuedSeptember 22, 1986, provided information related to the deadlines for compliancewith 10 CFR 50.49 and possible civil penalties applicable to licensees who werenot in compliance with the rule as of the November 30, A985 deadline. Upon review,the Commission found that the EQ Enforcement Policy promulgated in Generic Letter86-15, could result in imposition of civil penalties that did not properly reflectthe safety significance of EQ violations with respect to civil penalties imposedin the past. In the interest of continuing a tough but fair enforcement policy,the Commission determined that the EQ Enforcement Policy should be revised. Thepurpose of this letter is to provide a modification to the NRC's enforcementpolicy, as approved by the Commission, for environmental qualification (EQ)violations. This letter replaces the guidance provided in Generic Letters 85-15and 86-15.Modified EQ Enforcement PolicyThe details of the modified EQ enforcement policy are provided in the enclosure.Generally, the changes made to the policy are to: (1) aggregate significantEQ violations together, rather than consider each separate item of unqualifiedelectrical equipment, for assessment of a civil penalty, (2) assess a basecivil penalty according to the number of systems or components which are affectedby the unqualified equipment in a graded approach by assignment of the aggregateEQ problem into one of three categories, (3) establish a maximum EQ civil penaltyof $750,000 for most cases, (4) maintain a minimum civil penalty of $50,000 fora significant EQ violation in most cases, and (5) consider mitigation orescalation of the base civil penalty based on the factors of identification andreporting, 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'sintention to assure that all plants comply with EQ requirements. The modifiedpolicy is intended to give a significant civil penalty to those licensees withsignificant EQ violations. The NRC's view is that the modified policy moreclosely reflects the relative safety importance of EQ violations with otherenforcement issues.Safety IssuesWhen a potential deficiency has been identified by the NRC or licensee in theaenvironmental qualification of equipment (i.e., a licensee does not have a Generic Letter 88-07-2 -April 7,1 1988adequate basis to establish qualification), the licensee is expected to make aprompt determination of operability (i.e., the system or component is capableof performing its intended design function), take immediate steps to establisha plan with a reasonable schedule to correct the deficiency, and have writtenJustification for continued operation, which will be available for NRC review.The licensee may be able to make a finding of operability using analysis andpartial test data to provide reasonable assurance that the equipment willperform its safety function when called upon. In this connection, it mustalso be shown that subsequent failure of the equipment, if likely underaccident conditions, will not result in significant degradation of any safetyfunction or provide misleading information to the operator.The following actions are to be taken if a licensee is unable to demonstrateequipment operability:a. For inoperable equipment which is in a system covered by planttechnical specifications, the licensee shall follow the appropriateaction statements. This could require the plant to shut down orremain shut down.b. For inoperable equipment not covered by the plant technicalspecifications, the licensee may continue reactor operation:1. If the safety function can be accomplished by other designatedequipment that is qualified, or2. If limited administrative controls can be used to ensure thesafety function is performed.The licensee must also evaluate whether the findings are reportable under10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, 10 CFR Part 21, the Technical Specifications or anyother pertinent reporting requirements, including 10 CFR 50.9(b), particularlyif equipment is determined to be inoperable.This letter does not require any response and therefore does not need approvalof the Office of Management and Budget. Comments on burden and duplication maybe directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management Room 3208,New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Should you have questionson this letter, the staff contact is Howard Wong, Office of Enforcement. He canbe reach on (301) 492-3281.Frank J. M aglAssociate Director for ProjectsOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
- ENCLOSUREMODIFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR EQ REQUIREMENTSThis enclosure provides the details of the modified enforcement policy for EQrequirements for those licensees who were not in compliance with 10 CFR 50.49as of the November 30, 1985 deadline.I. Scope of the Enforcement Policy for EQ RequirementsIf violations of the EQ rule identified at plants operating afterNovember 30, 1985 existed before the deadline and the licensee clearlyknew or should have known" of the lack of proper environmental qualifi-cation, then enforcement action may be taken as described in Sections IIIand IV. If the licensee does not meet the "clearly knew or should haveknown" test, no enforcement action will be taken.This enforcement policy applies to violations of the EQ rule identifiedafter November 30, 1985 which relate back to action or lack of actionbefore the deadline. Violations which occurred after November 30, 1985(either as a result of plant modifications or because the plant waslicensed after November 30, 1985) will be considered for enforcementaction under the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.In addition, EQ violations which are identified after the NRC's lastfirst-round inspection, 1/ approximately mid-1988, will also be consideredunder the normal Enforcement Policy.II. Application of the "Clearly Knew, or Should Have Known" TestLicensees who "clearly knew" they had equipment for which qualificationcould not be established may have committed a deliberate violation of NRCrequirements. This situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.The NRC will examine the circumstances in each case to determine whetherthe licensee 'clearly should have known" that its equipment was not quali-fied. The factors the NRC will examine include
