IR 05000333/2008002
| ML081120244 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/2008 |
| From: | Cobey E Reactor Projects Branch 2 |
| To: | Peter Dietrich Entergy Nuclear Northeast |
| Cobey, Eugene W. RI/DRP/PB2/610-337-5171 | |
| References | |
| IR-08-002 | |
| Download: ML081120244 (19) | |
Text
April 21, 2008
SUBJECT:
JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000333/2008002
Dear Mr. Dietrich:
On March 31, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on April 4, 2008, with you and other members of your staff.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web Site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Eugene W. Cobey, Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No.:
50-333 License No.: DPR-59
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 05000333/2008002 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
cc w/encl:
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000333/2008-002; 01/01/2008 - 03/31/2008; James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant;
Routine Integrated Inspection Report.
The report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated December 2006.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
Licensee-Identified Violations
None.
REPORT DETAILS
Summary of Plant Status
The James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant began the inspection period operating at full power. On January 14, 2008, Entergy conducted a planned power reduction to 65 percent to remove debris from a circulating water system condenser waterbox. Following debris removal, the plant was returned to full power later the same day. On January 25, 2008, Entergy conducted a planned power reduction to 55 percent to conduct power suppression testing to identify a fuel defect. Following the identification and suppression of the fuel defect, the plant was returned to full power on January 30, 2008. The plant continued to operate at or near full power for the remainder of the inspection period.
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
==1R04 Equipment Alignment
==
.1 Partial System Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed partial system walkdowns to verify the operability of redundant or diverse trains and components during periods of system train unavailability or following periods of maintenance. The inspectors referenced the system procedures, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), and system drawings in order to verify that the alignment of the available train was proper to support its required safety functions. The inspectors also reviewed applicable condition reports (CRs) and work orders to ensure that Entergy had identified and properly addressed equipment discrepancies that could potentially impair the capability of the available equipment train, as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action. The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. The inspectors performed a partial walkdown of the following systems which represented four inspection samples:
- B emergency service water system when the A emergency service water system was out of service for planned maintenance;
- A core spray system when the B core spray system was out of service for planned maintenance;
- High pressure coolant injection system when the reactor core isolation cooling system was out of service for planned maintenance; and
- B residual heat removal system when the A residual heat removal system was out of service for planned maintenance.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Complete System Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed a complete system alignment inspection of the emergency diesel generator system to identify any discrepancies between the existing equipment lineup and the required lineup. During the inspection, system drawings and operating procedures were used to verify proper equipment alignment and operational status. The inspectors reviewed the open maintenance work orders associated with the system for any deficiencies that could affect the ability of the system to perform its function.
Documentation associated with unresolved design issues such as temporary modifications, operator workarounds, and items tracked by plant engineering were also reviewed to assess their collective impact on system operation. In addition, the inspectors reviewed the condition report database to verify that equipment problems were being identified and appropriately resolved. The documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the Attachment. The inspection represented one inspection sample.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R05 Fire Protection
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors conducted tours of fire areas to assess the material condition and operational status of fire protection features. The inspectors verified, consistent with applicable administrative procedures, that: combustibles and ignition sources were adequately controlled; passive fire barriers, manual fire-fighting equipment, and suppression and detection equipment were appropriately maintained; and compensatory measures for out-of-service, degraded, or inoperable fire protection equipment were implemented in accordance with Entergys fire protection program. The inspectors evaluated the fire protection program against the requirements of Licensee Condition 2.C.3. The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
This inspection represented five inspection samples for fire protection tours and was conducted in the following plant areas:
- Fire Area/Zone II/CT-2, elevation 258 foot;
- Fire Area/Zone IC/CT-1, elevation 258 foot;
- Fire Area/Zone II/SW-2, elevation 272 foot;
- Fire Area/Zone IC/SW-1, elevation 272 foot; and
- Fire Area/Zone XII/SP-1, XIII/SP-2, IP/FP-1, FP-3 elevation 255 foot.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program
a. Inspection Scope
On March 3, 2008, the inspectors observed licensed operator simulator training to assess operator performance during several scenarios to verify that operator performance was adequate and evaluators were identifying and documenting crew performance problems. The inspectors evaluated the performance of risk significant operator actions, including the use of emergency operating procedures. The inspectors assessed the clarity and effectiveness of communications, the implementation of appropriate actions in response to alarms, the performance of timely control board operation and manipulation, and the oversight and direction provided by the shift manager. The inspectors also reviewed simulator fidelity to evaluate the degree of similarity to the actual control room. Licensed operator training was evaluated against the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses. The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. This observation of operator simulator training represented one inspection sample.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed performance-based problems involving selected in-scope structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to assess the effectiveness of the maintenance program. The reviews focused on:
- Proper Maintenance Rule scoping in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.65;
- Characterization of reliability issues;
- Changing system and component unavailability;
- 10 CFR Part 50.65 (a)(1) and (a)(2) classifications;
- Identifying and addressing common cause failures;
- Trending of system flow and temperature values;
- Appropriateness of performance criteria for SSCs classified (a)(2); and
- Adequacy of goals and corrective actions for SSCs classified (a)(1).
