ML20209E573
| ML20209E573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209E577 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-810, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE CIVP-S-006, CIVP-S-6, SECY-85-220, NUDOCS 8507090004 | |
| Download: ML20209E573 (12) | |
Text
,_
_I - -
.f_J h g
a
)
. % g.
i l
i
\\,...../
June 18, 1985 PQ[lCVl$$y{
SECY-85-220 (Notation Vote)
FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION PROGRAM ACTIONS RESULTING FROM APRIL 2, 1985 COMMISSION MEETING PURPOSE:
To propose staff actions for completing activities relating to Equipment Qualification.
SUMMARY
This paper presents the Comission with the staff's views in
(
the following areas:
policy regarding processing of extension j
requests, enforcement actions for non-compliance discovered now
(
and after the November 30, 1985 deadline, inspection history, and future inspection planning. The staff recomends that the Comission approve the proposed generic letter, including the proposed enforcement policy, relating to 10 CFR 50.49.
BACKGROUND:
At the April 2,1985 Comission meeting on the status of the environmental qualification (EQ) program for electric equipment (10 CFR 50.49), the Comission directed the staff to propose several courses of action related to compliance with the E0 rule.
The specific actions requested were described in a staff require-ments memorandum dated April 26, 1985. The following discussion contains the staff recommendations regarding these actions.
DISCUSSION:
Extension Recuests In the April 26 Staff Requirements Memorandum, the Commission requested the staff to propose two separate courses of action for handling extension requests: (1) for extension requests received between now and late November 1985 and (2) for extension requests received on or about the November 30, 1985 deadline. The Comission directed that the proposed course of action include an analysis of whether the Comission has the authority, the way the rule is worded now, to take the proposed actions.
The staff was also directed to prepare criteria which the Comission may use in determining whether extensions should be granted beyond November 30, 1985 for exceptional cases.
Finally, the Comission requested that staff proceed to issue a letter to all utilities encouraging them to inform the Comission at an early date if they foresee an exemption request going beyond November 30, 1985.
7hk[I[//b)(fl ar h, NRR x28563 il
I i
,i The Comissioners The portion of 50.49(g) governing deadlines and extension requests states:
This schedule must establish a goal of final environ-mental qualification...by the end of the second refueling outage after March 31, 1982 or by March 31, 1985, whichever is earlier. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may grant extensions of this deadline to a date no later than November 30, 1985, for specific pieces of equipment if these requests are filed on a timely basis and demonstrate good cause...In exceptional cases, the Commission itself may consider and grant extensions beyond November 30, 1985, for completion of environmental qualification.
As the Comission was informed at the April 2 meeting, the staff granted a number of extensions under this delegation.
Some of these extensions were to dates between March 31 and November 30, but most were to November 30.
Each extension was limited to specifically identified pieces of equipment.
It is possible that where these extensions terminate prior to November 30, requests may be received to further extend the date to November 30. The staff believes the delegation in 50.49(g) permits the Director of NRR to act on such requests.
A limited number of plants had deadlines prior to March 31, 1985 and were not in compliance on or before the deadline (Calvert Cliffs 2, Sequoyah 1. Cook 1 and 2, and Kewaunee). Once the non-compliance was identified, they filed extension requests.
The Director of NRR does not have the legal authority under 10 CFR 50.49(g) to grant the requests because they were not timely.
In these cases, the staff proposes to review the justifications for continued operation from these plants, and use its enforcement discretion not to take escalated enforcement action if adequate
,iustifications for continued operation are provided and if an extension would have been granted if timely filed.
The issue raised by the two categories of requests to go beyond November 30 identified by the Commission is one of timeliness.
In general the staff considers requests from licensees for NRC action to be timely if they are filed sufficiently in advance of the applicable deadline to permit adequate review.
Some of the extension requests received by the staff prior to March 31 were marginal in this respect, resulting in extraordinary staff
r s
The Comissioners efforts to process such requests prior to expiration of the deadline. With regard to requests for Comission-granted extensions beyond the November 30 deadline, the staff believes that requests filed prior to September 30, 1985 would be timely.
