Virus have infected my computer

Virus have infected my computer...I have been dealing with it since sat morning. Cloud 7 something or other. I think I just cleared it up. I couldn't use my computer all weekend long.

I was thinking of throwing my computer against the wall a few times it got me so  mad and then running over it with my car!!!

NRC OIG's San Onofre Inspection Quotes

Basically the quotes from all the NRC employees in the NRC OIG inspection. 

You notice we don't have quotes from the San Onofre organization employees"

Every sentence in this could be a talking point in its own right.  

Team Leader

"The Team Leader described her role as the administrative coordinator of the inspection but with some technical oversight."

"She did not view herself as an authority on the team, and said team members were "pretty much even."

"The Team Leader thought existing 10 CFR 50.59 guidance could be improved."

"She recalled that each region interpreted the inspection procedures differently."

"Additionally, the Team Leader said there was no specific training for 50.59."

"She thought NRC has a good 50.59 inspection program, but it needs to be revamped to eliminate these discrepancies."

Team Member 1

"OIG learned that the team member who was assigned to review the replacement steam generator evaluation as part of the 2009 50.59 inspection was a Region IV DRS Reactor Inspector, and the 2009 SONGS 50.59 inspection was approximately his second 50.59 inspection."

"He said the team "pulled the screen, which was very large, for the 50.59 for the Unit 2 steam generators and went line by line to ensure that there was no adverse impact pertaining to installation of the new steam generators at SONGS Unit 2."

"He said while neither he nor any of the other team members was an ABAQUS or ANSYS "guru," they would have asked to see evidence that this statement was supported."

"He said if he were doing the inspection now and came across UFSAR items indicating a methodology change that was not captured in the screen, he would question the licensee." 

   

"Team Member 1 told OIG that training for 50.59 inspections could be improved."

"He went into this inspection right out of college and said it would have been helpful to have had more training."

"At the time of this inspection, regional inspectors were not involving the headquarters technical experts, like they do now."

"Team Member 1 also thought the 50.59 guidance available to inspectors is too vague."

"For example, he said At the time of this inspection, regional inspectors were not involving the headquarters technical experts, like they do now."

"For example, he said "more than a minimal increase" should be defined by a specific value in 1O CFR 50.59. (OIG notes that "more than a minimal increase" is the terminology used in several of the 1O CFR 50.59(c)(2) screening criteria.)"

"Furthermore, he noted that an inspector's knowledge and background influences the conclusion of an inspection."  

"He said, "I could read it one way, [you] could read it a completely different way," and subsequently come up with a different conclusion."

"He added that inspector "skill sets are to determine and ask appropriate questions that could lead us to potential issues."

Team Branch Chief

"A Region IV DRS Branch Chief told OIG that during the 2009 integrated inspection at SONGS that included the 10 CFR 50.59 review of the SONGS replacement steam generator, he was in a 3-month rotational position acting as the Branch Chief responsible for the Region IV DRS Engineering Branch that did the SONGS 71111.17 inspection."   

"The Branch Chief did not work with the inspectors on the scope of their work or provide any oversight of their onsite inspection activity, but he said he would have looked at the results they brought back and would have approved the "feeder'' report that they prepared for inclusion in the integrated inspection report."

Interviews of NRC Subject Matter Experts

"Although the purpose of any 50.59 process should be to evaluate changes to the facility as described in the FSAR, the SONGS _evaluation rarely discusses the actual changes to the FSAR. You cannot tell from the evaluation what exact statements were changed."

"For a document that is supposed to evaluate adverse changes to "license and design basis" functional requirements, there is little mention of what the actual design and license basis requirements are."

"This displays a significant lack of understanding of the 50.59 process and requirements at the plant."

There are a number of general statements in the screen that are never supported. Just stating these types of conclusions does not make it so; this is a large, involved screen that, after dissected, lacks substance.   Examples cited regarding the comparison of the original steam generators (OSG) against the replacements include the following:

''These differences represent a vast improvement over the OSG materials in terms of corrosion, erosion-corrosion and wear resistance."

"These differences also represent functional improvements over the OSG components."

"There are some instances where the licensee and their contractor appear to have deviated from NRG-approved guidance and, as a result, failed to perform 1O CFR 50.59 evaluations related to portions of the steam generator replacements." 

"The most prevalent deviation from guidance involves areas where reanalysis was completed to demonstrate that all required safety functions and design requirements were met. NRG-approved guidance states that in these circumstances, the change is considered to be adverse and a 1O CFR 50.59 evaluation is required."

Another area of deviation from guidance involves the licensee's understanding and use of guidance related to changes to one or more elements of evaluation and changes from one method of evaluation to another.  Each discussion related to methods of evaluation is incomplete or flawed.  In general, these discussions lack adequate detail to support the stated conclusions.

"Review of this document would take substantial effort by an inspector. There really are not enough hours allotted within the baseline 50.59 inspection to perform a good review. It would take a tremendous amount of time just to get the required documents to support the licensee's conclusions, if such documents exist."

"One of the Branch Chiefs noted in his review that 10 CFR 50.59 is an administrative process to determine if facility changes can be implemented without prior NRC staff approval by way of the license amendment process of 10 CFR 50.90. He wrote, "Errors in executing the 10 CFR 50.59 process do not directly impugn the ultimate acceptability of the design and analysis associated with the proposed change."

"The Branch Chief also told OIG that training was an area that needed improvement and that the quality of a 10 CFR 50.59 inspection is dependent on the inspector's knowledge, experience, and background."

"He said the guidance is complex and there is a lot of judgment that is applied in using it."

"The Branch Chief said the only way to provide effective oversight is to make sure the inspectors have the tools and training to effectively execute the inspection procedures."

"He said that currently, the only training people get on conducting 50.59 inspections is through the inspector qualification process and that it would be much better to have some kind of recurrent refresher training or lessons learned."

 "The Branch Chief said some regions do more than others in that regard."

"The Branch Chief also noted that NRC 50.59 inspections generally occur after the fact and it is the licensee's responsibility under the license to complete this process properly, using their procedures, and our inspection activity is reviewing that and aimed at holding them accountable on a sampling basis for the quality of the projects they produce and adherence to their procedures." 

"He said while there may be an opportunity - if an inspector reviews something while it is being worked on - to identify something that can change the course of the licensee's path, but typically the activities are already done in the field, or on their way to being done, before NRC starts looking."

"The other Branch Chief told OIG that the 50.59 regulation is complex and NRC inspectors need clear guidance, specific training on the 1O CFR 50.59 inspection process, and increased hours to perform the inspections."

"In his opinion, the NEI 96-07 guidance is too vague, allows for too many judgment calls, and needs solidifying of definitions."

"From his experience, the licensee and NRC routinely get into disagreements because of interpretation of the guidance."

"This Branch Chief told OIG that had he reviewed the SONGS 50.59 in 2009, he would have come to the conclusion that, without additional documents, he would have absolutely no reasonable assurance that SONGS could pass a 50.59 inspection." 

"He would have told the licensee that their documentation was inadequate and not documented properly, and the licensee may have had time before the install to produce adequate documentation."

"The Branch Chief said he would have expected the 2009 inspectors to ask questions and follow up on the unsupported general statements made by the licensee in the 50.59 documents; however, he could not determine from the documentation he reviewed whether a license amendment was needed."

"He said while there may be an opportunity - if an inspector reviews something while it is being worked on - to identify something that can change the course of the licensee's path, but typically the activities are already done in the field, or on their way to being done, before NRC starts looking."

"The NRR Program Manager also commented that inspectors can watch an activity every month - for years even - and then a different inspector will come in and find something the others never identified."

NRR Response to OIG Questions About Methodology Changes

"According to the memorandum, it was not unexpected that NRC did not have on hand all the information needed to answer OIG's questions "based on NRC Inspection Manual 2515, 'Light­ Water Reactor Inspection Program,' which states, '[t]he NRC inspection program covers only small samples of licensee activities in any particular area,' and 'individual inspectors are expected to exercise initiative in conducting inspections, based on their expertise and experience."'

Interviews of NRC Region IV Management

Former Deputy Regional Administrator

"Regarding the 50.59 inspection process, the fundamental question is to understand whether or not the licensing staff, NRR, needs to conduct a review before a change is permitted to the licensing basis of the plant."

"He said that samples are taken to see if the licensee comported with criteria of the regulation."

"He believed that in hindsight, SONGS needed a license amendment based on what was known today (2013), however, he could not speak to what was known in 2009 or 2010."

"He believed that in hindsight, SONGS needed a license amendment based on what was known today (2013), however, he could not speak to what was known in 2009 or 2010."

"The former Deputy Regional Administrator explained that the design, as built, was fundamentally flawed and would not have been approved under any conditions."

"The overall design was unacceptable because of the adverse thermal-hydraulic conditions and the upper tube structure support being inadequate."