The inspectors reviewed system health reports, maintenance backlogs, and Maintenance Rule basis documents. The inspectors evaluated the maintenance program against the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.65. The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. The following maintenance effectiveness samples were reviewed and represented two inspection samples:
- Control rod drive system; and
- Emergency diesel generator system.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed maintenance activities to verify that the appropriate risk assessments were performed prior to removing equipment for work. The inspectors verified that risk assessments were performed as required by 10 CFR Part 50.65(a)(4),and were accurate and complete. When emergent work was performed, the inspectors verified that the plant risk was promptly reassessed and managed. The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. The review of the following activities represented five inspection samples:
- The week of January 13, 2008, which included a planned power reduction to 65 percent to remove debris from a circulating water system condenser waterbox, emergency service water system maintenance and reactor core isolation cooling system testing;
- The week of January 21, 2008, which included switchyard maintenance, D emergency diesel generator corrective maintenance, B recirculation system motor generator maintenance and a planned power reduction to 55 percent to conduct power suppression testing;
- The week of February 4, 2008, which included planned maintenance on the reactor core isolation cooling system;
- The week of March 3, 2008, which included planned maintenance on A trains of the residual heat removal and residual heat removal service water systems; and
- The week of March 17, 2008, which included emergent work to replace brushes on the A recirculation motor generator set, B standby liquid control pump maintenance, and B and D emergency diesel generator testing.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R15 Operability Evaluations
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed operability determinations to assess the acceptability of the evaluations; when needed, the use and control of compensatory measures; and compliance with Technical Specifications (TS). The inspectors review included a verification that the operability determinations were made as specified by ENN-OP-104, "Operability Determinations." The technical adequacy of the determinations was reviewed and compared to the Technical Specifications, UFSAR, and associated design basis documents. The following evaluations were reviewed and represented five inspection samples:
- CR 2007-04423, concerning loose conduit supports associated with the A emergency diesel generator train;
- CR 2008-00220, concerning operability of the B emergency service water train associated with a degraded basket strainer, 46STR-5B1;
- CR 2008-00271, concerning operability of the B emergency service water train associated with a basket strainer unable to be isolated, 46STR-5B2;
- CR 2008-00633, concerning a degraded temperature element well for element 10TE-94B in the residual heat removal system; and
- CR 2008-00977, concerning battery electrolyte on outside surfaces of station battery bank 71SB-1.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed post-maintenance test procedures and associated testing activities for selected risk-significant mitigating systems to assess whether the effect of maintenance on plant systems was adequately addressed by control room and engineering personnel. The inspectors verified that test acceptance criteria were clear, demonstrated operational readiness, and were consistent with design basis documentation; test instrumentation had current calibrations, adequate range, and accuracy for the application; and tests were performed, as written, with applicable prerequisites satisfied. Upon completion, the inspectors verified that equipment was returned to the proper alignment necessary to perform its safety function.