This guidance would allow one month for staff review and another month for Comission consideration of the staff's evaluation.
Requests received after September 30 should be considered untimely unless the licensee can demonstrate that the untimeliness was entirely the result of events beyond its control. Where a request is untimely, the licensee would be considered in non-compliance, and the matter should be treated in the enforcement context.
The finding of an " exceptional case" will, for the most part, hinge on plant-specific circumstances.
For this reason the staff proposed to review requests for extension beyond November 30, 1985 on a case-by-case basis. The staff will consider the following factors, among others, in evaluating the request and forward its recomendation to the Comission:
1.
Has the licensee applied best efforts to complete environmental qualification within the prescribed deadline?
2.
Does the failure to meet that deadline result from events beyond the licensee's control?
3.
Does the failure to meet the deadline result from test failures, procurement difficulties, or installation problems which the licensee could not have reasonably anticipated?
4.
Are there compelling reasons for not requiring a plant shutdown on November 30, assuming that operation beyond that date does not present a safety problem?
5.
Has the ifcensee proposed actions which can be expected to result in full compliance within a reasonable time?
6.
Issues such as the integrated scheduling of complex plant improvements, of which electrical eauf pment qualification may be only a small part, may influence the determination of exceptional " good cause."
In each case the staff would provide the Comission with information regarding these factors and other circumstances bearing on the request. The staff will provide a recommendation for Comission action if the Comission so requests.
s, r
The Comissioners The proposed generic letter requested by the Comission (Enclosure 2) provides licensees with the above guidance regarding timeliness and criteria for " exceptional cases." The letter also provides guidance on appropriate licensee actions where instances of non-compliance are discovered.
For example, if equipment is found to be unqualified, licensees should report the finding if the condition meets the reporting criteria of 10 CFR 50.72 (Prompt Notification) or 10 CFR 50.73 (Licensee Event Reporting System). The staff will issue the letter promptly upon Comission authorization.
Enforcement Some plants will be found to be in non-compliance after their deadlines expire.
Such non-compliance may be within the control of the licensee e.g., inadequate testing or documentation of qualification. Other non-compliance may not be the fault of the licensee, e.g., new test data invalidating previously accepted results of properly conducted tests. The enforcement scheme should distinguish between these two types.
The enforcement policy should also encourage identification and reporting, if required, of safety problems, and corrective actions.
In addition, from a technical standpoint, the licensee's corrective actions and justifications for continued operation must be appropriate. Plant shutdowns may.be required depending upon the equipment involved.
The Commission directed the staff to consider the range of enforcement options available recognizing that it is difficult to categorize the anticipated types of non-compliance. Criteria should be established to facilitate the determination of appropriate enforcement actions. These actions should be based on the extent, severity, safety significance, duration and justification for non-compliance. Mitigating factors should also be considered to emphasize prompt licensee detection of non-conformance, and also encou' age licensee management involvement.
The range of enforcement actions the Comission might take between now and November 30, 1985 as well as proposed actions after November 30, 1985 should be addressed.
The staff was directed to consider " civil penalties that result from inspections at a much later date beyond the November 30, 1985 requirement and whether such fines should be retroactive on a daily basis from November 30, 1985 to the date of the non-compliance determination." The staff was directed to present these options, which may include issuance of notices of violation, civil penalties, plant shutdown or other orders for example, to the Comission for consideration.
The Comissioners The staff has developed enforcement guidance as directed by the Comission. This guidance is contained in Enclosure 1. Although only a Ilmited number of reviews have been perfonned in this area to date, the staff believes it has sufficient experience to provide enforcement guidance now. However, as more experience is gained, the guidance may need to be revised. Accordingly, the staff proposes to provide the guidance to the Regions in the form of an Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) now and place tvised guidance in the Enforcement Policy at a later date. The staff suggests that the policy also be provided in the draft generic letter to all licensees (Enclosure 2).