"Regarding inspection guidance procedures relevant to the 50.59 process, the former Deputy Regional Administrator stated that the inspection guidance appears to be focused on the updated FSAR, and provides some practical guidance."

"However, it does not address the issue of why a change might need to have pre-approval."

"The inspection guidance does not cover the details of the rule, why each of the 50.59 criteria exists, and how to interpret them."

"According to the former Deputy Regional Administrator, the inspection guidance can be improved."

"He noted that he has heard from staff members that they are dissatisfied with NEI guidance."

"The challenge is that there are so many different types of components, structures, and systems and it is hard to write a procedure that captures all those different circumstances."  

"Having a detailed inspection plan that allows one to probe into the important areas is part of inspection preparation and for an effort like the steam generator replacement, which is like inspecting a system, there would need to be more individuals involved, more resources, more time, and more preparation."    

"He added that the steam generator replacement inspection guidance is focused on a number of activities including opening up containment, removing the old generators, placing new generators, patching the containment and verifying containment integrity."

"The guidance allocates 350 hours for this activity and only approximately 60 hours are devoted to design, including the 50.59 review, which is not very much time to actually delve into a complex component such as steam generators."

"The former Deputy Regional Administrator said that the agency has to decide if it is important enough to inspect every one of these (steam generators) as they come along, and that inspections are funded and adequately supported."   

The program guidance needs to be reviewed and could be enhanced and the resource allocation needs to be reviewed.   

"The former Deputy Regional Administrator added that guidance for inspecting in-service steam generators experiencing tube degradation provides a lot of insight, but has not been updated in 18 years."

"Some of the guidance is out of date and some needs to be strengthened."

"The former Deputy Regional Administrator said that there are not many findings that result from [steam generators or 50.59] inspections."

"When the staff initially started conducting steam generator replacement inspections they were a huge deal and the inspection plan was discussed at the branch, division, and regional administrator's level and there was a lot of communication with the other regions."

"However, in his view, over time these inspections have become routine."

Former Regional Administrator

"Although these reviews are never 100 percent because they are done through sampling, his expectations are that the inspectors look hard and that they challenge."

"The former Regional Administrator wants them to be as thorough as they can be, but their time is limited."  

"So they can never look at everything."  

"The former Regional Administrator told OIG that inspectors review the important functions of the important systems and components that are being changed and the evaluation behind the change to see if it is justifiable that it is not increasing the risk - not triggering those criteria from the 50.59 rule."

"He said that knowing what they know now, "the steam generators as designed were basically unlicensable."  

"We wouldn't approve them."

"The former Regional Administrator advised 50.59 could be strengthened with explicit instruction to the inspector in preparation for their inspections."   

***"He mentioned a limiting factor with 50.59 is that a lot of information contained in the licensing basis is not contained in the FSAR and may not be reviewed under 50.59."

"The former Regional Administrator felt the NRC should consider excluding some design changes from 50.59."  

"He said it is worth the time and effort for the NRC to do a license amendment on a major reactor coolant system component."  

"He said a license amendment would not accomplish design validation, but it will get to a certain set of criteria and, in the case at SONGS, it would have caused reviewers to ask good questions to determine."

'What's behind it?"

"For example, he said that based on guidance in the Standard Review Plan,26 one item that certainly would have been questioned by reviewers was the acceptance criteria of 95 percent (void fraction27), because no other plant in the industry is over 90 percent."  

"Some reviewer would have said that this is an outlier and we need to understand that."

***"The former Regional Administrator stated to leave the review of such a large and broad component with the scope and depth of engineering of the steam generator with the inspection oversight program may be risky."  

***"The inspection program will miss things because it is not encompassing enough to review to the level of detail or scrutiny as does the Standard Review Plan."

Current Region I V Deputy Regional Administrator

"When asked to interpret the differences of opinion from the 2009 inspection to the subject matter expert reviews during this inquiry, the current Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator said he did not know the amount of time taken in 2009 as compared to the AIT and AIT followup and any additional reviews."

"He said the different outcomes could reflect the level of experience of inspectors."

"However, he added the fact that the AIT cited SONGS for a couple of minor violations, indicates the 2009 inspection team did not conduct a proper 50.59 evaluation."

"The RIV Deputy Regional Administrator commented that if two 50.59 inspectors have the same information and come to different conclusions, we need to take a look at our guidance and make sure that it is clear and more objective."   

"He advised based on what he knows about the SONGS issues, the agency may benefit from a different inspection approach to do some kind of screening and determine if a more detailed design-type review for major component replacement inspections is necessary. " 

"This issue is being addressed with the lessons learned review."  

"Additionally, he believes there could be improvements in training and guidance, as evidenced by the subject matter experts having different observation in reviewing the SONGS replacement steam generator evaluation. " 

***"And if experts have different views, inspectors with less experience may have more variability in their conclusions."

Interviews of NRC Headquarters Managers

"However, he said that inspectors do not look at everything and are trained to sample."

 "NRC does not have the resources, including time or manpower, to review everything and so inspectors sample."

"The former NRR Director said that the problem with the SONGS steam generators was a design issue."

"The 50.59 process would not have prevented the steam generators from leaking and this is not the purpose of the 50.59 process."

"The 50.59 process is not going to stop a licensee from buying bad equipment, or from operating a plant incorrectly.  It is not NRC's job to make sure that a licensee buys good generators."  

"The NRC's job is to protect public health and safety."

"The former NRR Director told OIG that the 50.59 process is a threshold as to whether a licensee can take a particular action without NRC approval."

"According to the former NRR Director, this information indicated that NRC was reviewing the 50.59s and that mistakes were being made; however, none of these findings were particularly safety-significant."

"Consequently, based on this data, he does not believe that he has a lot of problems

with the generic use of 50.59 by licensees or a problem with NRC oversight of the 50.59 process."

"According to the former NRR Director, if there were problems with the 50.59 process, it would have manifested itself in many more issues than just the steam generator issue."

"The former NRR Director added that NRC has not had an issue with the approximately 53 nuclear power plants that have changed their steam generators under the 10 CFR 50.59 process."

"According to the former NRR Director, based on the information provided by OIG pertaining to methodology changes, it appeared that NRC may have done a bad job of reviewing the SONGS 50.59 during the 2009 inspection; however, one should be careful before concluding that this was a broader problem than SONGS."

"He did not have data to conclude that NRC needs to do a larger inspection sample.  What happened at SONGS was not particularly safety-significant."   

"It was a good question to ask whether the NRC was doing enough of a review of the 50.59s being conducted.  

"Nevertheless, as the NRR Director responsible for the operational safety of 100 nuclear power plants and research and test reactors, he has limited resources."

Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness  Programs

***"Safety of the plant is the licensee's primary responsibility, and NRC relies on licensees to implement technical specifications and the conditions of their license."

"A licensee may make changes in their facility without obtaining a license amendment only if they meet the eight criteria in 1O CFR 50.59."

"Also, he said, "We're only going to be able to sample, and you always want to make sure that you're sampling the items with the highest likely safety significance input."

"His main concern is that the process is not overly driven by subjectivity and judgment."

"NRC staff and is not intended to pick up problems with design flaws like 10 CFR 50.90 (i.e., license amendment requests) reviews; however, it could."  

Also, he said, "We're only going to be able to sample, and you always want to make sure that you're sampling the items with the highest likely safety significance input."

"The Deputy Executive Director commented that the high frequency with which licensees use the 50.59 process coupled with the relatively low frequency of issues identified by NRC suggests to him that training could be a factor."  

"He believes that if we look at training in a broad sense - qualification training, on-the-job-training, and experience - we may be able to understand how training influenced inspectors' decisions made or should have been made differently."  

***"For example, communications with external stakeholders will be an area that NRC improves and possibly areas with the 50.59 process and how it gets implemented."

"They screwed it up and we didn't pick it up."

"Turns out we didn't look at it in detail because they did a 50.59 review - didn't believe they needed to get us to look at [a license amendment request]."

"ISSUE 2: AIT Review of SCE's 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation

Interviews of AIT Participants

Former Division of Reactor Safety Director

"He recalled that the Region II Senior Reactor Inspector used NEl's NRG-endorsed guidance (NEI 96-07, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation ) to review the 50.59 screens and evaluations and determine whether a license amendment was needed."

"We had a lot of stuff to look at. ..We didn't look at everything."

"The AIT was focused on the tube degradation."   

"Furthermore, the AIT inspection is an incident based inspection; he explained it is not a 50.59 inspection but questions arose regarding the adequacy of 50.59 and the AIT did more work to address those questions."

"The AIT Team Leader explained the AIT cited SCE with a thermal hydraulic modeling design violation of (10 CFR Part 50) Criterion Ill, (Design Control), which resulted in Region IV issuing SCE an apparent white violation."  

