ML19067A189: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
| page count = 8
| page count = 8
}}
}}
See also: [[see also:IR 05000255/2015003]]
See also: [[see also::IR 05000255/2015003]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:March 7, 2019
{{#Wiki_filter:March 7, 2019  
  EA-1 5-264  Mr. Charles Arnone
Vice President, Operations
EA-15-264  
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
   
Palisades Nuclear Plant
Mr. Charles Arnone  
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway
Vice President, Operations  
Covert, MI   
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.  
49043-9530  SUBJECT:  REVISED NON-CITED VIOLATION
Palisades Nuclear Plant  
-PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT  
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway  
NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2015003
Covert, MI  49043-9530  
(NCV 05000255/2015003
   
-01; FAILURE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED SERVICE OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS INSTALLED BEYOND THEIR SERVICE LIFE)  Dear Mr. Arnone:
SUBJECT:  REVISED NON-CITED VIOLATIONPALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT  
  On November 30, 2015, Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) provided a written response  
NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2015003  
to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report 05000255/2015003
(NCV 05000255/2015003-01; FAILURE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED  
, which was issued on October 30, 2015.  Specifically, the lette
SERVICE OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS  
r contested Non
INSTALLED BEYOND THEIR SERVICE LIFE)  
-Cited Violation 05000255/2015003
   
-01 associated with the failure to justify continued service of safety-related containment floor level indicating transmitter electrolytic capacitors installed beyond their service life.  The letter explained PNP agreed a performance deficiency occurred but disagreed the deficiency
Dear Mr. Arnone:  
was associated with a violation of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, "Design Control," as stated in the inspection report.  The letter further stated PNP believed the performance deficiency was associated with 10 CFR Part
On November 30, 2015, Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) provided a written response  
50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings."
to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report 05000255/2015003,
  The NRC carefully reviewed PNP's reply and determined the Non-Cited Violation
which was issued on October 30, 2015.  Specifically, the letter contested Non-Cited  
should be changed to
Violation 05000255/2015003-01 associated with the failure to justify continued service of  
a violation of Technical Specifications
safety-related containment floor level indicating transmitter electrolytic capacitors installed  
Section 5.4.1, "Procedures
beyond their service life.  The letter explained PNP agreed a performance deficiency occurred  
," as shown in the enclosed report.
but disagreed the deficiency was associated with a violation of Title 10 of the Code of Federal  
  Technical Specifications
Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, as stated in the inspection  
Section 5.4.1
report.  The letter further stated PNP believed the performance deficiency was associated with  
, requires, in part, the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of written procedures recommended in Regulatory Guide
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings.  
1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978.  Section 9 of the Regulatory Guide requires
the development of
The NRC carefully reviewed PNPs reply and determined the Non-Cited Violation should
preventive maintenance schedules and associated procedure s for the inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime.   
be changed to a violation of Technical Specifications Section 5.4.1, Procedures, as  
The bases for the staff's
shown in the enclosed report. Technical Specifications Section 5.4.1, requires, in part, the  
conclusion are detailed in the enclosed report.
establishment, implementation, and maintenance of written procedures recommended in  
 
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978.  Section 9 of the Regulatory  
C. Arnone -2-  This letter, its enclosure, PNP's November 30, 2015, response, and your response (if any)  
Guide requires the development of preventive maintenance schedules and associated  
will be made available for public inspection and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading
procedures for the inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime.  The bases  
-rm/adams.html
for the staffs conclusion are detailed in the enclosed report.  
and at the NRC Public Document Room in accordance with 10
 
CFR 2.390, "Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding."
C. Arnone  
  Sincerely,  /RA/   Kenneth O'Brien, Director
-2-  
Division of Reactor Safety
   
  Docket No. 50
This letter, its enclosure, PNPs November 30, 2015, response, and your response (if any)  
-255 License No. DPR
will be made available for public inspection and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
-20  Enclosure: NRC Staff Assessment of Disputed
rm/adams.html and at the NRC Public Document Room in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390,  
  NCV 05000255/2015003
Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.  
-01  cc:  Distribution via LISTSERV
 
Sincerely,  
C. Arnone -3-  Letter to Charles Arnone
   
from Kenneth O'Brien
/RA/  
dated March 7, 2019.  SUBJECT:  REVISED NON
-CITED VIOLATION
-PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT  
Kenneth OBrien, Director  
NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2015003 (NCV 05000255/2015003
Division of Reactor Safety  
-01; FAILURE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED SERVICE OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS INSTALLED BEYOND THEIR SERVICE LIFE)
  DISTRIBUTION
Docket No. 50-255  
: Michael McCoppin
License No. DPR-20  
RidsNrrPMPalisades Resource
   
RidsNrrDorlLpl3
Enclosure:  
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource
NRC Staff Assessment of Disputed  
Darrell Roberts
  NCV 05000255/2015003-01  
John Giessner
   
Jamnes Cameron
cc:  Distribution via LISTSERV  
Allan Barker
 
  DRPI II DRSIII                          ADAMS Accession Number: ML19067A189 OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII OE RIII NAME NFeliz-Adorno:cl KStoedter JCameron JHeck MMarshfield
C. Arnone  
  via email KO'Brien DATE 02/26/19 02/26/19 03/05/19 03/06/19 03/06/19 03/07/19 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
-3-  
 
   
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003
Letter to Charles Arnone from Kenneth OBrien dated March 7, 2019.  
-01 Enclosure The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviewed the information provided in Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) letter dated November 30, 2015.
   
