ML17264A048
| ML17264A048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/2017 |
| From: | Louden P Division Reactor Projects III |
| To: | O'Connor T Northern States Power Co |
| References | |
| Download: ML17264A048 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III 2443 WARRENVILLE RD. SUITE 210 LISLE, IL 60532-4352 September 21, 2017 Mr. Timothy OConnor Senior VP, Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall (MP4)
Minneapolis, MN 55401
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO XCEL ENERGY LETTER REGARDING NON-CITED VIOLATION AND SIGNIFICANT CONDITION ADVERSE TO QUALITY
Dear Mr. OConnor:
On February 28, 2017, Mr. M. Murphy, Director, Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Services at Northern States Power Company (NSPM), provided a letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) discussing NSPM concerns with a non-cited violation (NCV) recently issued and associated with the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The NCV, Inadequate Procedure for Identification of Significant Conditions Adverse to Quality,05000263/2016007-01, was associated with the NSPM fleet procedure used to implement your corrective action program (CAP) and those conditions which would be considered significant conditions adverse to quality (SCAQs), as defined in your licensing basis.
In the letter, your staff outlined the following concerns:
- 1. The inspection results did not appear to consider the comprehensive CAP when reviewing the fleet procedure.
- 2. The inspection results did not include sufficient information for your staff to fully understand how the significance of the violation was determined.
Although your staff did not formally contest the violation as specifically stated in the February 28, 2017, letter, Region III conducted an independent review of the violation and your concerns in accordance with our process for evaluating contested violations. The NRC is committed to and encourages further dialogue to ensure NSPM and the industry understand regulatory perspectives as they apply to the corrective action program and as the industry continues to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of issue resolution. Details of the evaluation are provided in the enclosure to this letter.
Our independent evaluation of the issue affirmed that a violation of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50, Appendix B occurred and that the violation was associated with a performance deficiency, as described in the inspection report. Additionally, our evaluation affirmed that the significance of the violation was appropriately dispositioned as More-Than-Minor due to the programmatic implications of the finding.
OConnor This letter, its enclosure, 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/
Patrick Louden, Director Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22
Enclosure:
Independent Assessment of Violation 05000263/2016007-01 cc: Distribution via LISTSERV
OConnor Letter to Timothy OConnor from Patrick Louden dated September 21, 2017
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO XCEL ENERGY LETTER REGARDING NON-CITED VIOLATION AND SIGNIFICANT CONDITION ADVERSE TO QUALITY DISTRIBUTION:
Jeremy Bowen RidsNrrDorlLpl3 RidsNrrPMMonticello RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource Cynthia Pederson James Trapp Richard Skokowski Allan Barker Carole Ariano Linda Linn DRPIII DRSIII ROPassessment.Resource@nrc.gov ADAMS Accession Number: ML17264A048 OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII NAME MJeffers:lg BDickson RSkokowski PLouden DATE 09/14/2017 09/14/2017 09/18/2017 09/21/2017 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure Independent Assessment of Violation 05000263/2016007-01 NSPM identified in a February 28, 2017 letter, the following specific concerns:
- 1. The inspection results did not appear to consider the comprehensive corrective action program (CAP) when reviewing the fleet procedure.
- 2. The inspection results did not include sufficient information for your staff to fully understand how the significance of the violation was determined.
Details of the NRCs assessment of the licensees concerns are provided below.
NSPM Position 1 The NRC inspectors did not consider the comprehensive corrective action program (CAP) when reviewing the procedure (i.e., the inspectors only evaluated one specific procedure that was taken out of context of the totality of the program). Specifically, the NRC has not established supplemental regulatory guidance regarding significant conditions adverse to quality (SCAQ); therefore, it was within the licensees purview to develop the criteria of what is considered a SCAQ.
Response to NSPMs Position 1 As discussed by the licensee in the February 28, 2017, letter, it is within the licensees purview to develop the implementing criteria associated with the identification and resolution of issues the meet the licensing definition of a SCAQ. The licensee is committed to the 1994 edition of NQA-1 and the contained definition of a SCAQ.
During the inspection, the inspectors identified that the licensees implementing procedures limited those issues which would be classified as a SCAQ to a narrowed grouping than would be included in the licensing basis definition. This discrepancy of translating the licensing bases definition of a SCAQ into implementing procedures is a violation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B requirements.