"He said, Region IV concluded that they did not believe the velocity information was available at the time (during the 50.59 process), like it is now." 

***"Had the information been available, SCE would have had to do something differently from a 50.59 perspective."   

"He advised that, collectively, the team thought if SONGS had done a more thorough evaluation, ·they potentially could have identified the problem if they had checked the adequacy of some of the information that they had questions on, specifically questions regarding velocities and questions concerning design control."

 Region II Senior Reactor Inspector

"The Senior Reactor Inspector said the decision to review the licensee's 50.59 evaluation arose after the AIT member from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ran an independent thermal-hydraulic model of the replacement steam generators and identified some inconsistencies between his model and the licensee's model."

"He said that 1O CFR 50.59 specifies that if the licensee departs from the methodology as described in the FSAR, then a license amendment is needed."

"However, because the FSAR did not contain what was used for the original steam generators, there was no basis to conclude a departure from methodology had occurred."

(Catch 22)  "He said, "if the methodology is not in the FSAR, they didn't depart from it."

"So legally, by 50.59, they don't meet that criteria."

"He said the AIT's determination was - based on review of the FSAR, the engineering change package describing the new design, the 50.59 screen and evaluation, and other items - there was no indication that the licensee needed a license amendment."

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

"The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) headquarters specialist to whom the AIT Team Leader referred was an NRR Project Manager assigned as the 10 CFR 50.59 Program Manager since 2009.

He was not told how to conduct the review and he was not an official member of the AIT."

"He said that reviewing the 50.59 entails reviewing a sampling and based on his years of experience as an inspector, he said, "you don't expect 100 percent of everything, but you review it. . . and you dig deeper into things that don't sound right."

"He said that all inspections are done by sampling."

"ANSYS with ABAQUS, he said this was a methodology change and the regulation is clear: If you use a new method, you have to justify it based on whether the NRC has previously approved that method for the intended application."

"He communicated to Region IV AIT followup team members that if ABAQUS had not been previously approved by the NRC for the specific application, a license amendment would be needed."

(SONG Chief Engineer Gary J Kline)

"The Project Manager recalled this was an item the licensee objected to because they said it was a revision to an existing method, and not a new methodology, whereas he believed it was a new methodology." 

"He was not sure what information the licensee provided to the AIT followup inspectors, or to what extent the NRC inspectors looked for where NRC had previously approved this method, but that the region closed the item out."

"He said he reviewed it and went with the region's judgment."

"The Project Manager acknowledged the methodology changes discussed in Issue I of this report (i.e., steam generator related methodology changes reflected in the UFSAR that were not mentioned in the licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 screen)."  

"He said he did not notice this during his review (he checked the UFSAR to see that changes mentioned in the evaluation were reflected, but did not do a reverse comparison to see if all the changes to the UFSAR were reflected in the 50.59), but the licensee should have included them in the description of changes."

"However, he said, "just because they should have included that, and therefore they did not evaluate . . . does not mean it would have resulted in the need for prior NRC approval.  It just means they didn't completely document it."

"The purpose of 10 CFR 50.59 is not to identify design deficiencies but to determine whether prior NRC review and approval is required."

"He said design deficiencies should be picked up through licensee quality assurance programs and potentially through NRC oversight of licensees' design control process through inspection, which is accomplished through a sampling process."

AIT Followup Team Member

"After discussion with OIG about the 10 CFR 50.59 provision concerning the need for NRC approval for the "intended application" when changing from a method of evaluation concerning methodology changes described in the FSAR to another method (10 CFR 50.59 (1)(2)(ii)), the Senior Project Engineer said the inspection plan was "probably flawed" because they did not look for explicit approval by the NRC for the intended application."

"With regard to the second area of concern within this URI, the Senior Project Engineer said that it was not a change in methodology because they went from using STRUDL and ANSYS to using just ANSYS to analyze a limiting event."

"However, when OIG discussed the use of a manual calculation to replace STRUDL, he said the regulatory basis for closing this area was probably not" adequate, based on the rule."

Review of Closeout Justification by Subject Matter Experts

"The other Branch Chief told OIG that NEI 96-07 guidance states that licensees who cite approved methodology from another licensee need to document their review of the method, approved application, safety evaluation report, and related documentation and verify that applicable terms, conditions, and limitations are met and to ensure the method is applicable to their type of plant."

SONGS Special Project Branch Chief

"A Region IV Branch Chief with oversight responsibility for SONGS since 2009 who also served as Branch Chief of the SONGS Special Project Branch told OIG, in hindsight, if NRC were to go through the 50.59 questions now, some of those screening questions would have to be answered yes and would require NRC approval."  

"But back then [2007- 2009], NRC did not know and SONGS did not know what NRC knows now [regarding the FIT-Ill thermal-hydraulic model], and an [NRC Office of Investigations] investigation was ongoing [as of February 2013] to determine what information was available."   

"He advised all indicators are that SONGS was not aware of the failure of the code error (used with the FIT-Ill) and SONGS could not have predicted it."

Former Deputy Regional Administrator

"According to the former Deputy Regional Administrator, SONGS' 50.59 did not meet the criteria 50.59 (2)(c)(ii) because design changes resulted "in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of a structure, system or component important to safety previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report as updated."    

"He noted that this issue was not pursued because of the 2.206 petition submitted to the NRC Petition Review Board by the Friends of the Earth."

"The former Deputy Regional Administrator said that while he and some of the staff members involved in the AIT believed that SONGS violated 50.59 (2)(c)(ii) during its' implementation of the 50.59 process, other staff members did not share this view."

"According to the former Deputy Regional Administrator, the staff's focus and emphasis was not so much on whether one could point to a single criteria, but whether or not it (the violation) was fair and reasonable and met the standards for discretion."

"As noted under Issue 1, the former Deputy Regional Administrator said in hindsight, he believes that SONGS should have requested a license amendment from NRC prior to making the change."

"He also believes the steam generator design was fundamentally flawed and would not have been approved as designed."

Former Region IV Regional Administrator

"The former Region IV Regional Administrator told OIG that because the event surrounding the SONGS steam generator tube degradation was unprecedented in the industry, Region IV immediately established an AIT."

"The AIT may have conducted a focused 50.59 because NRC rarely, if ever, conducts a 100-percent review."

"Consequently, the AIT could have very easily selected items they viewed as important aspects to review to determine if the licensee reached the right conclusion."

 "In his view, the AIT focused on design issues and the 50.59 process is not intended to identify design issues."

"He was aware that the AIT has raised methodology-type questions because some of it surfaced in the AIT report and that the team considered methodology changes."

"However, if the region missed some of the methodology changes it was because inspections have always been no more than a sampling."

"If the AIT did not focus on the methodology changes, it was because there was something about their approach, plan, and scope of review, coupled with guidance they received that took them in the direction they took.  It was not malevolent or intent, but a part of the mentality and process of how inspectors pick their sample and selection process."

Current Region I V Deputy Regional Administrator

"The current Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator said that based on what the NRC looked at during its inspections, the agency made definitive statements that the licensee did not require a license amendment."

"However, he acknowledged there could be other aspects of the 50.59 that were done incorrectly that would require or would have required a license amendment.  He said that without additional inspection, NRC does not know the answer."  

"He said to make a definitive decision on whether a license amendment request was required, the agency would have to talk about the resources needed to accomplish that."  

"He said, "It comes down to a prudent use of resources to go back and accomplish that.""

"He does not believe the licensee's 50.59 evaluation would have picked it up."

"He also doubts the NRC license amendment review process would have picked this up. If the licensee explains the model used and reports the value reached, NRC may accept the output."

The NRC review process is not going to identify an error that the licensee made in either the modeling or the inputs to the modeling or the assumptions that went into the modeling."

Former NRR Director

"The former NRR Director noted that whether the NRC should have conducted a much more thorough review because of external stakeholder interest is a different question and should have been a management decision."

"However, from a safety significant standpoint, the answer would have been that it did not warrant a more thorough review. He noted that there was no release offsite that was consequential to anyone."

Interview of NRR Acting Director

"The Acting NRR Director told OIG the region does not have latitude to deviate from the 50.59 rule [similar versus intended use]."

"But, in this case, it is NRC's job to have the licensee provide the justification, as the licensee is responsible for doing the 50.59 evaluation."

"The Acting NRR Director informed OIG that the examples cited by the licensee in the AIT followup report (as described in footnote 32), which included three NUREG contractor reports, are reports of research that have been done for the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and do not constitute NRC approval."

"They were examples of how the NRC used the code for a vessel head, and dissimilar welds, which are good uses of ABAQUS, but they are not steam generator tube bundle interactions with tube support plates."

"His inference in reading the next paragraph of the AIT followup report was that inspectors looked at Comanche Peak's FSAR and recognized SCE's examples were not NRC approvals and they looked for another analog and presented the Comanche Peak analysis of ABAQUS." 