  This review was performed by
SUBJECT:  REVISED NON-CITED VIOLATIONPALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT  
staff member
NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2015003  
s having relevant technical and regulatory knowledge and who did not participate in the inspection documented in NRC Inspection Report 05000255/2015003.  
(NCV 05000255/2015003-01; FAILURE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED  
Documents referenced
SERVICE OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS  
  are listed in the Reference Section of this Enclosure
INSTALLED BEYOND THEIR SERVICE LIFE)  
. 1. BACKGROUND
  On June 21, 2015, containment floor level indicating transmitter
DISTRIBUTION:
  (L IT) 0446B failed a surveillance required by Technical Specifications (TS) due to a failure of its electrolytic capacitor. The licensee determined the likely cause was operation beyond 10 years and replaced the failed component.  Further review by the inspectors revealed the licensee
Michael McCoppin  
had a preventive maintenance template for the capacitors in LIT-0446B and its redundant component LIT
RidsNrrPMPalisades Resource  
-0446A, which recommended inspection or replacement on a 12 year interval.  However, no preventive maintenance schedule or associate
RidsNrrDorlLpl3  
d procedures for the inspection or replacement of the components had been established.
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource  
Rather, the components
Darrell Roberts  
were scheduled to be replaced on an "as
John Giessner  
-required" basis.    The inspectors also found
Jamnes Cameron  
the licensee had established a maintenance schedule for capacitors installed in other safety
Allan Barker  
-related systems.  The difference in treatment was driven by a prior decision to classify some of the capacitors as "critical" and others as "non
DRPIII
-critical" within i ts Preventive Maintenance Program.
DRSIII
  For components the licensee had classified as "critical" in its
   
Preventive Maintenance Program, a preventive maintenance schedule of
   
10 years had been established, which was consistent with industry operating experience and guidance pertinent to the service life of
   
electrolytic capacitors
   
. No such schedule
   
or replacement procedures were
   
developed for the "non
   
-critical" components.
  The licensee missed a potential opportunity to establish a maintenance schedule for the
capacitors in LIT
-0446A and LIT
-0446B when it evaluated service life information available
in NRC Information Notice (IN) 2012
-11, "Age-Related Capacitor Degradation
." That IN included a
  vendor-recommended 10
-year replacement interval for electrolytic capacitors similar to those in LIT
-0446B and LIT
   
-0446AHowever, during its review of the IN, the
   
licensee concluded no further action was needed
since its "critical" components already
had a 10-year preventive maintenance schedule.
  On October 30, 2015, the NRC issued Integrated Inspection Report 05000255/2015003 documenting the 3
-month period of inspection that assessed, in
  part, this issue.  This report documented this issue as a finding of very
-low safety significance (Green) and an associated Non-Cited Violation (NCV) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
ADAMS Accession Number:  ML19067A189
  (CFR), Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, for the failure to review for suitability of application of the safety-related electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor LITs, which were installed beyond their service lifeThis inspection report dispositioned this issue as NCV 05000255/2015003
OFFICE
-01On November 30, 2015, PNP provided a written response to the NRC contesting the enforcement decision associated with NCV
RIII
  05000255/2015003
   
-01Specifically, the letter explained PNP agreed a performance deficiency occurred but disagreed it was associated with a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, as stated in the inspection reportRather, PNP stated the performance deficiency was associated with 10
RIII
CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
   
 
RIII
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003
   
-01 2 2. ORIGINAL ENFORCEMENT DECISION The original enforcement
RIII
decision as stated in Inspection Report
   
05000255/2015003 was:
OE
  Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, "Design Control," requires, in part, that measures shall be established for the selection and review for suitability of application  
of materials, parts, equipment, and processes that are essential to the safety
RIII
-related functions of SSCs
   
  [structures, systems, and components]
NAME
Contrary to the above, as of June 21, 2015, the licensee failed to review for suitability of application of parts essential to the safety
NFeliz-
-related functions of the containment floor level indicating system.  Specifically, the licensee did not review for suitability of application of safety-related electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor LITs that were installe
Adorno:cl
d beyond their recommended service life to justify their continued service considering
KStoedter
in-service deteriorationAs part of their immediate corrective actions, the licensee replaced the failed components.
JCameron
  3. LICENSEE POSITION
JHeck
  In the letter dated November 30, 2015, the licensee stated PNP agreed a performance deficiency occurred but disagreed it was associated with a violation of 10
MMarshfield
  CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, as stated in the inspection report.  The letter further stated PNP believed the performance deficiency was associated with 10
via email
CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V. 
KOBrien
The basis for the licensee's position was, in part, that regulatory requirements (including Criterion V
DATE
) and NRC endorsed quality assurance program standards
02/26/19
  (including Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2)
02/26/19
require the establishment of maintenance schedules as oppose d to strictly adhering to vendor recommendations or formally evaluating deviations from those recommendations under a quality assurance
03/05/19
program established to meet
03/06/19
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix BThe licensee agreed it had not established a preventive maintenance schedule for the capacitors in LIT
03/06/19
-0446B and LIT
03/07/19
-0446AIn addition, the licensee asserted issuance of NCV
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
05000255/2015003
 