The guidance developed pertains mainly to the severity level categorization of various violations. The existing policy already contains examples at various severity levels which are adequate to cover violations of 10 CFR 50.49 which might arise in the future (see 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Supplement 1, ReactorOperations).
In addition, the mitigating and escalating factors currently in the enforcement policy already provide emphasis on prompt detection and correction of non-compliance and also encourage management involvement. Therefore, the guidance developed supplements the existing policy and should be read in conjunction with it.
The failure of a licensee to demonstrate that equipment is qcalified could be cause for significant safety concerns. To determine the severity level of a violation of the environmental qualification requirements, the guidance provides that a number of factors must be considered.
These include the extent and number of pieces of equipment involved, the safety significance of and function of the equipment affected, the duration of the failure to qualify the equipment, and the reason for the failure to qualify the equipment. However, if non-compliance occurs as a result of events not within the control of the licensee, such as if new test data invalidates previously accepud results of properly conducted tests, the guidance indicates that enforcement action may not be appropriate.
After the severity level of the violation is established, the escalating or mitigating factors contained in the current enforcementpolicy(10CFRPart2.AppendixC,SectionIV.8) will then be evaluated.
The staff is proposing that violations involving equipment identified as unqualified between now and November 30, 1985 be evaluated under this guidance, The staff also proposes that violations involving eouipment identified as unqualified after November 30, 1985 be evaluated under this guidance but that daily civil penalties for such violations be considered. Daily civil penalties could be proposed if, after November 30, 1985,
The Comissioners unqualified equipment is identified and the licensee knew or clearly should have known that the equipment was not qualified.
The enclosed enforcement guidance reflects this approach.
If a daily civil penalty is warranted the staff proposes that a penalty of $1,000 per violation per day should be proposed for violations categorized at Severity Level !!! or higher. Since it may take several months to correct violations, particularly if new tests are needed, this could result in substantial civil penalties.
Such fines should also be retroactive to November 30, 1985 or to when data became available demonstrating the equipment was unqualified since daily civil penalties will only be proposed for significant violations in which the licensee knew or clearly should have known that the equipment was unqualified.
Such a provision will encourage licensees to maintain control over equipment qualification and quickly correct identified problems.
Of course, for significant programatic breakdowns, the policy provides discretion to issue civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation per day and the staff will recomend such actions where appropriate.
To achieve the maximum deterrent effect from a daily civil penalty, this aspect of the proposed enforcement policy should be published well in advance of the November 30 deadline.
This was done in the case of the prompt notification system deadline and resulted in substantial compliance on or before the deadline in that case.
Inclusion of the guidance in the generic letter to licensees will serve this purpose.
Inspection Program The Comission directed that the staff describe the E0 inspection program, including designation of inspection responsibilities, and also prepare an inspection schedule.
The 10 CFR 50.49 equipment qualification inspection program which started with the Calvert Cliffs insaection in October 1984, is in a pilot phase.
The objectives of t11s phase have been to develop an inspection module, to train the regional inspectors, and obtain an indication as to the status of the industry's implementation of 10 CFR 50.49.
The inspection module will have the following objectives:
1.
Review of licensee's implementation of the program for meeting 10 CFR 50.49 requirements.
2.
Review of the licensee's implementation of SER corrective action comitments.
3.
Review of the licensee's implementation of the program for maintaining the qualified status of equipment during the life of the plant.
s' The Comissioners 4.
Performance of a physical inspection of equipment to determine that the installations agree with SER commitments and qualification requirements.
The inspection module will be issued in the sumer of 1985 as a Temporary Instruction (TI) to the IE Inspection Manual.
The pilot phase is scheduled for completion by January 1,1986 after approximately two inspections have been conducted at each of the five Regions. Based on the results of the staff's experience to date, a transition of the lead role can be made to the Regions after two pilot inspections have been conducted in each Region.