"He stated it is debatable if Region IV found the best application to cite in closing the open URI 10 issue."

"He said the trigger to require a license amendment is intended to focus on safety and not necessarily to avoid a bad investment by the licensee."

"The safety outcomes of this event were well within the licensing basis of the facility and were a low-consequence event in terms of public exposure impacts."

"he result was not a significant safety impact.  In the end, SONGS had a tube leak that was well within the design basis accident analysis."

"And it was not clear to him that the analysis that supported the design would have driven the NRC to a conclusion that would have identified and anticipated the wear identified in the secondary side."

"The Acting NRR Director said that industry has replaced the vast majority of steam generators on pressurized water reactors. under 50.59 from the late 80's and early 90's forward, and up until SONGS, these replacements have occurred without issue."

Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs

"The Deputy Executive Director told OIG that the complex issues with the SONGS replacement steam generators are problems the NRC has not previously witnessed."  

"Had SCE submitted an amendment for review, the NRC would have touched those issues that resulted in the flaws in that generator (which experienced the tube leak)."

"He further explained that a 50.59 review (inspection) is not a safety review and that the design problem should have been found by the licensee."

"Hypothetically, he stated the NRC could have potentially found the problem in the licensing review process; but the 50.59 would not be the process to find that."

"The Deputy Executive Director told OIG the 50.59 process is utilized to determine if the NRC is required to review a change proposed by the licensee or if the NRC relies on the licensee's review of the change."

"With regard to the closeout of URI 10 concerning the use of ABAQUS, the Deputy Executive Director stated it is ultimately the region's responsibility to close out the URI."

"The inspector determined the NRC had approved ABAQUS for the reactor coolant system structural integrity analysis and without more information he could not provide an answer regarding the adequacy of the region's closure."

ISSUE 3: NRC Oversight of SONGS UFSAR

OIG Review of NRR Oversight of Other Updated UFSAR Submittals

"To conduct the review, the Project Manager pulled all license amendments from 2002 forward, took a random sampling, and compared them to the FSAR. (Random or risk informed or smart)"

 "The Project Manager said that the UFSAR reviews by project managers are a low priority and he was not sure if they could be given a higher priority because project managers have a lot of work already."

"Although he remembered receiving the 2009 and 2011 FSARs from SONGS, he did not remember doing a review for either one. He was not aware if the SONGS Project Manager before him reviewed or documented a review."

"He said that even if there is some guidance to project managers on these reviews, it was his impression from talking to peers, that the UFSAR reviews were not consistently performed."  

"He thought the review was considered a low-value activity."

"As far as the 50.59 summary document submitted by the licensee, this Project Manager described the reports as being brief and containing a summary of the licensee's basis for determining that the change can be made under 50.59."

Former Region I V Deputy Regional Admini strator

"The former Deputy Regional Administrator told OIG that during the AIT, Region IV staff reviewed the original SAR and noted that the licensee had made many changes to the steam generators over a 25-year period, which were no longer reflected in the UFSAR or consistent with the original SAR."

"When a licensee then goes to replace the steam generators, they are then comparing to whatever existed just before the replacement."

"All the changes have already occurred and were never updated [in UFSAR."

Current Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator

"The current Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator, stated that his general expectation is that all material submitted to the NRC from a licensee would be reviewed by headquarters staff."

Former NRR Director

"The former NRR Director advised OIG that he expected project managers to review revisions the UFSAR submitted by licensees under the 10 CFR 50.71(e) process and verify that changes made by licensees through various processes such as the 50.59 evaluations, license amendments,  and licensee commitments, have generally been updated into the UFSAR."

"Regarding OIG's observation that the SONGS FSAR was reviewed twice during an 11- year period and that review of the 2011 submittal was completed in December 2012, the former NRR Director acknowledged that this was unacceptable to go for such a long period of time without FSARs being reviewed."

"Regarding the NRR staff's review of FSARs submitted by other nuclear power plants, the former NRR Director said NRC should either change the requirement to complete such reviews within 90 days or do a better job to accomplish the requirement."

"The FSAR review is a self-imposed requirement and if the agency was not meeting its own internal guidance, then the agency should change the guidance and consider what really makes sense based on safety significance."

"The former NRR Director said that the project manager's review of the UFSAR is an administrative task. 

He noted that this review is a bookkeeping exercise and it is not a technical exercise."

Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs

"The Deputy Executive Director told OIG that NRC oversight of 10 CFR 50.71(e) is critical since it enables the NRC to know whether or not a plant is in compliance with its licensing basis."

 "He added the purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e) is to ensure that changes either approved by NRC or made by licensees made under 1O CFR 50.59 process are captured in the UFSAR."

"He considers it a priority to review the UFSAR."

Is Millstone a San Onofre: Rampant defects in the NRC and Licensees Maintaining Standards?

works in progress

BRAIDWOOD STATION 05000456/2014010 AND 05000457/2014010

Nov 26

***Three violations shared the common element of being “Legacy Violations”; two of these three involved 10 CFR 50.59 issues. The licensee’s CCA identified several process improvements which appear likely to reduce future 50.59 deficiencies.

Does the NRC have a definition of what a legacy violation is...

Nov 12:

Look at how bad these guys are over the years.

TDAFW pump full flow test following governor replacement on September 13

Licensing Basis and FSAR.

Nuclear power reactors are licensed based on a given set of requirements, depending primarily on the type of plant. This set of requirements is called the plant’s “licensing basis." A principal licensing basis document is the plant’s final safety analysis report (FSAR). The FSAR and the plant‘s NRC license and associated technical specifications are the principal regulatory documents describing how the plant is designed, constructed, and operated. The FSAR is also a key reference document used by NRC inspectors during both plant construction and operation, and it must be sufficiently detailed to permit the staff to determine whether the plant can be built and operated without undue risk to public health and safety.

10 CFR 50.71

Because a plant’s design and operation are not static, certain changes are necessary over the course of a facility’s operating life. Reactor licensees must follow NRC regulations to justify and implement changes in the design basis and licensing basis for their facilities, and they are required to document such changes in the FSAR. 10 CFR 50.71(e) requires the FSAR to be periodically updated. The objectives of 10 CFR 50.71(e) are to ensure that licensees maintain the information in the updated FSAR (UFSAR) to reflect the current status of the facility and address new issues as they arise so that the UFSAR can be used as a reference document in safety analysis.

10 CFR 50.59

NRC has defined the changes that a licensee may make to a licensed facility without prior NRC approval. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 (c)(1), the holder of a license may, without obtaining a license amendment, (1) make changes in the facility as described in the FSAR (as updated), or (2) make changes in the procedures as described in the FSAR (as updated), and conduct tests or experiments not described in the FSAR (as updated) as long as a change to the technical specifications incorporated in the license is not required, and the change, test, or experiment does not meet any of the eight10 CFR 50.59 (c)(2) criteria. if any of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59 are not met (i.e., the change involves modification to the technical specifications or involves one of the eight criteria), the license holder must apply to NRC for a license amendment and obtain NRC’s approval before implementing the change. NRC staff document their safety analysis of a license amendment request in a safety evaluation providing the technical, safety, and legal basis for NRC's disposition of the license amendment request.

1) Why weren't the NRC officials named in the Songs NRC OIG report?

2) The NRC OIG don't have the expertise and experience to make independent judgements on their own. They are all drinking from the same poisoned well. 

3) In the opening stages of the SONGs event, the NRC threw the second string NRC players out to the field. What is the nature of time and oversight limitations on updating design and licensing basis documents at Millstone and Regions I? Region IV seems to had a profound lack of training and experience with their policies, guilds and procedures, indeed their policies and procedure were skimpy on overseeing licensing and their bases...has region I overcome this deficiency?

4) I have issues with AIT inspections whose aims to to "understand the event"...with the charter limiting the breadth of the investigation under some unseen agenda. 

5)Destructive engineering organizational stove piping, cubby holing and categorization.


6)(Gary J Kline chief engineer at SONGS) All management meetings associated with special inspections and AIT inspections should be recorded and disclosed to the public. This should be the primary means to hold NRC management accountable. As it stands now, management is never made accountable! Something like a NTSB public meeting and testimony? 

9) Personally, I think from the 2009 NRC inspection, SONGS maliciously obfuscated information they knew needed a licensing amendment and full blown public hearings. They played the NRC like a fiddle! 

10) What is in the interest of the nation versus word games and legalese?         

He said that 1O CFR 50.59 specifies that if the licensee departs from the methodology as described in the FSAR, then a license amendment is needed. However, because the FSAR did not contain what was used for the original steam generators, there was no basis to conclude a departure from methodology had occurred.   

He said, "if the methodology is not in the FSAR, they didn't depart from it. So legally, by 50.59, they don't meet that criteria."

