ML18095A735
| ML18095A735 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1991 |
| From: | Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NLR-N91016, NUDOCS 9102080175 | |
| Download: ML18095A735 (9) | |
Text
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Miltenberger Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1100 Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer FEB \\: l 1991 NLR-N91016 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-272/90-22 AND 50-311/90-22 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) has received the Notice of Violation (NOV) dated November 1, 1990.
Within the scope of this inspection, the inspector evaluated four previously identified examples of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50.59 and Technical Specifications.
These examples were initially identified in NRC inspection report 50-272/90-81 and 50-311/90-81, "Integrated Performance Assessment Team Inspection".
Initially, PSE&G was not required to respond to the NOV since the corrective actions taken were reviewed and found acceptable by this inspection.
However, following a meeting between PSE&G and NRC Region I, on December 4, 1990, PSE&G was requested to respond specifically to the lack of a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (Example 3) cited in the NOV by January 31, 1991.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201, PSE&G hereby submits its response to the Notice of Violation.
Should you have any questions in regard to this transmittal, do not hesitate to call.
Attachment 910208017~ 910201 SDR ADOC~ 05000272 PDR
-~.*
- ~* u Sincerely, I l.
Document Control Desk NLR-N91016 c
Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senipr Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
. FEB o 1 1991.
ATTACHMENT Public Service Electric & Gas Response to Notice of Violation NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/90-22 and 50-311/90-22 NRC STATEMENT OF VIOLATION "As a result of the inspection conducted on August 16, 1990 -
October 1, 1990, and in accordance with "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10CFR2, Appendix c (Enforcement Policy 1990), the following violation was identified."
"10CFR Part 50.59 permits the licensee to make changes to the facility and to procedures without prior NRC approval provided that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question (USQ).
A written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that a USQ is not involved must be completed and maintained."
"Contrary to the above, as of May 25, 1990. a Belzona "R" metal non-ASME code repair of the number 23 containment fan cooling unit was performed. and no safety evaluation existed documenting why no USO was involved with this change."
"This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I). 11 "No response to this Salem Violation is required as these issues were previously identified in NRC Inspection No. 50-272/90-81; 50-311/90-81, and the licensee's response to these issues and associated corrective actions were found to be acceptable."
CLARIFICATION OF VIOLATION In a meeting with NRC Region I personnel on December 4, 1990, PSE&G's approach to performing 10CFR50.59 Reviews and Safety Evaluations was discussed.
During this meeting, the issue of interest to the NRC was clarified.
Rather than an issue regarding the lack of a Safety Evaluation for this specific change, the major interest involved a particular aspect of PSE&G's approach to meeting the requirements of 10CFR50.59.
The quality and thoroughness of the safety analysis being performed was not indicated as being the NRC's focus~
The primary issue Page 1 of 7
1*
l was whether 10CFR50.59 allowed PSE&G to make the determination that certain categories *of changes do not require the full 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (unreviewed safety question (USQ) determination) described in the regulation.
This concern over meeting the requirements of 10CFR50.59 was different from the inspector's comments found in the inspection report which contained this Notice of Violation.
In fact, the inspection report stated, "The inspector determined that the licensee's process to comply with 10CFR50.59 is adequate." As discussed below, it is PSE&G's position that the procedures which have been implemented to review changes to the facility against the requirements of 10CFR50.59 and perform 10CFRS0.59 Safety Evaluations (USQ determinations) when.required, fully meet the regulation.
PSE&G STATEMENT OF POSITION PSE&G does not agree with the violation, as clarified by the above paragraph.
As noted, the underlying premise for this violation, as clarified by the NRC, concerns PSE&G's use of a screening process to determine whether a modification constitutes a "change to the facility" within the scope of 10CFR50.59.
PSE&G asserts that it is permitted to apply a screening test 'to determine whether the activity.involved constitutes a "change to the facility" within the scope of 10CFRS0.59.
For the reason set forth below, PSE&G believes that a violation is not warranted in this case.
In any event, PSE&G acknowledges that the particular screening determination cited in the violation did not result in the level
.of *documentation presently expected by PSE&G for such determinations (a question not addressed in the alleged violation).