-01 was premature because the underlying NRC staff position may be changed by the ongoing NRC development of a Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS).  4. NRC STAFF REVIEW
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01
  The NRC staff considered PNP's assertion that "-regulatory requirements and NRC endorsed quality assurance program standards do not require licensees to strictly adhere  
Enclosure
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviewed the information provided in
Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) letter dated November 30, 2015. This review was performed by
staff members having relevant technical and regulatory knowledge and who did not participate
in the inspection documented in NRC Inspection Report 05000255/2015003.  Documents
referenced are listed in the Reference Section of this Enclosure.
   
1. BACKGROUND
   
On June 21, 2015, containment floor level indicating transmitter (LIT) 0446B failed a
surveillance required by Technical Specifications (TS) due to a failure of its electrolytic
capacitorThe licensee determined the likely cause was operation beyond 10 years and
replaced the failed component.  Further review by the inspectors revealed the licensee
had a preventive maintenance template for the capacitors in LIT-0446B and its redundant
component LIT-0446A, which recommended inspection or replacement on a 12 year
interval. However, no preventive maintenance schedule or associated procedures for
the inspection or replacement of the components had been established.  Rather, the
components were scheduled to be replaced on an as-required basis. 
   
The inspectors also found the licensee had established a maintenance schedule for  
capacitors installed in other safety-related systemsThe difference in treatment was driven
by a prior decision to classify some of the capacitors as critical and others as non-critical
within its Preventive Maintenance ProgramFor components the licensee had classified as
critical in its Preventive Maintenance Program, a preventive maintenance schedule of
10 years had been established, which was consistent with industry operating experience
and guidance pertinent to the service life of electrolytic capacitors. No such schedule or
replacement procedures were developed for the non-critical components.  
   
The licensee missed a potential opportunity to establish a maintenance schedule for the
capacitors in LIT-0446A and LIT-0446B when it evaluated service life information available
in NRC Information Notice (IN) 2012-11, Age-Related Capacitor DegradationThat IN
included a vendor-recommended 10-year replacement interval for electrolytic capacitors
similar to those in LIT-0446B and LIT-0446A.  However, during its review of the IN, the
licensee concluded no further action was needed since its critical components already
had a 10-year preventive maintenance schedule.
On October 30, 2015, the NRC issued Integrated Inspection Report 05000255/2015003  
documenting the 3-month period of inspection that assessed, in part, this issue. This
report documented this issue as a finding of very-low safety significance (Green) and an
associated Non-Cited Violation (NCV) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, for the failure to review for suitability of application of the
safety-related electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor LITs, which were installed
beyond their service life. This inspection report dispositioned this issue as
NCV 05000255/2015003-01.  
   
On November 30, 2015, PNP provided a written response to the NRC contesting the  
enforcement decision associated with NCV 05000255/2015003-01.  Specifically, the letter
explained PNP agreed a performance deficiency occurred but disagreed it was associated
with a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, as stated in the inspection
reportRather, PNP stated the performance deficiency was associated with 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.  
 
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01
2
2. ORIGINAL ENFORCEMENT DECISION
   
The original enforcement decision as stated in Inspection Report 05000255/2015003 was:
Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, requires, in part, that
measures shall be established for the selection and review for suitability of application
of materials, parts, equipment, and processes that are essential to the safety-related
functions of SSCs [structures, systems, and components].
   