IE is now performing the lead role during the pilot phase with participation from NRR, the Regions and consultants (00Elabs). After a region assumes the lead role, support from IE, NRR and contractors will continue, as necessary. Lead responsibilities include the inspection planning, scheduling and coordination, and issuance of the inspection report following the inspection. Depending on their expertise, each of the participating members of the inspection is assigned areas of responsibility by the lead inspector who then coordinates team activities during the inspection.
Regarding the inspection schedule, as of June 1,1985, five plants have been inspected, one in each Region.
These are:
Calvert Cliffs 1. Zion 2, Crystal River 3, Ft. Calhoun, and Rancho Seco. Although the identity of the plants remaining to be inspected during the pilot phase has not been finalized, it is intended that an additional plant in each of the Regions will be inspected before January 1, 1986.
Reinspections of one or more of the five plants inspected to date may also be scheduled in that time period. Once the lead role transfers to a Region, a coordinated effort between the Regions and the headquarters offices will be necessary to schedule and support the ongoing inspections.
IE will retain responsibility to coordinate headquarters and contractor support. The overall schedule will be dependent on the individual Region abilities and resources, the need and availability of headquarters and contractor support and the extent of followup inspections that will be required to close out open issues.
The Regions will be expected to complete initial and most followup inspections by the end of FY 87.
The proposed FY 86 and FY 87 budgets for the inspection program take this effort into account.
. /
The Consissioners RECOMENOATION:
Approve the proposed generic letter, incIndina the proposed enforcement policy, relating to :,0 CFR 50.49.
bl L l
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations lt
Enclosure:
As stated comunissioners' conunents or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Monday, July 8, 1985.
Comunission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Counissioners NLT Friday, June 20, 1985, with an infor-mation copy to the Office of the secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and conunent, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may,be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE' OI OCA OIA CPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY
N
~-
APPENDIX Guidance for Enforcement Actions Concern,ina Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equfpment The failure of a licensee to demonstrate that equipment is qualified could be cause for significant safety concern. Such equipment may not have been qualified because, for examplo,1) it failed the required qualification test;
- 2) it could not be qualified based ';pon available information; 3) although it had previously passed a qualificttion test,'as-installed It was not qualified.
The severity level of a violation of the environmental qualification a
requirements should be determined in accordance with the examples contained in the General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Supplement I, Reactor Operations. To determine the severity level of a violation, a number of factors must be considered. These include the extent and number of pieces of equipment involved, the safety significance of and function of the equipment affected,'the duration of the failure to qualify the equipment, and the reason for 'the failure to qualify the equipment.
If non-compliance occurs as a result of events not within'the control of the licensee, such as if new test data invalidates previously accepted results' of properly conducted tests, and the licensee identifies the problem, enforcement action should not be taken.
If, however, the b.C identifies equipmeat that is clearly not qualified and the equipmenc is part of a system designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event that would not be,able to perform its intended safety function under certain conditions, then the violation should
~
y q
be categorized as at least Severity Level III.
If, od the other hand, the NRC identifies equipment for which documentation is insufficient to pennit NRC verification of qualification but for which there is a sufficient. basis to anticipate that the particular equipment can and will be qualified, the violatior, should be categorized at Severity Level IV. Examples of such deficiencies in documentation may include:
- 1) Additional testing or analysis is r.ectissary to fully establish qualification;
- 2) As-installed configuration diffeit from test configuration to the extent that adhtional testing or analysis is necessary to maintain equipment qualification. Violations involving procedures which are not sufficiently adequate to satisfy all 50.49 requirements may also be categorized as Severity Level IV violations.
Programatic breakdowns will be categorized as at least Severity Leval III violations.
After the severity level of the violation is established, the escalcaing or mitigating factors contained in the current enforcement policy (10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C Section IV.B) should then be evaluated. That policy has been designed to encourage licensen management involve.m nt, prompt reporting of potential safety problems, and prompt and extensive corrective actions.
Violations involving equipment identified as unqualified between now and November 30, 1985 should be evaluated under this guidance.