PSE&G identified the need for additional guidance
_and improved documentation and on its own initiative has voluntarily taken steps to address the matter.
PSE&G BASIS FOR DENIAL OF VIOLATION
- Applicable Regulatory standard:
Section 50.59 of Chapter 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that licensees may implement certain changes at their facilities without seeking prior NRC approval.
Specifically, the section provides in relevant part, as follows:
"(a) (1) The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as. described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question."
Page 2 of 7
l' J
No explicit NRC guidance presently exists regarding the implementation of this provision.
However, it is clear that an appropriate screening process to ascertain whether the type of plant modification involved is a "change" within the meaning of 10CFR50.59 may be used.
In fact, in connection with the preparation of an industry-sponsored document (NSAC-125 "Guidelines for 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations") written to*
provide guidance regarding the implementation of 10CFR50.59, the question.of the nature of the "changes" to undergo a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) was addressed.
That guidance was reviewed and commented upon by the NRC.
Specifically with respect to this question, the NRC concurred that licensees should be able to use a screening methodology for determining whether to perform the.10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation*
- (USQ determination) in the first instance.
The NRC stated, in commenting on proposed industry guidance, as follows:
The guidelines should not exempt any changes from evaluation, unless the ground rules are included in the guidelines ****
[Letter from C.E.Rossi (NRC) to T.E. Tipton (NUMARC), dated May 10, 1989* (emphasis added) * ]
The NRC went on to say that a conservative approach would be to perform a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) for any change to the facility, although acknowledging that was not required by 10CFR50.59.
PSE&G CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY CRITERIA In view*of the above, PSE&G does not agree that the use by a licensee of screening criteria for the purpose of determining whether. "changes" to the plant require a 10CFR50. 59 Safety.
Evaluation (USQ determination) in the first instance should give rise to the issuance of a violation of 10CFR50.59.
- Further, PSE&G submits that the screening criteria which have been provided in its 10CFR50.59 Review and Safety Evaluation procedure adequately ensure a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination).will be performed when required and that all changes are adequately evaluated for their safety impact.
PSE&G would like to emphasize that, in any event, a thorough engineering review is performed before implementing any change.
For the case at hand, PSE&G does not agree that a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) was required for the Belzona "R" metal coating applied to the tube sheet of the motor cooler of No. 23 Containment Fan Coil Unit.
In the absence of specific NRc* guidance on how to meet the requirements of 10CFR50.59, PSE&G has developed a procedure for reviewing changes for applicability to 10CFR50.59 and performing Safety Evaluations (USQ determinations) when required.
DE-AP.ZZ-OOOS(Q) was the procedure used to meet the requirements of 10CFR50.59 when the Belzona "R" coating was applied.
This procedure, PSE&G believes*,.
Page 3 of 7
. I
__ ___J
was adequate in satisfying the requirements of 10CFR50.59.
DE-AP.ZZ-OOOS(Q) contained three screening questions, which were used to evaluate the applicability of the change to the requirements of 10CFR50.59.
DE-AP.ZZ-OOOS(Q) has since been replaced by NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0059(Q) "10CFR50.59 Reviews and Safety Evaluations" (NA-AP-59) as discussed below.
PSE&G appropriately applied DE-AP.ZZ-OOOS(Q) and.concluded that a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) was not necessary for this change.
Specifically, on May 12, 1990 Salem Unit 2 No. 23 Containment Fan Coil Unit was out of service for preventative maintenance when the service water side of the motor cooler was opened for inspection.
The inspection revealed.125 11 to.250" pitting on the tube sheet; as a result a Deficiency Report was written.
The pitting on the 1.5" thick, 316 Stainless steel tube sheet was not below the minimum wall thickness of
.905" and could therefore. have been returned to service with no further action.
The deficiency report was dispositioned by a system engineer who recommended that Belzona "R" metal be applied to build up the pitted areas to the original thickness, followed by a coating of bitumastic coal tar to prevent additional corrosion. As noted, procedure DE-AP.ZZ-OOOS(Q) was used to perform the 10CFR50.*59 Applicability Review.