11) "He said that all inspections are done by sampling." 

12) The steam generators in SONGS have never been characterized in the FSAR.

13) The operators generally consider the FSARs as "comic books"...valuable information is so sporadic and there is so little technical design and licensing information in them. No basic licensing information in them, means less violations over the lifetime of a plant. Some think that was dominant philosophy at plant beginnings.    

SUBJECT: MILLSTONE POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 – NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION
REPORT 05000336/2014011 AND 05000423/2014011

At 0701, on May 25, 2014, a dual-unit reactor trip occurred at the Millstone Station. Prior to the event, the station had one offsite line out-of-service (OOS) (Line 371) for maintenance. A suspected ground fault on the grid in the Northeast Utilities’ Card substation caused the loss of offsite line 383. Line 310 tripped on instantaneous ground over current which was unexpected. The final line (Line 348) tripped on over current when both units attempted to feed the full power output of both Millstone units through the single remaining line (Line 348).

Dominion concluded in the 10 CFR 50.59 screening that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not required and therefore, prior NRC approval was not needed to implement this change. However, the team concluded that had Dominion completed a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, it was likely that NRC approval would have been required prior to implementation.

The UFSAR further specified operability requirements for SLOD when one transmission line was taken OOS: (1) to have SLOD fully operational, and limit the net station output ≤ 2500 mega-watt (MW) and limit the output of Unit 3 to the Maximum Allowable Millstone Generation Contingency limit, if applicable, or (2) reduce load to a total station output of ≤ 1750 MW (Gross)/1650 MW (Net) within 30 minutes after the element (transmission line) is removed from service.

This condition impacts the reliability of the offsite power sources. SLOD was designed to prevent a total loss of offsite power that is caused by conditions described above, by reducing station electrical generation output. SLOD was designed to detect this condition by monitoring the Millstone total generation output (< 1750 MWe) and monitoring each transmission line for power flow (+/- 10 MWe). In this postulated fault scenario, SLOD initiates a trip signal to the Millstone switchyard breakers 15G-13T-2 and 15G-14T-2 (Unit 3 Generator tie line breakers), resulting in isolation of the Unit 3 generator from the grid (which would result in a load rejection Unit 3 trip), leaving Unit 2 in synchronism with the grid, and maintaining offsite power to both units.

The team determined that if the SLOD SPS had been in service, only Unit 3 would have tripped and Unit 2 would have remained online and providing at least one offsite power source.

The team identified that in 2012 and 2013, Northeast Utilities, the transmission entity and the owner of the Millstone switchyard, modified transmission circuits at the Millstone switchyard to eliminate the existence of the simultaneous double circuit fault scenarios, which as discussed previously, existed due to the physical placement of two transmission lines on a common tower. This modification by Northeast Utilities installed two new transmission paths going out of the Millstone switchyard. The new offsite transmission line configuration consisted of four, single 345 kV transmission lines each located on a single circuit tower and transmission path, which is illustrated in Figure 3 of Attachment 4, of this inspection report.

The team also noted this modification included removal of the SLOD SPS, based on a belief by Northeast Utilities and Dominion that it was no longer required. At the time, Dominion believed that the removal of the DCT configuration eliminated the credited fault scenarios contained in the design and licensing bases of both units. The team noted that on December 20, 2012, Northeast Utilities disabled the active trip function of the SLOD SPS at the Millstone switchyard. The elimination of SLOD also resulted in physical modifications to switchyard supervisory panel CRP 909 in the Millstone Unit 1 control room, and required updates to various Millstone documents, including the UFSAR and operating procedures. These modifications and document updates were performed through implementation of a design change process in accordance with Dominion fleet and Millstone-specific procedures. These design change documents included a 10 CFR 50.59 screening and applicable safety analysis report (SAR) change notices for both the Millstone Unit 2 and 3 UFSARs.

The team noted that Dominion’s 10 CFR 50.59 screening for the SLOD SPS design change concluded that a full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not required, because it incorrectly concluded that the SLOD system had no safety functional requirements that were credited in the safety analysis. Therefore, removal of SLOD did not have an adverse effect on any UFSAR-described design function. However, the team identified that not only is SLOD described in the UFSAR, but also documented a specific design function to prevent a dual-unit trip and total LOOP and maintain the stability of the electric grid under certain analyzed fault scenarios.

As previously discussed, one of the credited fault scenarios described in the UFSAR, was the simultaneous loss of two transmission circuits on a common structure, which occurs while one of the remaining transmission circuits is OOS. The SLOD SPS design change attempted to eliminate this credited fault scenario by routing all four 345 kV transmission lines on separate towers and transmission paths. The team identified that the new design lacked physical independence from the other transmission lines, in that the physical separation or distance between the newly-installed towers and the existing towers was not adequate (illustrated in Figure 3 of Attachment 4). Specifically, the team determined that under specific circumstances, the credited mechanical tower failure could still result in the simultaneous loss of two transmission circuits based on the 75 foot distance between the original double-circuit tower and the newly-installed tower. The team concluded that this new design configuration of the transmission towers and offsite lines is not completely different from the original configuration, in regards to the credited fault scenario that results in the loss of three of the four transmission lines. Moreover, the team determined that the separation of the transmission lines onto individual towers, and the use of this assumption as a basis for removal of the SLOD SPS results in adverse effects on the specified UFSAR described design function of maintaining a stable electric grid.

As a result, the team determined that this automatic function could not have been substituted with human interaction (i.e., manual action within 0.30 seconds (18 cycles), the specified design function), and therefore, prior NRC approval was likely required.

Removal of the SLOD SPS may have caused more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of the offsite power system. Removal of the SLOD SPS without development of procedural guidance to direct operator action to reduce power in the event of the loss of transmission lines, did not minimize the probability of losing electric power from any of the remaining offsite lines as a result of loss of power from the transmission network.

...Dominion should have implemented the combined-unit output limitations such that given the event of May 25, 2014, neither unit would have experienced a LOOP.

...The major difference in risk being that the Unit 2 turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater (TDAFW) pump does not automatically start and the preferential use of the station blackout (SBO) EDG for Unit 3 during a dual-unit SBO event. inop 

Here the NRC says Dominion failed to notify the NRC through the 50.59 screening process they need no 50.59. See how contradictory and confused the agency is. I would consider Dominion maliciously and corruptly didn't fill out the paperwork to hide they were talking out the safety circuit on the transmission system. I'll bet you the ultimate motivation of Dominion, was we will yank out this safety circuit towards the ends of preventing unnecessary plant trips of the circuit fails or shorts.

Remember NRC allegations said repeatedly (the regional ISI guy at the plant submitted it to allegations and they immediately called me) said to me the inspectors our overwhelmed with 50.59 documents.. the inspectors can't possibly review each 50.59 or screen. I am tired of the officials making blind assertions without the evidence to back up their statement. Like how many 50.59s a year occur at Millstone. Does it seem reasonable the inspectors are overloaded with screenings and 50.59s? As I told the Allegation inspector, if the NRC was really a learning organization, they would transparently questions why they didn't see the screening documents and intervene on the design change to prevent removing the FSAR transmission safety circuits and withdrawing the site's power limitations that would have prevented the LOOP. A good regulator are supposed to see these accidents before they occur.

Remember, the 50.59 screening document is important. If there was no screening document, then Dominion was trying to obstruct the oversight of the regulators. If there was a 50.59 screening document, then the NRC has no excuse in not preventing this LOOP. The inspectors and higher officials are required to inspect all 50.59s and their screenings. If these inspector and managers don't have manpower(womenpower)to carry out their statutory and procedural requirement, then then they should be raising the roof of the NRC and commissioners itself, in they don't have enough resources to carry out their job according to NRC policy. I contend this is systemic upper level intimidation to the low level inspectors and managers that they can't raise issues that they can question if they have adequate resources to carry out their jobs according to NRC policy! Remember also, the nuclear utilities and the NEI inself contend, if the NRC inspectors and their managers had adequate funding for all their policies and rules, then the industry would be severely overregulated and then be put at a disadvantage to all the other grid energy sources. 

...These components, removal of SLOD and installation of the two transmission paths, were accomplished without direct supervision from Dominion. However, due to the elimination of SLOD, physical modification to the switchyard supervisory panel CRP 909, in the Millstone control room and updates of various Millstone documents, the UFSAR and operating procedures, were required. Dominion prepared and implemented a design change (MPG-12-01018) to accomplish these actions.                 

• (Enforcement)Dominion allowed a design change to the offsite power system (removal of the severe line outage detection system), a system described in the UFSAR, and failed to conduct a written evaluation or provide a basis for the determination that the change did not require a license amendment in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 (c)(2).