Violetiou l
involving equipment identified as unqualified after November 30, 1985 will i
I
r Q
',/
~
/
s 2-i '.
also be evaluated under this guidance but daily civil penalties for such viola _
tions will also be considered.
If a daily civil penalty is warranted a penalty of $1,000 per violation per day will'be proposed for violations categorized at Severity Level III or higher.
Such fines may also be retroactive to November 30, 1985 or to when data became available demonstrating the equipment was unqualified since daily civil penalties will be proposed for significant violations in which v ",
the licensee knew or clearly should have known that the equipment was unqualified.
.Such a provision is intended to encourage licensees to maintain control over equipment qualification and quickly correct identified problems.
For significant programmatic breakdowns, the policy provides discretion to issue civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation per day and such actions may be proposed where appropriate.
t l
4 o
G k
i i
4 4 /4 1
4 w - - -
-w-s
j' p~
~~
UNITED STATES H:lCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
wasmoTom, o. c. 2oses x.....)
TO ALL LICENSEES OF OPERATING REACTORS Gentlemen:
SU84ECT:
INFORMATION RELATING TO THE DEADLINES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.49,. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (Generic Letter 85- )
The deadline for compliance with the Comission rule 10 CFR 50.49, Eavrionmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants.
is specified in the rale as the date of the second refueling outage after 4
March 31, 1982 or March 31, 1985, whichever was earlier. At the request of the Connission, the staff is requesting that licensees identify, at the earliest x
I possible date, the need for any extension of currently applicable deadline
)
extensions beyond November 30, 1985.
Requests for extensions received after September 30, 1985, will be considered.
non-timely submittals and will be ac*:ed upon at the staff's discretion.
Extension requests proposing to go beyond November 30, 1985 will be referred to the Comission and the current extensions will only be further extended in
" exceptional cases" as stated in 10 CFR 50.49(g). The basis for any extension request beyond November; 30, 1985 must clearly identify the exceptional nature of the case, e.g.:
1.
Has the licensee applied best efforts to complete environmental qualffication within the prescribed deadline?
2.
Does the failure to meet that deadline result from events beyond the licensee's control?
3.
Dods the failure to meet the deadline result from test failures, procurement difficulties, or installation problems which the licensee could not have reasonably anticipated?
4.
Are ther! compelling reasons for not requiring a plant shutdown on November 30, assuming that operation beyond that date does not present a safety problem?
5.
Has the ifesnsee proposed actions which can be expected to result iri full compliance within a reasonable time?
9 h
. 6.
Issues such as the integrated scheduling of complex plant improvements, of which electrical equipment qualification may be only a small part, may influence the determination of exceptional " good cause."
For equipment on which the equipment qualification deadline is passed, (i.e.,
all equipment not currently covered by an approved extension) and which is discovered (through new test results NRC inspection, or other means) to be in non-compliance or suspected to be in non-compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49, licensees should report the finding if the condition meets the reporting criteria of 10 CFR 50.72 (Prompt Notification) or 10 CFR 50.73 (Licensee Event Reporting System)
Evaluations of the significance of and corrective action for all potential non-compliances should be documented and retained in appropriate licensee files.
If equipment addressed in the plant Technical Specifications is found to be unable to perform its intended function during an accident because of equipment qualification problems, the licensee would be expected to follow the provisions of the Technical Specifications.
Decisions relating to enforcement actions will be based on the circumstances relating to non-compliance, the discovery and reporting to NRC of the non-compliance and its safety significance as discussed in the enclosed enforcement policy supplement.
This letter does not require any response and therefore does not need approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Coments on burden and duplication may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20503.
Should you have l
any questions, the staff contact is Rudy Karsch. Mr. Karsch can be reached on (301)492-8563.
[L Hu h
. Thompson, r., O ctor Di ' ion of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated 5
--r
- ---,, ~,_ - _. _ _.. _.. _, _ _ _. _