ML20128Q504
| ML20128Q504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1996 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Beach A, Ebneter S, Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128Q489 | List: |
| References | |
| EGM-96-002, EGM-96-2, NUDOCS 9610210075 | |
| Download: ML20128Q504 (90) | |
Text
. -. .- . . - - .
gano
,*b )* .
)^ j UNITED STATES
[$
pa NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' \;wa)** =*
wAsHtNcioN. o.c. 20eas-ooot August :1, 1996 i
MEMORANDUM T0: ECM 96-002 Hubert Region J.I Miller, Regional Administrator Stewart RegionD.II Ebneter, Regional Administrater I
A.Region Bill Beach, III Regional Administrator L.Region Joe Callan, IV Regional Administrator Roy Zimmerman, Associate Director for Projects, NRR Ashok C. Thadani, Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment, NRR Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS Donald A. Cool, Director, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, HMS5
, John T. Greeves. Director, Division of Waste nagement yS j FRON: ;
J6 h . ak',A n'g irector 0 ic of Enfo nt
SUBJECT:
ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM INTERIM 10 CFR 50.65 - THE MAINTENANCE RULE This Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM maintenance rule inspections of licensee facilities. enfo Controls and Human Factors of NRR.have been developed in clos -
The guidelines in the attachment are intended to provide guidance to !
staff to to facilitate comply consistent with the requirements categorization of the maintenance rule. of severity levels for fail note that these Policy and are,therefore, guidelines notare not currently contained in the EnforcementIt is imp controlling.
applying the significant definition regulatory in Section IV of the Policy for:They should be used to assist concerns for Severity Level II violations ,(2) 2 instances of very significant regulatory concerns ((for Severity Level III violati more than of minor concern (for Severity Level IV violations).
quality assurance and operability.It is recognized that maintenanc issues relative to the case may re:; ult in another enforcement taken. e ng app root cause. In some cases, the issues can be categorized by either result or the For example, in some instances, the root cause m&y be more 9610210075 960927 PDR ORG NRCCO PDR
j .
l, '
i Multiple Addressees i
1 hold true.
i significant than the result, whereas in other Supplement I to the Policy, the selection should normally be whi h e may g
i c ever }
! provides the higher severity level and the clearer message .
j i
The form and philosophy of the rule encourages y " or maximum fl i
oflicensees the rule. in establishing their programs to meet the intent and re quirements !
appropriate for licensees who have inadequately im e
l rule or whose maintenance activities. performance demonstrates a continuing of theineffectiven of l 1
Escalated enforcement would be appropriate where there was a fa reasonable efforts to implement the requirements of the e to make rule or where significant implementation degradationof the maintenanceof SSCs could have been prevented rule. e th guidance that is more fully expanded in the examples in the atta A single violation would be a Severity Level IV violation NOTE:
In ccuidering whether to make a citation for a violation involving consider the a relatively flexibility inisolated, the rule low safety significant SSC rule, including consideraSSC; the reasonableness of the lic operating experience; anc tion of its and industry's prior the licensee warranted. has acted reasonably, a citation If might not be A single violation involving a high'saf'ety significant SSC that causes a plant transient that would have been prevented by effective Severity Level implementation III violation. of the maintenance rule would be a Supplement I, Example C.9 that equipment failures caused by inadequate or improper, provide maintenance that substantially complicates recovery from a plan transient is considered a Severity level III violation or problem .
Multiple examples of maintenance failures that demonstrate a "programatic Level III violation. breakdown,' would normally be considered a Se This is consistent with Supplement I, .
licensed activities involving a number of violati related that collectively represent a potential carelessness ,
toward III violation licensed or problem. responsibilities is considered a Severity Level Multiple examples of maintenance failures of h recovery from a plant transient,, indicate a programmatic breakdown in implementation of the requirements of the rule and would be considered a very significant regulatory concern and should be
Multiple Addressees considered problem. for issuance as a Severity Level II violation or The maintenance rule does not supersede any ents, existing such as requirem those contained in a licensee's technical specifications.10 CFR Part 50 (including Appendix B and oth .
for maintenance activities.