The system engineer answered*"No" to all three screening questions discussed below, thereby concluding that a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) was not required f.or the change.
The engineer documented the SAR and Technical Specifications sections which had been reviewed and that the repair did not change the design, function or intent of the coolers.
{The SAR only briefly described the design and function of the heat exchanger.
No discussion of the material composition or heat removal capacity was provided.)
The system engineer apparently did not review the heat transfer calculations for the motor cooler to determine if the tube sheet was taken into account as a heat transfer surface.
Later analysis revealed that the tube sheet surface, in fact, was not taken into account in heat transfer calculations *. Therefore, the heat transfer capacity of the heat exchanger was not affected.
{Generically speaking, in a heat exchanger of this type and
'application, the tube sheet is not accounted for in the heat transfer calculation.)
Approval of the Belzona "R" and bitumastic coal tar for use in the system was documented in the Applicability Review by a reference to a conversation with a Chemistry Supervisor.
Engineering evaluations addressing material compatibility, chemical compatibility and system interactions, had been done approving the Belzona "R" for use in the system; it is these engineering evaluations which the Chemistry Supervisor was ref erring to when he discussed the matter with the system engineer *
. Page 4 of 7
1*
PSE&G ACTIONS TO ENHANCE THE 10CFR50.59 PROCESS In the two areas noted above (consideration of heat transfer calculations and approval of the material for use in the system) it is questionable as to whether the requirements of DE-AP.ZZ-OOOS(Q) were met.
Nevertheless, the procedure used and 10CFR50.59 review performed do not reflect the evolving understanding concerning the use of screening.
In view of that evolving understanding, PSE&G had undertaken, on its own, to enhance the guidance provided and documentation required in the 10CFR50.59 Review and Safety Evaluation process.
NC.NA-AP-ZZ-0059(Q) (NA-AP-59) 1110CFR50.59 Reviews and Safety Evaluations" is the procedure which presently describes the process used by PSE&G to review changes, tests or experiments against the requirements of 10CFR50.59 and to perform 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations (USQ determinations) when required.
NA-AP-59 was written to fully incorporate the guidance found in NSAC 125 and to more clearly define the detailed review required for both.
the 10CFR50.59 Review and Safety Evaluation.
This procedure was implemented on November 1, 1990.
NA-AP-59 incorporates a screening process to evaluate if a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) is required.
(The old procedure (DE-AP.ZZ-OOOS(Q)) utilized a similar screening process.)
The screening process requires the preparer initially to answer the following three questions:
Does the proposal change the facility as described in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR)?
Does the proposal change the procedures as described in the SAR?
. Does the proposal involve a test or experiment not described in the SAR?
This type of screening, which, in addition to meeting the requirements of 10CFR50.59, has the advantage of differentiating, at an early stage, the changes requiring a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination)* from the changes which do not.
This differentiation allows for a more focused, multi-level, multi-disciplinary review of those changes which require a Safety Evaluation (USQ. determination) to fulfill the requirements of 10CFR50.59.
PSE&G submits that this procedure enh~nces safety by focusing on the more difficult_ and complex issues.
The 10CFR50.59 review must be performed by a qualified individual.
A peer review is also required verifying the answer to all three questions.
The screening review must then receive a supervisor review and approval.
If the answers to all three screening questions are clearly concluded to be "NO", then the change is categorized as not requiring a 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination).
Page 5 of 7
In addition, NA-AP-59 requires the preparer to clearly document the extent and details of the review conducted which lead to the answers of the three screening questions.
This documentation must be clear and auditable such that another individual or outside organization reviewing the information can clearly verify the conclusions that were reached.
Further, NA-AP-59 requires the preparer to look further than just the SAR when answering the three screening questions.
The SAR referred to in 10CFR50.59 is the most recently updated SAR, also referred to as the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Documents that are included by reference in the SAR are also considered part of the SAR.