Contrary to the above, as of June 21, 2015, the licensee failed to review for suitability of  
application of parts essential to the safety-related functions of the containment floor level
indicating systemSpecifically, the licensee did not review for suitability of application of
safety-related electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor LITs that were installed
beyond their recommended service life to justify their continued service considering
in-service deteriorationAs part of their immediate corrective actions, the licensee  
replaced the failed components.
3. LICENSEE POSITION
In the letter dated November 30, 2015, the licensee stated PNP agreed a performance
deficiency occurred but disagreed it was associated with a violation of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B, Criterion III, as stated in the inspection report.  The letter further stated PNP
believed the performance deficiency was associated with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,
Criterion V.  The basis for the licensees position was, in part, that regulatory requirements
(including Criterion V) and NRC endorsed quality assurance program standards (including
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2) require the establishment of maintenance schedules as
opposed to strictly adhering to vendor recommendations or formally evaluating deviations
from those recommendations under a quality assurance program established to meet
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.  The licensee agreed it had not established a preventive
maintenance schedule for the capacitors in LIT-0446B and LIT-0446A.  In addition, the
licensee asserted issuance of NCV 05000255/2015003-01 was premature because the
underlying NRC staff position may be changed by the ongoing NRC development of a
Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS).
4. NRC STAFF REVIEW
The NRC staff considered PNPs assertion that regulatory requirements and NRC  
endorsed quality assurance program standards do not require licensees to strictly adhere  
to vendor recommendations or formally evaluate deviations from those recommendations  
to vendor recommendations or formally evaluate deviations from those recommendations  
under the Appendix B quality assurance program." The NRC staff agrees that a licensee may not have requirements involving strict adherence to vendor recommendations
under the Appendix B quality assurance program.  The NRC staff agrees that a licensee  
, unless specified in other design and licensing basis documents.  However, the NRC
may not have requirements involving strict adherence to vendor recommendations, unless  
does require the establishment of quality assurance programs and supporting procedures that, among other things, set preventive maintenance schedules for the inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime
specified in other design and licensing basis documents.  However, the NRC does require  
the establishment of quality assurance programs and supporting procedures that, among  
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003
other things, set preventive maintenance schedules for the inspection or replacement of  
-01 3 In this case, the licensee
parts that have a specific lifetime.
's preventive maintenance template established a specific lifetime for electrolytic
capacitor inspection/replacement interval of once every 12 years.  The licensee had established procedures with a replacement interval of up to 10 years for electrolytic capacitors classified as  
 
"critical" components.  However, no preventive maintenance schedule or associated procedures were developed for electrolytic capacitors
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01  
classifi ed as "non-critical" components.  The capacitor that failed in LIT
3  
-0446B, which was in a safety-related system, was classified as "non
In this case, the licensees preventive maintenance template established a specific lifetime  
-critical".  As discussed in the licensee's letter , the failure to develop
for electrolytic capacitor inspection/replacement interval of once every 12 years.  The  
procedures to ensure continued quality of the safety-related electrolytic capacitors
licensee had established procedures with a replacement interval of up to 10 years for  
in LIT-0446B and LIT
electrolytic capacitors classified as critical components.  However, no preventive  
-0446A during the equipment operational phase could be dispositioned as a violation of 10 CFR
maintenance schedule or associated procedures were developed for electrolytic capacitors  
Part 50 , Appendix B, Criterion V, which requires, in part, activities affecting quality to be prescribed
classified as non-critical components.  The capacitor that failed in LIT-0446B, which was in  
by documented procedures of a type appropriate to the circumstances.  Similarly, the issue could be dispositioned as a violation of TS Section 5.4.1, "Procedures," which requires, in part, the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of written procedures recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978
a safety-related system, was classified as non-critical.  
.  Section 9 of the Regulatory Guide requires the development of preventive maintenance schedules  
   
and associated procedures for the inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime.  Finally, the staff considered
As discussed in the licensees letter, the failure to develop procedures to ensure continued  
the licensee's position that any inspection finding in this matter should await the development of a RIS.  Since the licensee's letter, the
quality of the safety-related electrolytic capacitors in LIT-0446B and LIT-0446A during the  
NRC decided not  
equipment operational phase could be dispositioned as a violation of 10 CFR Part 50,  
Appendix B, Criterion V, which requires, in part, activities affecting quality to be prescribed  
by documented procedures of a type appropriate to the circumstances.  Similarly, the  
issue could be dispositioned as a violation of TS Section 5.4.1, Procedures, which  
requires, in part, the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of written procedures  
recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978.  Section 9  
of the Regulatory Guide requires the development of preventive maintenance schedules  
and associated procedures for the inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific  
lifetime.  
   
Finally, the staff considered the licensees position that any inspection finding in this matter  
should await the development of a RIS.  Since the licensees letter, the NRC decided not  
to issue a RIS as explained in the Statements of Considerations published by the NRC  
to issue a RIS as explained in the Statements of Considerations published by the NRC  
in 83 FR 46199 (September 12, 2018).  Instead of issuing a RIS, in 2018, the NRC provided training to inspectors to, in part, assist them in identifying and dispositioning issues related to how long safety
in 83 FR 46199 (September 12, 2018).  Instead of issuing a RIS, in 2018, the NRC provided  
-relate d structures, systems, and components
training to inspectors to, in part, assist them in identifying and dispositioning issues related  
remain in service and clarify the applicability of various regulations and industry standards.   
to how long safety-related structures, systems, and components remain in service and  
  5. CONCLUSION
clarify the applicability of various regulations and industry standards.  
  The NRC staff carefully considered the information provided by PNP in its letter dated November 30, 2015, and determined the original enforcement decision of  
   