When preparing notices of violation forTh maintenance activities, the maintenance rule should a ons be used fo whenever rule. a licensee. has violated a specific requirement enance of the maintenance one When
" contrary to." a rule set ofanother and facts indicates NRC regulation,that citethere both e are viola requirem with oni; licensee activities not covered by the maintenance ruleHowev requirements of Appendix B or the plant technical specifications, Also, cite ag please 10 CFR 50.65 note(a)(3) thatrequires the failure specialto perform the safety assessment attention.
or in p
Paragraph D in the attachment. This is addressed in Part A, Because the maintenance rule takes a performancenspecting based approa enforcement experience in these types of perfo e will require experience is gained. modification as more inspections ent are required until sufficient information can be collected.It is estimated At that time, the Office,of Enforcement expects to revise ng on.
the En Additional enforcement guidance has been provided in EGM 96-001 July 3, 1996, which established a Maintenance ,Rule dated Enforcement R that will meet periodically to review enforcement issues anel that are dis during the performance of maintenance rule and otherpections. rrosed ; tine NRC ins This should contribute to the consistency of enforcement s area,actions in cc: J. Milhoan OEDR H. Thompson,, DEDS W. Russell, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC F. Gillespie, NRR I
ATTACM'd ENT 1:
MAINTENANCE RULE VIOLATIONS 1.
A.
[xp oles of Activities That Would Be Violations of the Mainten Failure to include safety rel_ated' or non-safetv 2 related structures, systems, (2)) within theand components scope of the program. (SSCs) (as defined in 10 CFR 50.65 (b) 1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
d.
Failure to include one or more SSCs where they should result of the failure to include the SSC: clearly be i
- 1) complicates the safety significant SSCs, causes a plant transientr example applies and indicates programatic failures (if this Severity Level II should be considered). involvin b.
Failure rule to include which indicates multiple a pro SSCs within the scope of the requirements of the rule. grammatic failure to implement the
- 2. , Severity Level IV
, violations involving, for example:
a.
Failure to include an SSC within the scope of the rule.
B.
Failure for SSCstoinestabligh (a)(2) . goals for SSCs in (a)(1) or performance criteria Establishment of goals that are inconsistent with
'All safety related SSCs should be clearly defined in th e licensee's qualityofassurance scope the rule. program and should be identified and included within the 2
Because of the flexibility in the rule, special consideration needs to be fromgiven to determine the scope of the rule. whether a non-safety related SSC was properly exc SSCs. 10 CFR 50.65 b In determining whether a violation o(cc)u(2) governs rred, consider non-safety the related ,
experience and existing analyses (e.g. FSAR,. IPE, etc that included would indicate within thatofa the the scope particular rule. non-safety related SSC should have b'ee ,
consider hypothetical scenarios, it is possible that some SSCs (with noS l history of industry--wide and plant experience of failures) that were excluded from the scope of the rule, may fail and cause an event.
The failure to SSC or event would nat be considered a violation. include such be firstexpected failure of the to include SSC. the SSC within'the scope of the rule following theHo 3
the performance or condition of the SSC is being effective through the performance of appropriate preventive maintenance such that the l
l
)
4 considered violations. sufficient goals to meet the rule and wo 1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
a.
A single failure to establish 'a goal for an SSC under (a)(1) or a performance criterion under (a)(2) that:
the recovery from a plant transient or 2) in the cce of1) complicates high safety significant SSCs, causes a plant transient (if this example applies with more than one failure and indicates programatic failures involving high safety significant SSCs, then a violation at Severity Level II should be considered).
b.
Multiple examples of failures to establish either goals for SSCs under (a)(1) or performance criteria urder (a)(2) that indicate a programmatic failure to implement the maintenance rule.
c.
Multiple examples of the failure to take industry-wide operating experience into account when establishing goals or performance experience criteria, was readil where industry-wide operating available, that indicate a
. programmatic failure )to :mt this requirement of the rule'.