• (Inspection team)The elimination of SLOD also resulted in physical modifications to switchyard supervisory panel CRP 909 in the Millstone Unit 1 control room, and required updates to various Millstone documents, including the UFSAR and operating procedures. These modifications and document updates were performed through implementation of a design change process in accordance with Dominion fleet and Millstone-specific procedures. These design change documents included a 10 CFR 50.59 screening and applicable safety analysis report (SAR) change notices for both the Millstone Unit 2 and 3 UFSARs. 

The below is the old decentralization model where they allow all their nuclear plants to make up on their own codes and rules. Entergy and Palisades went through this "libertarian model" phase of corporate decentralization and obfuscation of high corporate control on their property and accountability.

One wonders if the same libertarian model of decentralization (contempt for standards of behavior, government and a higher authority) is going on between the NRC inspectors and their middle and upper managers. It is old high level executive protection racket! In other words, abandon the plant inspectors to the raging storm all around them, so they have to fight for survival on their own.     

...These components, removal of SLOD and installation of the two transmission paths, were accomplished without direct supervision from Dominion. However, due to the elimination of SLOD, physical modification to the switchyard supervisory panel CRP 909, in the Millstone control room and updates of various Millstone documents, the UFSAR and operating procedures, were required. Dominion prepared and implemented a design change (MPG-12-01018) to accomplish these actions.

...The team determined that Dominion’s failure to implement their design change process procedure was a performance deficiency. Dominion did not follow their design change process in evaluating the impact of the design on the offsite power requirements. This performance deficiency was more than minor because it was associated with design control attribute of the initiating events cornerstone and affected the cornerstone objective of limiting the likelihood of events that upset plant stability and challenge critical safety functions during shutdown and power operations.

...The May 25, 2014, event was outside of the Millstone licensing basis, because the sequence of occurrences that resulted in a dual-unit LOOP, was attributed to a fault on a transmission line that was properly cleared by relay operations at Millstone switchyard, but the same fault was sensed by a distance relay located in a substation several miles from the Millstone, which caused a loss of second transmission line.

The regulatory scheme is set up to alway reactive. They don't give the NRC inspectors and the NRC enough horsepower in the anticipatory mode! It is called being crazy, the control of the of the SLOD not being under NRC enforcement. There goes that libertarian (government hating) and decentralization model again? It is god damn pathetic when government employees favor the libertarian model...but it makes their jobs easier!  

Enforcement: This finding does not involve enforcement action because no violation of regulatory requirements was identified, as SLOD was a non-safety related system, and therefore, not subject to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B requirements. Dominion entered this performance deficiency into their corrective action program (CR 553968). Because this finding does not involve a violation of regulatory requirements and is of very low safety significance (Green), it is identified as a finding. (FIN 05000336, 423/2014011-02, Inadequate Implementation of Dominion’s Design Change Process).

NRC Oversight of Licensee’s Use of 10 CFR50.59 Process To Replace SONGS’ Steam Generators Case No. 13-006

Findings

Issue 1. Missed Opportunities During NRC Region  IV 2009 I Inspection

OIG found that NRC missed an opportunity during a 2009 triennial baseline inspection of SONGS' implementation of the 10 CFR 50.59 process to identify weaknesses in the SONGS steam generator 50.59 screening and evaluation package. While a Region IV inspection team selected the SONGS Unit 2 steam generator 1O CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation package as one of 35 items sampled during a 2009 triennial baseline ROP inspection at SONGS, the inspection team did not identify various shortcomings noted more recently by NRC subject matter experts who reviewed the steam generator screening and evaluation package subsequent to SONGS' shutdown due to problems with steam generator design.

The 2009 inspection team concluded from its review of the 35 items sampled that SONGS had correctly determined that the changes SONGS made could be made without a license amendment. However, the NRC subject matter experts who reviewed the Unit 2 steam generator screening and evaluation package following SONGS' shutdown identified questions pertaining to the Unit 2 steam generator 1O CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation, some of which NRC says cannot now be answered based on available information. The questions raised by the subject matter experts pertain to (1) insufficient support for 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation conclusions that contributed to the decision that a license amendment was not needed and (2) methodology changes that should have been considered for screening but were not listed in the screening documentation. OIG found that (1) without knowing whether everything that should have been screened was screened, and the outcomes of these screenings, and (2) without reviewing additional information concerning the evaluation conclusions, there is no assurance that NRC reached the correct conclusion in its 2009 inspection that SONGS did not need a license amendment for its steam generator replacement.

OIG found that the primary inspector who reviewed the SONGS Unit 2 steam generator 10 CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation package during the 2009 baseline inspection (at approximately the same time installation of the Unit 2 steam generators commenced) described conducting a review that aligned with inspection guidance, buts aid that in hindsight, with the experience he now has, he might have probed further into certain aspects of the screening and evaluation package. This inspector, and others interviewed during the investigation, identified a need for improvement in training and guidance to inspectors for the 50.59 inspection. Although several senior managers acknowledged some of the shortcomings in the SONGS screening and evaluation package, they supported NRC's inspection approach, which relies on sampling and judgments made by inspectors with different backgrounds and experience levels. One senior manager expressed confidence in the 50.59 inspection process, and noted that the purpose of NRC's 50.59 inspection is not to identify design flaws, but rather to determine whether licensees are correctly implementing the 50.59 rule and reaching the correct conclusions as to the need for NRC preapproval. At the same time, senior managers, subject matter experts, and inspectors expressed general agreement that NRC needs to improve its 10 CFR 50.59 inspection training and guidance.

Issue 2. AIT Review of SCE's 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation

OIG found that although an NRC Region IV2 Augmented Inspection Team (AIT), established to assess the circumstances surrounding the tube leak and unexpected wear of tubes in the Unit 3 steam generators, included a review of the SONGS 50.59 steam generator package to determine whether SONGS needed a license amendment prior to installing the new steam generators, the AIT did not document an answer to this question.  In its initial July 18, 2012, inspection report, the AIT communicated that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Project Manager assigned to perform the review identified one unresolved item (URI number 10, "Change of methodologies associated with 10 CFR 50.59 review'') for which additional information was needed to determine if performance deficiencies exist or if the issues constituted violations of NRC requirements. The URI described two instances that failed to adequately address whether the change involved a departure of the method of evaluation described in the UFSAR. Although NRC's November 9, 2012, AIT followup report documented the closure of this URI, and stated that neither change would have required a license amendment, it did not answer the overall question of whether a license amendment was required.

The AIT Team Leader and the current Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator told OIG that based on what NRC reviewed during its inspections, the conclusion was that a license amendment was not needed, although each allowed that the sampling approach used to perform this assessment could have missed something. The Acting NRR Director said he could not determine if an amendment was needed or not due to the gaps that may exist regarding items that may require screening and/or evaluation. The current Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator said additional inspection would be required to answer whether a license amendment was required, and questioned whether it would be a prudent use of resources to go back and accomplish that. The former Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator said that in hindsight, he believes that SONGS should have requested a license amendment from NRC prior to making the change. He also believes the steam generator design was fundamentally flawed and would not have been approved as designed. He said the AIT discussed a potential 50.59 criteria violation because of the design issues; however, the AIT ultimately identified a design control violation.

OIG found that NRC's justification for closing out URI number 1O does not align with specific language in 10 CFR 50.59 concerning NRC approval for a change in methodology, but was based instead on Region IV's interpretation (in consultation with NRR) of the rule.  10 CFR 50.59 (a)(2)(ii) reflects that changes from a method described in the UFSAR to another method are permissible without NRC preapproval if that method has already been approved by the NRC for the "intended" application.   In closing out the URI, however, the AIT followup report determined the change of methods would not have required a license amendment based on NRC's approval for the use of the method at other nuclear power plants in "similar'' applications. OIG notes that while the AIT characterized the issue as a change in methodology, it justified closing the matter based on approval for a "similar'' application rather than the "intended" application as stated by the rule.

OIG also notes that while the AIT inspection report identified an unresolved issue pertaining to the SONGS 10 CFR 50.59 screen and evaluation package, the NRR technical specialist who reviewed the package used a sampling approach and did not identify many of the shortcomings described under issue 1 of this report.

Issue 3. NRC Oversight of SONGS UFSAR

OIG found that NRC does not consistently use one of its primary oversight methods to assess whether licensees are keeping their power plant licensing basis documentation up to date as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e). Although licensees are required, per 10 CFR 50.71(e), to biannually submit UFSAR updates reflecting the current status of the facility so that the document can be used as a reference document in safety analysis, the NRR project managers tasked to review these submittals do not always conduct the reviews within the required 90-day timeframe. Moreover, although licensees also must biannually submit, per 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2), information concerning changes made under 10 CFR 50.59 without NRC prior approval, NRR project managers - who are instructed to consider this information during their review of 10 CFR 50.71(e) submittals - do not always take the 1O CFR 50.59(d)(2) information into consideration during their reviews. OIG found that while NRC expects a plant's UFSAR to accurately reflect a plant's licensing basis, the former Region IV Deputy Regional Administrator said that during the SONGS AIT, Region IV staff noted the licensee had made many changes to the steam generators over a 25-year period that were not reflected in the UFSAR or consistent with the original Safety Analysis Report (SAR.).