Post-maintenance testing was evaluated against the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, Test Control. The documents reviewed are listed in the
. The following post-maintenance test activities were reviewed and represented five inspection samples:
- Work order 51102061, involving chemical cleaning of supply piping for emergency service water unit coolers 67UC-16A and 67E-11;
- Work orders 136890 and 51567409, involving rocker arm assembly and valve bridge replacements on cylinders 13 and 20 of 93EDG-D;
- Work order 136632, involving repair to emergency service water pump B discharge strainer 46STR-5B2;
- Work order 51103191, involving modification and replacement of the residual heat removal service water keep fill check valve 10RHR-431A; and
- Work order 51513899, involving maintenance on B residual heat removal system components.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R22 Surveillance Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors witnessed performance of surveillance tests (STs) and/or reviewed test data of selected risk-significant SSCs to assess whether the SSCs satisfied Technical Specifications, UFSAR, Technical Requirements Manual, and Entergy procedure requirements. The inspectors verified that test acceptance criteria were clear, demonstrated operational readiness, and were consistent with design basis documents; test instrumentation had current calibrations, adequate range, and accuracy for the application; and tests were performed, as written, with applicable prerequisites satisfied.
Upon surveillance test completion, the inspectors verified that equipment was returned to the status specified to perform its safety function. The inspectors evaluated the tests against the requirements in Technical Specifications. The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. The following surveillance tests were reviewed and represented six inspection samples:
- ST-24J, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Flow Rate and Inservice Test, Revision 37;
- ST-3AB, Core Spray Loop B Monthly Operability Test, Revision 8;
- ST-40D, Daily Surveillance and Channel Check, Revision 104;
- ST-8Q, Testing of the Emergency Service Water System (IST), Revision 37;
- ST-3PB, Core Spray Loop B Quarterly Operability Test (IST), Revision 10.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
1EP6 Drill Evaluation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed emergency response organization activities during the emergency preparedness drill that was conducted on March 12, 2008. The inspectors verified that emergency classification declarations, notifications, and protective action recommendations were properly completed. The inspectors evaluated the drill against the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities. The inspectors observed Entergys critique and compared Entergys self-identified issues with observations from the inspectors review to ensure that performance issues were properly identified. This evaluation constituted one inspection sample.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems
.1 Routine Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R) Program Review
a. Inspection Scope
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of Problems, and in order to help identify repetitive equipment failures or specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of all items entered into Entergys corrective action program. The review was accomplished by accessing Entergys computerized database for CRs and attending CR screening meetings.
In accordance with the baseline inspection procedures, the inspectors selected items across the initiating events, mitigating systems, and barrier integrity cornerstones for additional follow-up and review. The inspectors assessed Entergys threshold for problem identification, the adequacy of the cause analyses, extent of condition review, operability determinations, and the timeliness of the specified corrective actions. The CRs reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
b.
Assessment and Observations
No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors determined that Entergy appropriately identified equipment, human performance and program issues at an appropriate threshold and entered them into the corrective action program.
.2 Annual Sample: Operator Workaround Program
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the cumulative effects of operator workarounds on the reliability, availability, potential for mis-operation of a system, and on the operators ability to implement abnormal or emergency operating procedures. The inspectors reviewed the results of Entergy surveillance test ST-99H, Operations Cumulative Impact Assessment, and the resolution of items identified in the assessment. The inspectors reviewed Entergys program for identifying operator workarounds at an appropriate threshold and for entering them into the corrective action program. In addition, the inspectors reviewed operation department records including standing orders for operational decision-making issues and operability evaluations.
b. Findings and Observations
No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors determined that Entergys corrective action program was effectively used to identify and resolve operator workarounds.
4OA6 Meetings, including Exit
Exit Meeting Summary
On April 4, 2008, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Peter T. Dietrich and other members of his staff. The inspectors asked Entergy whether any of the material examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. Entergy did not identify any material as proprietary information.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Entergy Personnel
- P. Dietrich, Site Vice President
- C. Adner, Manager Operations
- S. Bono, Director Engineering
- J. Costedio, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- P. Cullinan, Manager, Emergency Preparedness
- M. Durr, Manager, System Engineering
- B. Finn, Director Nuclear Safety Assurance
- D. Johnson, Manager, Training
- J. LaPlante, Manager, Security
- K. Mulligan, General Manager, Plant Operations
- J. Pechacek, Manager, Programs and Components Engineering
- J. Solowski, Radiation Protection
LIST OF ITEMS
OPEN, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened, Closed, or
Discussed
None