NCV 05000255/2015003
5. CONCLUSION  
-01 should be modified as follows:
  Technical Specification
The NRC staff carefully considered the information provided by PNP in its letter  
5.4.1, "Procedures," state
dated November 30, 2015, and determined the original enforcement decision of  
s, in part, that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures
NCV 05000255/2015003-01 should be modified as follows:  
recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, "Quality Assurance Program Requirements," Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978.  Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, Section 9, "Procedures for Performing Maintenance," requires, in part, that preventive maintenance schedules
shall be developed for the inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime.
Technical Specification 5.4.1, Procedures, states, in part, that written procedures  
  Contrary to the above, as of June 21, 2015, the licensee failed to develop a procedure for preventive maintenance schedul
shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable  
e s for the inspection or
procedures recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program  
replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime.  Specifically, the licensee did not develop procedures covering  
Requirements, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978.  Regulatory Guide 1.33,  
a preventive maintenance schedule for the electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor level indicating system, LIT-0446A and LIT
Revision 2, Appendix A, Section 9, Procedures for Performing Maintenance, requires,  
-0446B, which had a specific lifetime
in part, that preventive maintenance schedules shall be developed for the inspection or  
replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime.  
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003
-01 4 6. REFERENCES
Contrary to the above, as of June 21, 2015, the licensee failed to develop a procedure  
  1. Letter from Mohammed A. Shuaibi to Aby S. Mohseni; "Final Task Interface Agreement-Regulatory Position on Design Life of Safety
for preventive maintenance schedules for the inspection or replacement of parts that  
-Related Structures, Systems, and Components Related to Unresolved Items at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and Palisades Nuclear Plant (TIA 2014
have a specific lifetime.  Specifically, the licensee did not develop procedures covering a
-01);" May 7, 2015.  2. Letter from Eric Duncan to Mr. Anthony Vitale; "Palisades Nuclear Plant NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000255/2015003;" October 30, 2015.
preventive maintenance schedule for the electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor  
  3. Letter from Otto W. Gustafson to the NRC Document Control Desk; "Response to Non-Cited Violation Dated October 30, 2015;" November 30, 2015.
level indicating system, LIT-0446A and LIT-0446B, which had a specific lifetime.
  4. Letter from Edwin M. Hackett to Victor M. McCree; "Committee to Review Generic Requirements: Minutes of Meeting Numbers 446 and 447;" October 17, 2017.
  5. "Definitions;
 
" 10 CFR 50.2; 2015
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01  
-2017.  6. "Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants;"
4  
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
6. REFERENCES  
B; 2015-2017.  7. "Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants;" 10 CFR 50.65; 2015
-2017.  8. Regulatory Guide 1.33; February 1978
1. Letter from Mohammed A. Shuaibi to Aby S. Mohseni; Final Task Interface  
; "Quality Assurance Program Requirements;" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC.
AgreementRegulatory Position on Design Life of Safety-Related Structures, Systems,  
  9. Regulatory Guide 1.186; December 2000; "Guidance and Examples for Identifying  
and Components Related to Unresolved Items at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant,  
10 CFR 50.2 Design Bases;" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC.
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and Palisades Nuclear Plant (TIA 2014-01);  
  10. 34 FR 6599; "Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants;" Federal Register; Volume 34; p.
May 7, 2015.  
6599; Washington, DC; April 17, 1969.
   
  11. 35 FR 10498; "Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants;" Federal Register; Volume 35; p.
2. Letter from Eric Duncan to Mr. Anthony Vitale; Palisades Nuclear Plant NRC Integrated  
10498; Washington, DC; June 27, 1970.
Inspection Report 05000255/2015003; October 30, 2015.  
  12. 48 FR 2729; "Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants;" Federal Register; Volume 48; p. 2729; Washington, DC; January 21, 1983.  13. 60 FR 22478; "Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal;" Federal Register; Volume 60;  
p. 22478; Washington, DC; May 8, 1995.
3. Letter from Otto W. Gustafson to the NRC Document Control Desk; Response to  
  14. 81 FR 30571; "Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period That Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components Are Installed;" Federal Register; Volume 81; p. 30571; Washington, DC; May 17, 2016.
Non-Cited Violation Dated October 30, 2015; November 30, 2015.  
  15. 83 FR 46199; "Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period That Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components Are Installed;" Federal Register; Volume 83; p. 46199; Washington, DC; September 12, 2018.
 
4. Letter from Edwin M. Hackett to Victor M. McCree; Committee to Review Generic  
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003
Requirements: Minutes of Meeting Numbers 446 and 447; October 17, 2017.  
-01 5 16. NRC Enforcement Manual; Revisions 9 and 10.
  17. NRC Enforcement Policy; February 4, 2015, and November 1, 2016.
5. Definitions; 10 CFR 50.2; 2015-2017.  
  18. Information Notice 2012
   
-11; "Age-Related Capacitor Degradation;" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC; July 23, 2012.
6. Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants;  
  19. Revised Appendix B to NEI 97
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B; 2015-2017.  
-04; "Guidance and Examples for Identifying 10 CFR 50.2 Design Bases;" November 2000.
   
  20. CR-PLP-2012-05721; "Palisades Review of IN 2012
7. Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants;  
-11;" August 16, 2012.
10 CFR 50.65; 2015-2017.  
  21. "Inspector Guidance (Training) on Service Life Issues;" June 2018; ML18219A470.
   