These include: the Security Plan, the Emergency Plan, the Operational Quality Assurance Program,
'the Station Technical Specifications, the Training Program, the Fire Protection Program and the Environmental Qualification Program.
Also included in the SAR is the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) prepared by the NRC in support of the issuance of the station operating licenses, any supplements thereto, and any safety evaluations issued by the NRC in support of operating license amendments.
NA-AP-59 also requires that the effect of the change on commitments made as a result of documents such as Generic Letters, Bulletins, Circular Notices, Regulatory Guides*
and Standard Review Plan be addressed.
The capability to search these documents quickly is afforded by PSE&G's computerized licensing data base.
In addition to prescribing the documents which must be reviewed as part of the screening process, NA-AP-59 proyides a list of sample questions. These questions, which address issues such as system interactions, environmental qualification and quality group, provide the engineer with sufficient guidance as to the depth of analysis which must be performed in the 10CFR50.59 Review.
NA-AP-59 also provides several examples of facility and procedural changes to clarify the correct approach to the screening process*~
Finally, this procedure, while approved for use in August 1990, was not implemented until November 1, 1990.
The implementation was delayed to ensure proper training of the individuals who would be performing 10CFR50.59 Reviews and Safety Evaluations.
Ensuring proper 10CFR50.59 Review (the screening portion of the evaluation) is of paramount importance to PSE&G.
To evaluate the success of the implementation of the NA-AP-59 screening process, PSE&G's Nuclear Safety Review Group is conducting a review of the screening process by sampling those 10CFR50.59 Reviews which conclude that no Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) is required.
This review will continue throughout the month of January.
The results of this review will be reported to the resident NRC inspector and a summary of the results will be forwarded to NRC Region I Headquarters.
Based on the results of the review, the Nuclear Safety Review Group will determine if any changes to the process are needed and set a schedule for future Page 6 of 7
reviews of the NA~AP-59 screening process.
Monitoring of the implementation process along with proper training of the individuals using the procedure is essential to ensure that the screening process identifies those changes for which a 10CFRS0.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) must be prepared.
In summary, PSE&G believes that the NA-AP-59 procedure which has been developed and the method by which this procedure has been implemented fully addresses the requirements of 10CFRS0.59.
PSE&G is committed to ensuring the proper training of persons using this procedure and monitoring of procedure implementation to ensure that 10CFRS0.59 Safety Evaluations are performed when required.
As a final note, following the NRC concerns brought up in the IPAT Inspection conducted between May 14th through May 25th of 1990, PSE&G's Nuclear Safety Review Group reviewed the 10CFRS0.59 Review conducted for this change.
The change was reviewed against the the guidance of DE-AP.ZZ-OOOS(Q) and later the new guidance of NA-AP-59.
The Nuclear Safety Review confirmed that a 10CFRS0.59 Safety Evaluation (USQ determination) was not required.
Although the documentation and depth of the analysis should have been improved, the conclusion would be the same using both*the old and*the new procedures.
APPROPRIATENESS OF ENFORCEMENT IN THIS CASE PSE&G asserts that enforcement is inappropriate in this instance for two principal reasons.
First, the underlying premise for the violation, as clarified in this response, is not supported by the current regulation.
An appropriate screening process to assess the applicability of 10CFRS0.59 to specific plant changes is permitted.
PSE&G believes its original procedure for this purpose satisfied the intent of 10CFRS0.59 and its use in this instance was appropriate.
Second, in cases where there is no explicit standard for purposes of implementing a general regulation, licensees should not be penalized, with enforcement, for taking reasonable steps to conform to the regulations even if there is later determined to be a disagreement between the licensee and the NRC as to the adequacy of the 1icensee 1 s approach.
- (See Letters dated April 27, 1990 to Florida Power Gorporation and Washington Public Power Supply System from NRC, Withdrawal of Notices of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty..
See also SECY-90-261, "Inspection and Enforcement Initiatives for Commercial~Grade Procurement and Dedication Programs," July 23, 1990).
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE For the reasons described above, PSE&G believes it has bee~, and remains, in full compliance with 10CFR50.59
- Page 7 of 7