OIG reviewed documentation of project manager reviews in two NRR branches and found project managers reviewed only 5 of the 21 most recently received licensee UFSAR submittals within the 90-day timeframe, while 7 were reviewed between 90 days and a year after receipt, and 9 reports more than a year after receipt. Moreover, only two of the project manager reviews contained a reference to review of 10 CFR 50.59 documentation submitted by licensees even though project manager guidance directs that this occurs. OIG also found that over a 10-year period, NRC staff documented two reviews of changes to SONGS' UFSAR, although the licensee submitted six UFSAR updates during this period as required, and neither NRC review mentioned consideration of 10 CFR 50.59 changes.

Although senior NRC managers expect the project managers to conduct the reviews within the required timeframe, and to consider changes made under 10 CFR 50.59 as part of that review, two NRR project managers interviewed said the reviews are considered a low priority. Neither of the project managers included the 10 CFR 50.59 information in their reviews of 50.71(e) submittals; one thought this review was conducted by a different NRR group and the other thought the 10 CFR 50.59 information was used by regional inspectors for a different purpose.

In contrast, the Deputy Executive Director for Reactor Preparedness Programs considers NRC's oversight of 10 CFR 50.71(e) to be critical for enabling NRC to know whether a plant is in compliance with its licensing basis, and considers the project manager review of 50.71(e) submittals to be a priority.          While the former NRR Director also expected project managers to conduct the required reviews to assess whether changes made by the licensees have generally been updated into the FSAR, he viewed the project manager's review as a bookkeeping exercise that is based on the experience of the project manager. He noted that the FSAR review is a self-imposed requirement and if NRC is not meeting its own internal guidance, then it should either meet the requirement or change the guidance based on safety significance.

Hmm, 49,000 divided by 100 gives us on average 490 screening or 50.59s per year. Did anyone ever ask why does these old plants have so many 50.59 documents?

Nuclear reactor licensees have used the 10 CFR 50.59 process thousands of times to make changes without NRC preapproval. Licensees conduct about 475 1O CFR 50.59 screenings per unit per year, and about five 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations per unit per year for a nationwide total of about 49,000 screenings and evaluations per year.

Sampling

As noted in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2515, "Light-Water Reactor9 10 Inspection Program - Operations Phase," the NRC inspection program covers only small samples of licensee activities in any particular area. The sample sizes specified in the inspection procedures are based on the relative importance of the area covered by the procedures to the other areas inspected by the program. They are also based on the inspectors choosing a "smart" sample instead of a statistically based random sample because the risk-informed nature of the inspection program requires the inspections to be focused on those aspects of plant operations and licensee activities that could pose the greatestrisk to public health and safety.

...The four-page 2008 inspection procedure directed inspectors to (a) triennially review 6 to 12 licensee evaluations required by 10 CFR 50.59 and 12 to 25 changes, tests, or experiments that were screened out by the licensee and (b) triennially review 5 to 15 permanent plant modifications. The overall resource estimate was 172 to 212 hours for the entire inspection, which "should be performed by engineering specialists knowledgeable in the affected subject areas."

...First, OIG compared the SONGS' Unit 2 steam generator 10 CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation against the UFSAR that would have been available to the 2009 inspection team and identified at least 14 changes in methods of evaluation used to test the new design in the UFSAR that were not listed in the SONGS screening. 

...The Team Leader thought existing 10 CFR 50.59 guidance could be improved. She said she attended a November 2011 counterpart meeting for alignment between the regions on implementation of the 50.59 inspection procedure.  She recalled that each region interpreted the inspection procedures differently. Additionally, the Team Leader said there was no specific training for 50.59. She thought NRC has a good 50.59 inspection program, but it needs to be revamped to eliminate these discrepancies.

...However, he said his approach would be to go through each UFSAR chapter and "Google search steam generator. Every time steam generator comes up, I'm going to read the pertinent information."

So the question from the lessons learned...why didn't the Millstone interviened before they took out the SLOD and change the transmission system. 

Issue 1. Missed Opportunities During NRC Region IV 2009 I Inspection

OIG found that NRC missed an opportunity during a 2009 triennial baseline inspection of SONGS' implementation of the 10 CFR 50.59 process to identify weaknesses in the SONGS steam generator 50.59 screening and evaluation package. While a Region IV inspection team selected the SONGS Unit 2 steam generator 1O CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation package as one of 35 items sampled during a 2009 triennial baseline ROP inspection at SONGS, the inspection team did not identify various shortcomings noted more recently by NRC subject matter experts who reviewed the steam generator screening and evaluation package subsequent to SONGS' shutdown due to problems with steam generator design.

The 2009 inspection team concluded from its review of the 35 items sampled that SONGS had correctly determined that the changes SONGS made could be made without a license amendment. However, the NRC subject matter experts who reviewed the Unit 2 steam generator screening and evaluation package following SONGS' shutdown identified questions pertaining to the Unit 2 steam generator 1O CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation, some of which NRC says cannot now be answered based on available information. The questions raised by the subject matter experts pertain to (1) insufficient support for 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation conclusions that contributed to the decision that a license amendment was not needed and (2) methodology changes that should have been considered for screening but were not listed in the screening documentation. OIG found that (1) without knowing whether everything that should have been screened was screened, and the outcomes of these screenings, and (2) without reviewing additional information concerning the evaluation conclusions, there is no assurance that NRC reached the correct conclusion in its 2009 inspection that SONGS did not need a license amendment for its steam generator replacement.

FOREIGN MATERIAL FOUND IN A MOTOR LEAD RENDERED A MOTOR DRIVEN AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMP INOPERABLE

UNIT 2 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT 2014-004-00

So basically in Unit 2, the ‘B' Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater (MDAFW) Pump was inop from May 2000 to at least April 10, 2014. Catch the overlap of increased risk with removing SLOD in 2012 and the inop of the pump until Apil 2014?

Think about the prolong unreliability of Unit 3's Turbine Driven Auxiliary feedwater pump 

While de-terminating the motor leads for the 'B' Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater (MDAFW) Pump motor, foreign material (ty-wraps and a plastic bag) were found inside the cable environmental seal (Raychem boot) of the 'A' phase.

This motor was last re-terminated In May 2000.

Since the Raychem boot was not in the as tested environmentally qualified (EQ) configuration the 'B' MDAFW pump was considered inoperable.

Plant Technical Specifications (TS) 3.7.2.1 Action d, requires, if two AFW pumps are inoperable in operating MODES 1, 2, and 3, the plant must be placed in at least HOT STANDBY within six hours and in HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 12 hours.

A review of the control room logs for the past three years determined there were 4 occasions where there were two AFW pumps inoperable for longer than allowed by TS. The direct cause was an historical inappropriate maintenance practice which rendered the MDAFW pump inoperable. The 'A' phase motor lead was subsequently properly re-terminated.

So basically in Unit 2,  the ‘B' Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater (MDAFW) Pump was inop from May 2000 to at least April 10, 2014. Catch the overlap of increased risk with removing SLOD in 2012 and the  inop  of the pump until Aril 2014?   

While de-terminating the motor leads for the 'B' Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater (MDAFW) Pump motor, foreign material (ty-wraps and a plastic bag) were found inside the cable environmental seal (Raychem boot) of the 'A' phase.

This motor was last re-terminated In May 2000.

Since the Raychem boot was not in the as tested environmentally qualified (EQ) configuration the 'B' MDAFW pump was considered inoperable.

Plant Technical Specifications (TS) 3.7.2.1 Action d, requires, if two AFW pumps are inoperable in operating MODES 1, 2, and 3, the plant must be placed in at least HOT STANDBY within six hours and in HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 12 hours.

A review of the control room logs for the past three years determined there were 4 occasions where there were two AFW pumps inoperable for longer than allowed by TS. The direct cause was an historical inappropriate maintenance practice which rendered the MDAFW pump inoperable. The 'A' phase motor lead was subsequently properly re-terminated.

Nuclear Energy Institute GUIDELINES FOR 10 CFR 50.59 IMPLEMENTATION

See, the NEI is tasked with advocating for the economic interest of a licensee. They do a good job for the utilities. From a public safety perspective, you should be thinking look at how close to the new delay relay time is from the actual start time and the legal limit. Then you are moving the new relay time right up to the safety limit of 12 seconds...you have to be thinking what safety limit and sensitivities are you getting closer too. You should be thinking what is the accuracy is of the new relay and its quality. You should be asking at what time limit pass 12 sec do you get core damage and the possibility containment failure. You would have to be think, this delay is moving right up to the safety limit, both DGs, I got to throw this into the full fledge 50.59 in order to cover my our asses. This isn't really a technical limit or legal limit, this is how we use our intelligence to protect of safety limits or protect our margin of safety. The idea of moving a DG start time really right up to its legal limit and then dumping it out of the 50.59 through a screening process is repugnant and nauseating.   