- 1. Did the licensee have vendor-supplied documentation that demonstratedthat the equipment was qualified?2. Did the licensee perform adequate receiving and/or field verificationinspection to determine that the configuration of the installedequipment matched the configuration of the equipment that was qualifiedby the vendor?3. Did the licensee have prior notice that equipment qualificationdeficiencies might exist?4. Did other licensees identify similar problems and correct thembefore the deadline?1/ First-round inspections are special team inspections to review licensees'compliance with 10 CFR 50.4 Enclosure-2 -In assessing whether the licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency,the Information provided to the licensees by the NRC and the industry onspecific deficiencies will be taken into consideration. This information,and the timeliness of it being provided to licensees prior to the EQdeadline are relevant factors. If one licensee determined that a specificEQ deficiency existed, it would not be assumed that all licensees shouldhave also come to the same conclusion unless information about the specificdeficiency had been widely disseminated within the industry or by the NRC.The staff will carefully consider these criteria when evaluating whether alicensee clearly should have known of a deficiency prior to the deadline.III. EQ Violations not Sufficiently Significant to Merit a Civil Penalty Underthe Modified PolicyAny failure to adequately list and demonstrate qualification of equipmentrequired by 10 CFR 50.49 may constitute a violation of the rule. This doesnot require, however, that all violations of the rule be considered forescalated enforcement or be assessed a civil penalty. For example, if thequalification file presented to the Inspector during an Inspection did notdemonstrate or support qualification of equipment, the equipment would beconsidered unqualified 2/ and 10 CFR 50.49 requirements would be violated.However, although not iin the qualification file, if sufficient data existsor is developed during the inspection to demonstrate qualification of theequipment or, based on other information available to the inspector, thespecific equipment is qualifiable for the application in question, thequalification deficiency is not considered sufficiently significant forassessment of civil penalties. These violations would be considered to beSeverity Level IV or Severity Level V violations based on a violation of10 CFR 50.49 requirements at the time of the inspection.Programmatic violations or problems that are identified as a result ofthe EQ Inspections that involve several EQ violations which themselveswould not be considered sufficiently significant to merit a civil penaltyunder the modified EQ enforcement policy nonetheless may be aggregatedand evaluated for escalated enforcement action (generally SeverityLevel III) for the failure to satisfy applicable requirements of 10 CFR50.49 and/or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. The civil penalties for theseviolations would be assessed under the normal Enforcement Policy of10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (Supplement I).IV. Basis for Determining Civil PenaltiesA. Base Civil PenaltySignificant EQ violations, for which the licensee clearly should have knownthat they had equipment for which qualification had not been established,2/ For purposes of enforcement, Ounqualifid equipmentu means equipment forwhich there is not adequate documentation to establish that this equipmentwill perform its intended functions in the relevant environmen AEnclosure -3 -are to be considered together, in the aggregate, and thebase civil penalty assessed in a graded approach based on the number ofsystems or components affected. 3/The base civil penalty would be determined as described below.EQ Violation Category Base Civil PenaltyA. Extensive; EQ violations affecting many $300,000systems and many components.B. Moderate; EQ violations affecting some $150,000systems and some components.C. Isolated; EQ violations affecting a $ 75,000limited number of systems and components.The three EQ violation categories reflect the overall pervasiveness andthe general safety significance of significant EQ violations. The NRCconsiders violations of EQ requirements to be safety significant becausethe electrical equipment required to be qualified were those which haveimportance to safety. The violation categories do not include those EQviolations which have been determined to be not sufficiently significantstanding alone to be considered for escalated enforcement and which willbe normally considered as Severity Level IV or V violations, as describedin Section III. As stated in Section III, however, programmatic problemsmay be the subject of escalated enforcement action under the NRC's normalEnforcement Policy.The significance of the EQ violations is considered when the NRC evaluatesthe number of systems affected by the EQ violations and determines the EQviolation category. The NRC will assume, for escalated enforcement cases,that the unqualified equipment could affect operability of the associatedsystem. The NRC will not consider refinements on the operability argumentssuch as the actual timreThe equipment is required to be operable, admini-strative measures or controls available to