  22. TR-112175; "Capacitor Application and Maintenance Guide;" EPRI; Palo Alto, CA; August 19, 1999.
8. Regulatory Guide 1.33; February 1978; Quality Assurance Program Requirements;  
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC.  
9. Regulatory Guide 1.186; December 2000; Guidance and Examples for Identifying  
10 CFR 50.2 Design Bases; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC.  
10. 34 FR 6599; Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants; Federal Register;  
Volume 34; p. 6599; Washington, DC; April 17, 1969.  
11. 35 FR 10498; Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants; Federal Register;  
Volume 35; p. 10498; Washington, DC; June 27, 1970.  
12. 48 FR 2729; Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for  
Nuclear Power Plants; Federal Register; Volume 48; p. 2729; Washington, DC;  
January 21, 1983.  
   
13. 60 FR 22478; Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Federal Register; Volume 60;  
p. 22478; Washington, DC; May 8, 1995.  
14. 81 FR 30571; Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period That  
Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components Are Installed; Federal Register;  
Volume 81; p. 30571; Washington, DC; May 17, 2016.  
15. 83 FR 46199; Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period That  
Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components Are Installed; Federal Register;  
Volume 83; p. 46199; Washington, DC; September 12, 2018.  
 
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01  
5  
16. NRC Enforcement Manual; Revisions 9 and 10.  
17. NRC Enforcement Policy; February 4, 2015, and November 1, 2016.  
18. Information Notice 2012-11; Age-Related Capacitor Degradation; U.S. Nuclear  
Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC; July 23, 2012.  
19. Revised Appendix B to NEI 97-04; Guidance and Examples for Identifying 10 CFR 50.2  
Design Bases; November 2000.  
20. CR-PLP-2012-05721; Palisades Review of IN 2012-11; August 16, 2012.  
21. Inspector Guidance (Training) on Service Life Issues; June 2018; ML18219A470.  
22. TR-112175; Capacitor Application and Maintenance Guide; EPRI; Palo Alto, CA;  
August 19, 1999.
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 04:23, 5 January 2025

Ltr. 03/07/19 Revised NCV - Palisades Nuclear Plant NRC Integrated IR 05000255/2015003 (NCV 05000255/2015003-01; Failure to Justify Continued Service of Safety-Related Electrolytic Capacitors Installed Beyond Their Service Life (DRS-N.Feliz
ML19067A189
Person / Time
Site: Palisades Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/07/2019
From: O'Brien K
Division of Reactor Safety III
To: Arnone C
Entergy Nuclear Operations
References
EA-15-264 IR 2015003
Download: ML19067A189 (8)


See also: IR 05000255/2015003

Text

March 7, 2019

EA-15-264

Mr. Charles Arnone

Vice President, Operations

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Palisades Nuclear Plant

27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway

Covert, MI 49043-9530

SUBJECT: REVISED NON-CITED VIOLATIONPALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT

NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2015003

(NCV 05000255/2015003-01; FAILURE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED

SERVICE OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS

INSTALLED BEYOND THEIR SERVICE LIFE)

Dear Mr. Arnone:

On November 30, 2015, Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) provided a written response

to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report 05000255/2015003,

which was issued on October 30, 2015. Specifically, the letter contested Non-Cited

Violation 05000255/2015003-01 associated with the failure to justify continued service of

safety-related containment floor level indicating transmitter electrolytic capacitors installed

beyond their service life. The letter explained PNP agreed a performance deficiency occurred

but disagreed the deficiency was associated with a violation of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, as stated in the inspection

report. The letter further stated PNP believed the performance deficiency was associated with

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings.

The NRC carefully reviewed PNPs reply and determined the Non-Cited Violation should

be changed to a violation of Technical Specifications Section 5.4.1, Procedures, as

shown in the enclosed report. Technical Specifications Section 5.4.1, requires, in part, the

establishment, implementation, and maintenance of written procedures recommended in

Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978. Section 9 of the Regulatory

Guide requires the development of preventive maintenance schedules and associated

procedures for the inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime. The bases

for the staffs conclusion are detailed in the enclosed report.

C. Arnone

-2-

This letter, its enclosure, PNPs November 30, 2015, response, and your response (if any)

will be made available for public inspection and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-

rm/adams.html and at the NRC Public Document Room in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390,

Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Kenneth OBrien, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No. 50-255

License No. DPR-20

Enclosure:

NRC Staff Assessment of Disputed

NCV 05000255/2015003-01

cc: Distribution via LISTSERV

C. Arnone

-3-

Letter to Charles Arnone from Kenneth OBrien dated March 7, 2019.

SUBJECT: REVISED NON-CITED VIOLATIONPALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT

NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2015003

(NCV 05000255/2015003-01; FAILURE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED

SERVICE OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTROLYTIC CAPACITORS

INSTALLED BEYOND THEIR SERVICE LIFE)

DISTRIBUTION:

Michael McCoppin

RidsNrrPMPalisades Resource

RidsNrrDorlLpl3

RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource

Darrell Roberts

John Giessner

Jamnes Cameron

Allan Barker

DRPIII

DRSIII

ADAMS Accession Number: ML19067A189

OFFICE

RIII

RIII

RIII

RIII

OE

RIII

NAME

NFeliz-

Adorno:cl

KStoedter

JCameron

JHeck

MMarshfield

via email

KOBrien

DATE

02/26/19

02/26/19

03/05/19

03/06/19

03/06/19

03/07/19

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01

Enclosure

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviewed the information provided in

Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) letter dated November 30, 2015. This review was performed by

staff members having relevant technical and regulatory knowledge and who did not participate

in the inspection documented in NRC Inspection Report 05000255/2015003. Documents

referenced are listed in the Reference Section of this Enclosure.

1. BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2015, containment floor level indicating transmitter (LIT) 0446B failed a

surveillance required by Technical Specifications (TS) due to a failure of its electrolytic

capacitor. The licensee determined the likely cause was operation beyond 10 years and

replaced the failed component. Further review by the inspectors revealed the licensee

had a preventive maintenance template for the capacitors in LIT-0446B and its redundant

component LIT-0446A, which recommended inspection or replacement on a 12 year

interval. However, no preventive maintenance schedule or associated procedures for

the inspection or replacement of the components had been established. Rather, the

components were scheduled to be replaced on an as-required basis.

The inspectors also found the licensee had established a maintenance schedule for

capacitors installed in other safety-related systems. The difference in treatment was driven

by a prior decision to classify some of the capacitors as critical and others as non-critical

within its Preventive Maintenance Program. For components the licensee had classified as

critical in its Preventive Maintenance Program, a preventive maintenance schedule of

10 years had been established, which was consistent with industry operating experience

and guidance pertinent to the service life of electrolytic capacitors. No such schedule or

replacement procedures were developed for the non-critical components.

The licensee missed a potential opportunity to establish a maintenance schedule for the

capacitors in LIT-0446A and LIT-0446B when it evaluated service life information available

in NRC Information Notice (IN) 2012-11, Age-Related Capacitor Degradation. That IN

included a vendor-recommended 10-year replacement interval for electrolytic capacitors

similar to those in LIT-0446B and LIT-0446A. However, during its review of the IN, the

licensee concluded no further action was needed since its critical components already

had a 10-year preventive maintenance schedule.

On October 30, 2015, the NRC issued Integrated Inspection Report 05000255/2015003

documenting the 3-month period of inspection that assessed, in part, this issue. This

report documented this issue as a finding of very-low safety significance (Green) and an

associated Non-Cited Violation (NCV) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, for the failure to review for suitability of application of the

safety-related electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor LITs, which were installed

beyond their service life. This inspection report dispositioned this issue as

NCV 05000255/2015003-01.

On November 30, 2015, PNP provided a written response to the NRC contesting the

enforcement decision associated with NCV 05000255/2015003-01. Specifically, the letter

explained PNP agreed a performance deficiency occurred but disagreed it was associated

with a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, as stated in the inspection

report. Rather, PNP stated the performance deficiency was associated with 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.

NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01

2

2. ORIGINAL ENFORCEMENT DECISION

The original enforcement decision as stated in Inspection Report 05000255/2015003 was:

Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, requires, in part, that

measures shall be established for the selection and review for suitability of application

of materials, parts, equipment, and processes that are essential to the safety-related

functions of SSCs [structures, systems, and components].

Contrary to the above, as of June 21, 2015, the licensee failed to review for suitability of

application of parts essential to the safety-related functions of the containment floor level

indicating system. Specifically, the licensee did not review for suitability of application of

safety-related electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor LITs that were installed

beyond their recommended service life to justify their continued service considering

in-service deterioration. As part of their immediate corrective actions, the licensee

replaced the failed components.

3. LICENSEE POSITION

In the letter dated November 30, 2015, the licensee stated PNP agreed a performance

deficiency occurred but disagreed it was associated with a violation of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix B, Criterion III, as stated in the inspection report. The letter further stated PNP

believed the performance deficiency was associated with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,

Criterion V. The basis for the licensees position was, in part, that regulatory requirements

(including Criterion V) and NRC endorsed quality assurance program standards (including

Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2) require the establishment of maintenance schedules as

opposed to strictly adhering to vendor recommendations or formally evaluating deviations

from those recommendations under a quality assurance program established to meet

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. The licensee agreed it had not established a preventive

maintenance schedule for the capacitors in LIT-0446B and LIT-0446A. In addition, the

licensee asserted issuance of NCV 05000255/2015003-01 was premature because the

underlying NRC staff position may be changed by the ongoing NRC development of a

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS).

4. NRC STAFF REVIEW

The NRC staff considered PNPs assertion that regulatory requirements and NRC

endorsed quality assurance program standards do not require licensees to strictly adhere

to vendor recommendations or formally evaluate deviations from those recommendations

under the Appendix B quality assurance program. The NRC staff agrees that a licensee

may not have requirements involving strict adherence to vendor recommendations, unless

specified in other design and licensing basis documents. However, the NRC does require

the establishment of quality assurance programs and supporting procedures that, among

other things, set preventive maintenance schedules for the inspection or replacement of

parts that have a specific lifetime.

NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01

3

In this case, the licensees preventive maintenance template established a specific lifetime

for electrolytic capacitor inspection/replacement interval of once every 12 years. The

licensee had established procedures with a replacement interval of up to 10 years for

electrolytic capacitors classified as critical components. However, no preventive

maintenance schedule or associated procedures were developed for electrolytic capacitors

classified as non-critical components. The capacitor that failed in LIT-0446B, which was in

a safety-related system, was classified as non-critical.

As discussed in the licensees letter, the failure to develop procedures to ensure continued

quality of the safety-related electrolytic capacitors in LIT-0446B and LIT-0446A during the

equipment operational phase could be dispositioned as a violation of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix B, Criterion V, which requires, in part, activities affecting quality to be prescribed

by documented procedures of a type appropriate to the circumstances. Similarly, the

issue could be dispositioned as a violation of TS Section 5.4.1, Procedures, which

requires, in part, the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of written procedures

recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978. Section 9

of the Regulatory Guide requires the development of preventive maintenance schedules

and associated procedures for the inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific

lifetime.

Finally, the staff considered the licensees position that any inspection finding in this matter

should await the development of a RIS. Since the licensees letter, the NRC decided not

to issue a RIS as explained in the Statements of Considerations published by the NRC

in 83 FR 46199 (September 12, 2018). Instead of issuing a RIS, in 2018, the NRC provided

training to inspectors to, in part, assist them in identifying and dispositioning issues related

to how long safety-related structures, systems, and components remain in service and

clarify the applicability of various regulations and industry standards.

5. CONCLUSION

The NRC staff carefully considered the information provided by PNP in its letter

dated November 30, 2015, and determined the original enforcement decision of

NCV 05000255/2015003-01 should be modified as follows:

Technical Specification 5.4.1, Procedures, states, in part, that written procedures

shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable

procedures recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program

Requirements, Revision 2, Appendix A, February 1978. Regulatory Guide 1.33,

Revision 2, Appendix A, Section 9, Procedures for Performing Maintenance, requires,

in part, that preventive maintenance schedules shall be developed for the inspection or

replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime.

Contrary to the above, as of June 21, 2015, the licensee failed to develop a procedure

for preventive maintenance schedules for the inspection or replacement of parts that

have a specific lifetime. Specifically, the licensee did not develop procedures covering a

preventive maintenance schedule for the electrolytic capacitors in the containment floor

level indicating system, LIT-0446A and LIT-0446B, which had a specific lifetime.

NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01

4

6. REFERENCES

1. Letter from Mohammed A. Shuaibi to Aby S. Mohseni; Final Task Interface

AgreementRegulatory Position on Design Life of Safety-Related Structures, Systems,

and Components Related to Unresolved Items at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant,

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and Palisades Nuclear Plant (TIA 2014-01);

May 7, 2015.

2. Letter from Eric Duncan to Mr. Anthony Vitale; Palisades Nuclear Plant NRC Integrated

Inspection Report 05000255/2015003; October 30, 2015.

3. Letter from Otto W. Gustafson to the NRC Document Control Desk; Response to

Non-Cited Violation Dated October 30, 2015; November 30, 2015.

4. Letter from Edwin M. Hackett to Victor M. McCree; Committee to Review Generic

Requirements: Minutes of Meeting Numbers 446 and 447; October 17, 2017.

5. Definitions; 10 CFR 50.2; 2015-2017.

6. Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants;

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B; 2015-2017.

7. Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants;

10 CFR 50.65; 2015-2017.

8. Regulatory Guide 1.33; February 1978; Quality Assurance Program Requirements;

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC.

9. Regulatory Guide 1.186; December 2000; Guidance and Examples for Identifying

10 CFR 50.2 Design Bases; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC.

10. 34 FR 6599; Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants; Federal Register;

Volume 34; p. 6599; Washington, DC; April 17, 1969.

11. 35 FR 10498; Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants; Federal Register;

Volume 35; p. 10498; Washington, DC; June 27, 1970.

12. 48 FR 2729; Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for

Nuclear Power Plants; Federal Register; Volume 48; p. 2729; Washington, DC;

January 21, 1983.

13. 60 FR 22478; Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Federal Register; Volume 60;

p. 22478; Washington, DC; May 8, 1995.

14. 81 FR 30571; Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period That

Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components Are Installed; Federal Register;

Volume 81; p. 30571; Washington, DC; May 17, 2016.

15. 83 FR 46199; Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period That

Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components Are Installed; Federal Register;

Volume 83; p. 46199; Washington, DC; September 12, 2018.

NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED NCV 05000255/2015003-01

5

16. NRC Enforcement Manual; Revisions 9 and 10.

17. NRC Enforcement Policy; February 4, 2015, and November 1, 2016.

18. Information Notice 2012-11; Age-Related Capacitor Degradation; U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC; July 23, 2012.

19. Revised Appendix B to NEI 97-04; Guidance and Examples for Identifying 10 CFR 50.2

Design Bases; November 2000.

20. CR-PLP-2012-05721; Palisades Review of IN 2012-11; August 16, 2012.

21. Inspector Guidance (Training) on Service Life Issues; June 2018; ML18219A470.

22. TR-112175; Capacitor Application and Maintenance Guide; EPRI; Palo Alto, CA;

August 19, 1999.