Additionally, in the February 28, 2017, letter, the licensee stated that Region III was inconsistent in inspecting the CAP at different sites. Specifically, the licensee noted that the CAP procedures are fleet procedures which are used at both Monticello and Prairie Island, and a 2016 NRC PI&R inspection at Prairie Island did not identify the issue while the 2016 NRC PI&R inspection at Monticello identified a violation. As the NRC inspection program uses sampling technique, some different attributes or samples may be inspected during similar inspections.
This would appear to be the case for the Prairie Island and Monticello inspections. In addition, the inspectors are trained to inspect a licensee against the site specific licensing basis. In this example, the inspector appropriately performed this task and only evaluated the licensee against its own program requirements. Nonetheless, when this attribute regarding the licensees commitment to NQA-1 and its included definition of SCAQ was inspected in 2014, during the PI&R inspection at Prairie Island, the NRC treated this issue similarly through identification of a violation of NRC requirements (see NCV 05000282/2014007-2; NCV 05000306/2014007-02, Inadequate Procedure of Identification of Significant Conditions Adverse to Quality).
2 NSPM Position 2 It was unclear the logic used by the NRC inspectors to determine the significance of the violation. Specifically, without an identified example of the licensee inappropriately using this procedure, it was difficult to determine how this violation would be more-than-minor.
Response to NSPMs Position 2 The inspectors determined the violation was More-Than-Minor was by using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0612, Power Reactor Inspection Reports, Appendix B, Issue Screening. The inspectors answered yes to the question, If left uncorrected the performance deficiency would have the potential to lead to a more significant safety concern. Specifically, the inspectors concluded that, if the procedure was not corrected, the licensee could identify an issue, which met the licensing basis definition of a SCAQ; however, the procedure would incorrectly label the SCAQ as a Condition Adverse to Quality. As result, the licensee staff may not take actions to prevent reoccurrence of failure as required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion XVI and their licensing basis.
As discussed in Section 2.3.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy Minor Violation, Violations of minor safety or security concern generally do not warrant enforcement action or documentation in inspection reports but must be corrected. Examples of minor violations can be found in the NRC Enforcement Manual, IMC 0612, Appendix E, Examples of Minor Issues, IMC 0613, Appendix E, Examples of Minor Construction Issues, and IMC 0617, Appendix E, Minor Examples of Vendor and Quality Assurance Implementation Findings. Provisions for documenting minor violations can be found in the NRC Enforcement Manual, IMC 0610, IMC 0612, IMC 0613, IMC 0616, and IMC 0617.
In addition, as discussed in Section 2.1.B of the NRC Enforcement Manual, violations that represent isolated failures to implement a requirement and have insignificant safety or regulatory impact should normally be categorized as minor violations. However, the violation as identified in the inspection report was considered to involve or be indicative of a programmatic deficiency with the potential to lead, if left uncorrected, to a more significant safety concern.
Specifically, the procedure limitations on the definition of a SCAQ could result in failure to:
- 1. recognize and evaluate an issue as a SCAQ;
- 2. identify and implement corrective actions to prevent a recurrence of the SCAQ; and
- 3. prevent a more significant safety outcome given different plant conditions.
Since the finding represented a programmatic deficiency, a specific example of the licensee inappropriately applying the procedure would not be necessary to categorize this violation as More-Than-Minor significance. Therefore, the inspector appropriately categorized the violation as a finding and dispositioned the finding as a NCV.
3 Overall Conclusion Based on this independent evaluation, the NRC has determined that the performance deficiency is valid as stated in the original inspection report. The NRC staff, in its independent assessment, has determined that the issue meets the definition of as a performance deficiency due to failure to adequately incorporate the definition of a SCAQ into its implementing procedures. Note, the February 28, 2017, letter focuses on the definition of a SCAQ as the issue of the violation. Though this was discussed in the violation, it was not the cause of the violation. The violation was the licensees failure to incorporate into its CAP implementing procedures the licensing basis definition of a SCAQ. Therefore, this is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements. Additionally, the independent evaluation confirmed that the violation was of low-safety significance and was properly categorized as More-Than-Minor.