ensure the safety function isaccomplished, the degree to which the operability of a system is affected,or, that through additional analyses or testing, the equipment may bedemonstrated to be qualified or qualifiable. This assumption is made forenforcement purposes in order to reduce the resources anticipated to bespent by licensees and the NRC to evaluate in detail whether systemoperability was in question.3/ The EQ violation categories (A-C) will be used rather than the severitylevels in the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.The base civil penalty for the violations will be applied consistent withthe statutory limits on civil penalties under Section 234 of the AtomicEnergy Ac Enclosure-4 -Because the NRC is considering enforcement action rather than a justifica-tion for continued operation and the EQ deficiencies have been correctedin most instances, the NRC will make a conservative judgment as to theoverall safety significance of the EQ violations based on the number ofsafety systems affected. This approach has the benefits of a relativelyquick, though conservative, view on the safety consequences of unqualifiedequipment and wil) focus on the underlying cause of the EO violations.Cases involving deliberate violations or very serious EQ violations (moresafety significant than considered in this modified enforcement policysuch as widespread breakdowns or clearly inoperable systems) will beevaluated on a case-by-case basis and may be subject to more severesanctions than those described in this policy.B. Mitigation/Escalation FactorsMitigation and escalation of the base civil penalty determined in SectionIY.A will be considered in the determination of the civil penalty amount.The NRC will consider the EQ violations In aggregate, not based onindividual violations. Adjustment of the base civil penalty will beconsidered as described below:Mitigation/Escalation Factors Maximum Mitigation/Escalation Amount (frombase civil penalty)1. Identification and prompt reporting, if required, +/- 50%of the EQ violations (including opportunities toidentify and correct the deficiencies).2. Best efforts to complete EQ within the deadline. i 50%3. Corrective actions to result in full compliance 50%(including the time taken to make an operability orqualification determination, the quality of anysupporting analysis, and the nature and extent ofthe licensee's efforts to come into compliance).4. Duration of violation which is significantly below -50%100 days.In order to be fair and equitable to those licensees who took appropriateactions prior to November 30, 1985 or shut down prior to this date to bein compliance, civil penalties generally should not be less than $50,000to emphasize that a significant environmental qualification failure isunacceptable.The NRC will, however, consider full mitigation (no civil penalty) forthose EQ violations which satisfy all of the five following criteria:(1) violations which are Isolated and affect a limited number of systemsand components, (2) violations which are identified by the licensee,(3) violations which are promptly reported to the NRC, if required,(4) violations which are corrected and actions taken will result in fullcompliance within a reasonable time, and (5) violations for which thelicensee has demonstrated best efforts to complete EQ within the deadlin Enclosure -5-The intent of full mitigation of the civil penalty for EQ violationswhich meet all five criteria is to increase the incentive for self-identification of EQ deficiencies which might not otherwise be found byNRC. The NRC will generally issue only a Notice of Violation forviolations which meet all these criteria.If the licensee is able to convincingly demonstrate at the time of theinspection, or shortly thereafter, that an item is not required to be onthe EQ list, then the item would not be considered for enforcement action.The NRC does not intend to consider for enforcement purposes the resultsof a licensee's after-the-fact testing for mitigation where the licenseeclearly should have known that its documentation was not sufficien J,L.air OF RECENTLY ISSUED GENEV _ LETTERSGenericLetter No.Date ofSubject IssuanceIssued ToGL 88-06 REMOVAL OF ORGANIZATION CHARTSFROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLREQUIREMENTS03/22/BBALL POWERREACTORLICENSEES ANDAPPLICANTSGL 88-05GL 88-04GL 88-03GL 8E-02GL 88-01BORIC ACID CORROSION OF CARBONSTEEL REACTOR PRESSUREBOUNDARY COMPONENTS INPWR PLANTSDISTRIBUTION OF GEMSIRRADIATED IN RESEARCHREACTORSRESOLUTION OF GENERIC SAFETYISSUE 93, "STEAM BINDING OFAUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMPS""INTEGRATED SEFETY ASSESSMENTPROGRAM II (ISAP II)'"NRC POSITION ON IGSCC IN BWRAUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEELPIPING"03/17/8802/23/8802/17/8801/20/8801/25/88ALL LICENSEESOF OPERATINGPWRS ANDHOLDERS OFCONSTRUCTIONPERMITS FORPWRSALL NON-POWERREACTORLICENSEESALL LICENSEES,APPLICANTS FOROPERATINGLICENSES, ANDHOLDERS OFCONSTRUCTIONPERMITS FORPRESSURIZEDWATER REACTORSALL POWERREACTORLICENSEESALL LICENSEESOF OPERATINGBOILING WATERREACTORS ANDHOLDERS OFCONSTRUCTIONPERMITS FORBWRSGL 87-16 NUREG-1262, "ANSWERS TOQUESTIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGSRE IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR55ON OPERATORSLICENSES11/12/87ALL POWER ANDNONPOWERREACTORLICENSEES ANDAPPLICANTS FORLICENSESEL 87-15GL B7-14POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFERREDPLANTSREQUEST FOR OPERATOR LICENSESCHEDULES11/04/8708/04/87ALL HOLDERS OFCONSTRUCTIONPERMITS FOR ANUCLEAR POWERPLANTALL POWERREACTORLICENSEES Generic Letter 88-07-2 -April 7. 1988DISTRIBUTION:Central FilesPDRMurley/SniezekFJMiragliaTMartinJLlebermanHWongDCrutchfleldGHolahan88040800885( ~ JIWjw~ #/NOEHWong3/37 /88D: OE
- rJLleberman3/ 3/884XRfGHolahanUP /88NRRDCrutchfield3/ /88lia~8