Pg 33:To further illustrate the distinction between 10 CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation, consider the example of a change to a diesel generator-starting relay that delays the diesel start time from 10 seconds to 12 seconds. The UFSAR-described design function credited in the ECCS analyses is for the diesel to start within 12 seconds. This change would screen out because it is apparent that the change will not adversely affect the diesel generator design function credited in the ECCS analyses (ECCS analyses remain valid)

DOMINION NUCLEARCONNECTICUT, INC. (DNC) MILLSTONE POWERSTATION UNITS 2 AND 3 RESPONSE TO AN APPARENT VIOLATION IN NRC SPECIALINSPECTION REPORT 05000336/2014011AND 05000423/2014011; EA-14-12

Apparent Violation

As stated in the summary section of NRC Special Inspection Report,05000336/2014011 and 05000423/2014011, during an NRC team inspection conducted between June 2 and July 15, 2014, "the NRC identified a Severity Level Ill Apparent Violation (A V) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.59, "Changes, Tests, and Experiments," for Dominion's failure to complete a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and obtain a license amendment for a change made to the facility as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Specifically, ... a special protection system (SPS), known as severe line outage detection (SLOD), [was removed] which was described in the UFSAR. Dominion concluded in the 10 CFR 50.59 screening that a full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not required and, therefore, prior NRC approval was not needed to implement this change. The team concluded that prior NRC approval likely was required because the removal of SLOD may have resulted in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of the offsite power system as described in the UFSAR."

Response to the Apparent Violation

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC) submits the following information in response to NRC Special Inspection Report 05000336/2014011 and 05000423/2014011 which was issued by the NRC on August 28, 2014. DNC chooses to respond in writing to AV 05000336/2014011 and 05000423/2014011 and declined the opportunity for a Pre-decisional Enforcement Conference (PEC) and the opportunity to request Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) during a phone call on September 8, 2014, between Lori Armstrong of DNC and Raymond McKinley, Chief, Division of Reactor Projects Branch 5, NRC Region I.

1) The reason for the Apparent Violation (AV) or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation DNC does not contest the apparent violation.

NRC's review and approval of the change to the Millstone Power Station Unit 2 (MPS2) and 3 (MPS3) licensing basis for the removal of SLOD was not requested by DNC because of an inadequately prepared 10 CFR 50.59 screen. In the 10 CFR 50.59 screen, Engineering personnel failed to consider that the removal of SLOD was an adverse change relating to DNC's compliance with General Design Criteria (GDC) 17, and therefore did not conclude that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was needed.

The root cause evaluation for this AV identified the direct cause as a lack in proficiency and skill in performing 10 CFR 50.59 screens. The root cause for this AV was determined to be that continuing training was not adequate to maintain the proficiency and skills for consistent, accurate screens. Corrective actions were needed to address the screening deficiency identified in the apparent violation.

The complexities associated with the technical issue, multiple responsible entities involved, and understanding of the MPS2 and MPS3 licensing basis are also relevant to understanding the contributing factors for the AV. During review of this AV, it was determined that DNC's error of not performing a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation occurred during the design development for the removal of SLOD by the transmission owner, Northeast Utilities (NU). During the design development, DNC did not recognize that NU's removal of SLOD resulted in a change in the method of compliance with GDC 17 that required DNC to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation. This matter is further addressed in the Additional Information provided below.

2) The corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved

With removal of SLOD, and as discussed in the Additional Information provided below, the station no longer met the method for compliance with GDC 17 approved by the NRC at the time of original licensing of MPS3. As documented in NRC Special Inspection Report 05000336/2014011 and 05000423/2014011, DNC implemented a compensatory measure by issuing an Operations standing order for interim guidance on future offsite line outages and plant generation output. In March 2014, prior to the NRC Special Inspection, DNC had separately implemented improvements in the procedural guidance for performing 10 CFR 50.59 screenings.

These improvements were the result of DNC identified gaps in performance of 10 CFR 50.59 screenings. Improvements included a major rewrite and expansion of the guidance for completing 10 CFR 50.59 screens using a more user-friendly format. The procedure now includes more detailed guidance for responses to each section of the screen form including direct references to NEI 96-07, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation.

In August 2014, training was provided on an expedited basis to a select population (the majority) of 10 CFR 50.59 screeners. The training included discussion on the fundamentals of GDC compliance and the importance of identifying and reviewing the impacts of design changes upon the licensing basis, including the FSAR. Only personnel who have received the training are presently qualified to perform 10 CFR 50.59 screens.

Design changes scheduled for implementation in the remainder of 2014 have been reviewed by Design Engineering to determine whether adequate licensing basis reviews were conducted as part of the 10 CFR 50.59 screenings. No 10 CFR 50.59 screens were identified which should have concluded a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was required.

3) The corrective steps that will be taken

To become qualified to perform 10 CFR 50.59 screens, future training will include a discussion of the fundamentals of GDC compliance and the importance of identifying and reviewing the impacts of design changes upon the licensing basis, including the FSAR.

A review of the 10 CFR 50.59 screens for FSAR changes processed in the past three years will be conducted by April 1, 2015 to determine whether adequate licensing basis reviews were conducted.

DNC is evaluating options for addressing compliance with GDC 17. To complete this work, engineering analysis, including consideration of potential design modifications, is necessary. Upon completion, a License Amendment Request (LAR) will be submitted to the NRC requesting review and approval of a licensing basis change to the MPS2 and MPS3 FSAR that addresses the removal of SLOD. DNC will keep the senior resident inspector informed of the status and schedule for resolution.

4) The date when full compliance will be achieved

Full compliance was achieved when training was provided in August 2014. To ensure future continued compliance, the 10 CFR 50.59 training module will be updated to include a discussion of the fundamentals of GDC compliance and the importance of identifying and reviewing the impacts of design changes upon the licensing basis, including the FSAR.

Additional Information:

The SLOD system was owned by the transmission system owner, NU. Removal of SLOD was a result of a major transmission line upgrade project to improve grid reliability by separating lines and towers leaving the MPS switchyard. This separation allowed NU to eliminate SLOD, which they no longer considered reliable or secure. The upgrade, as it was presented, reduced risk to MPS and improved grid reliability to MPS. Representatives of DNC and NU participated in multiple Nuclear Plant Interface Meetings (NPIMs) coordinated by ISO New England (the transmission system operator). These meetings, which began several years in advance of the actual physical modifications, included discussions of proposed changes to the transmission system.

The transmission upgrade project by NU involved rerouting the transmission lines from four lines on two towers to four lines on four separate towers. The removal of SLOD was presented in the aggregate as an improvement in grid reliability, conforming to present transmission system standards. According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation standard on special protection systems (SPSs), SPSs such as SLOD carry with them unique risks including, risk of failure on demand and inadvertent activation, and risk of interacting with other SPSs in unintended ways. Thus, at the time, DNC, ISO New England, and NU believed that separation of the towers/lines removed the vulnerability which SLOD was installed to mitigate and represented an improvement in grid reliability. Therefore, following tower line separation, SLOD was disabled and eventually removed. DNC recognizes that during the design development for the modified transmission circuits, there were opportunities to understand that the Millstone licensing basis was impacted by the removal of SLOD and that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation would be required. DNC accepted the changes proposed and approved by NU, ISO New England, and the Northeast Power Coordinating Council without adequately considering the impact to the MPS licensing basis. The complexities associated with the specific technical issue, multiple responsible entities involved, and understanding of the licensing basis all played a part in the failure to recognize the impact of the change on the licensing basis.

The 10 CFR 50.59 screen failed to consider that the removal of SLOD was an adverse change relating to DNC's compliance with GDC 17, and therefore did not conclude that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was needed. It was the belief that the tower and line separation project, including SLOD removal, was undertaken by NU for the sole reason to enhance grid stability and reliability, providing a more stable source of offsite power to MPS. That belief resulted in the DNC mindset that the removal of SLOD references from the FSARs did not require further evaluation. Following the May 25, 2014 event, DNC recognized that SLOD was credited for GDC 17 compliance and its removal should have been considered an adverse change requiring a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation.

Extensive engineering analysis, including consideration of potential design modifications, is ongoing to address DNC's compliance with GDC 17. Upon completion of this work, a LAR will be submitted to the NRC requesting review and approval of licensing basis changes to the MPS2 and MPS3 FSARs for GDC 17.

As noted in the response to Question 3, improving sensitivity to the license basis and the 10 CFR 50.59 requirements is being addressed by training to prevent future similar situations.