2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
a.
A single failure to establish a goal for any SSC under (a)(1) or a performance criterion for any SSC under (a)(2).
C.
Failure to establish a monitoring' program (this would include the failure to take timely and appropriate corrective action in the evaluation of monitoring activities) that adequately supports the goals set under 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(1) or the performance criteria set under 10 CFR 50.65(a)(2). The monitoring program must be sufficient in scope and SSC ren.ains capable o'f performing its intended function.
the establishment of performance criteria to accomplish this.NUMARC 93-01 uses The licensee also has the option of not establishing goals or performance criteria if a determination is made that low safety significant SSCs are inherently reliable or could be allowed to run to failure.
made and documented in advance of the failure.However this determinati
' Evidence that industry-wide operating experience was taken into consideration is not required for every goal. However, if multiple examples of goals and performance criteria are reviewed where industry-wide operating experiences are readily available and examples are not found where the licensee can demonstrate that they were taken into consideration, then the licensee's program indicates a prograrnatic failure.
j 1
_, __.- ----- ^~~
i ;
j 4
meeting their assigned goals or performance .
er SSCs are cr 1.
- Severity Level III - violations involving, for exarnle
- a.
} A single failure to establish a monitoring program that i adequately criterion undersupports (a)(2) that:a goal set under (a)(1) or a perfo i from a plant transient or 2 1) complicates the recovery i in the case of high safety significant SSCs, causes a p)lant transient (if th applies with more than one failure and indicates i
SSCs, then a violation at Severity Level II sh considered).
! b.
i
! Multiple failures to establish a monitorin criterion under (a 2 to implement the i re)q(u)rements of the maintenan
- c. .
A failurea goal supports to establish a 1monitoring program that adequa set under (a) under (a)(2) that results in r(ep)etitiveor a performance criterion preventable functional failures (MPFFs), maintenance 2.
Severity level IV - violations involving, for example:
a.
A single failure to estabV,sh a monitoring criterion under (a)(2).
D.
Failure to take timely and appropriate corrective action (this wou include evaluation of monitoring activities) when a goal or oerformance criterion is exceeded. Repetitive failures due to inappropriate or ineffective corrective action could be considered 1 violation under this rule for all SSCs within the scope of this rule a violation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B for safety-related SSCs.
1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
a.
A single failure to take timely and appropriate corrective action when a goal or performance. criterio.n for an SSC is exceeded (failed) which 1) complicates the. recovery from a plant transient or 2) in the case of high safety significant 5
Maintenance Preventible Functional Failures (MPFFs) a Maintenance Rule to perform its intended function failure of the SSC is attributable to a maintenance-related The activity staff has endorsed the use of MPFFs as a tool for monitoring SSC main .
performance in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.160 (January 1995).
i .
1 SSCs, causes a plant transient (if this example applies indicates programmatic failures involving high safety significant SSCs, then a violation at Severity Level II should be considered).
b.
- which results in repetitive MPFFs.The failure to ev c.
j Multiple failures to take timely and appropriate corrective action (failed when a goal or performance criterion is exceeded the requ)irements of the maintenance rule.that indi 2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
a.
A single failure to take timely and appropriate corrective action (failed).when a goal or performance criterion is exceeded E.
of MPFFs of SSCs covered under (a)(2) would be Failure to develop under (a)(2a rationale or justification for continuing to cover an SSC violation. ) after it has experienced a repetitive MPFF would be a 1.
Severity Lever III - violations involving, for example:
a.
Multiple failures to make a reasonable effort to determine b.
the cause of MPFFs of SSCs covered under (a)(2).
^
Multiple failures to develop a rationale or justification have experienced a repetitive MPFFs that ind programmatic rule. failure to implement the requirements of the 2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
a.
A single failure to make a reasonable effort to determine b.
the cause of a MPFF of an SSC covered under (a)(2).
The failure to develop a rationale or continuing to cover that SSC under (a) justification for experienced a repetitive MPFF. (2) after it has F.
described under (a)(3) would be a violation. Failure to perfor
i
?
1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
- a. ;
The failure to perform any required periodic assessment which indicated requirement a programmatic of the rule. failure to meet the 2.
i Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
a.
The failure to include a review of performance and
. monitoring activities and associated
- maintenance activities (i.e., all (a) goals and preventive t i
activities) in the periodic assessment.(1) and (a)(2) '
b.
Completing this assessment in an untimely manner'.
i c.
- The failure to take industry-wide operating experience into consideration when performing the periodic assessment.
- G.
I Failure to periodically (once per refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months between evaluations) balance reliability and unavailability due
- to monitoring / maintenance activities would be a Severity Level IV violation.
1
. H.
- A failure to develop, implement or adhere to any of the procedures j developed by a licensee to implement the rule may be a violation and could be assessed specifications or 10 CFRas 50 a violation Appendix B. of the licensee's technical {
1.
Severity Level III - violations involving, for example:
.a.
A single failure to develop or follow procedures involving the frommaintenance a plant transientof anorSSC 2 that 1) complicates the recovery significant SSCs, causes a p)lant transientin the case of high safety applies and indicates programmatic failures (involving highif th safety significant SSCs, then a violation at Severity Level II should be considered).
b.
The failure repetitive to develop or follow procedures that results in MPFFs.
- c. .
Multiple examples of failures to develop or follow procedures that indicate a programmatic failure to implement the requirements of the maintenance rule.
2.
Severity Level IV - violations involving, for example:
a.
A single failure to develop or follow procedures.
'At least one assessment during each refueling cycle provided the interval between assessments does not exceed 24 months.
l II.
Examoles of Activities That Would Not Necessarily Maintenance Rul_e:
e~
Be Vio A.
- A failure to meet a licensee developed goal undernot(a)(1) w be subject to enforcement action as long as appropriate action had been taken when the goal was not met. ve c
B.
3 It is intended that licensees be allowed flexibility when establishing goals and not be subject to enforcement on goa selection and as longexperience.
industry operating as these goals are reasonably based 2
second guess the details of these goals.The NRC does not intend to However the NRC will
' safety and industry operating experience. review thes C.
4 The details of the monitoring program would not be subject to
, enforcement action as long as the monitoring was sufficient to adequately support the goals and provided for an evaluation whenever above). a goal was exceeded (See example of violations C 4'
D.
Since themaintenance preventive rule states activities that, in performing monitoring and plant equipment that is out of ser,vice should be taken intoan ass functions, the failure to perform this assessme violation to performof 10assessment.
this CFR 50.65(a)(3).However, licensees are expected j
If the inspector finds that a licensee is not performing this
- assessment using the methods detailed in NUMARC 93-01, Section or equivalent methods, then the inspector should consider this to ,
be an issue that should be referred for resolution to NRC management and the Maintenance Rule Enforcement Review Panel i
established by EGM 96-001.
! r In a case whe~ e this failure to perform a safety assessment contributed to the severity of another violation of the regulations, or exacerbated the consequences of an event or taken into account as an escalating factor in any enforcement action.
equipment out of service that:In addition, the failure to con ~
programmatic issue, (2) cauces the initiation of a plant trip transient with the potential for a trip, or (3) demonstrates the potential for a high risk system configuration is of significant <
regulatory concern and should be considered for enforcement action.
Depending on the circumstances, the enforcement related action (enforcement conference, Demand for Information, Order, etc.) should be utilized to focus the licensee on the need to
l g
modify its maintenance activities because of its demonstrated failure to consider squipment the overall safety impact of removing from service.
E.
Deficiencies be in records subject to enforcement. and documentation would not in the However.,if they contribute to an inappropriate action or inaction to correct the performance of an !
SSC, these record or documentation deficiencies may be cited as contributing factors in an enfor:ement action.
1
- l 9
0 4
4 o
[
!