IR 05000443/2009003
| ML092050679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/2009 |
| From: | Arthur Burritt Reactor Projects Branch 3 |
| To: | St.Pierre G NextEra Energy Seabrook |
| Burritt A RGN-I/DRP/PB3/610-337-5069 | |
| References | |
| IR-09-003 | |
| Download: ML092050679 (21) | |
Text
uly 24, 2009
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000443/2009003
Dear Mr. St. Pierre:
On June 30, 2009, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings which were discussed on July 1, 2009, with Mr. S and other members of your staff.
This 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.
On the basis of the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and 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 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/
Arthur L. Burritt, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure: Inspection Report No. 05000443/2009003 w/ Attachment: Supplemental Information Docket No. 50-443 License No: NPF-86
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000443/2009003; 4/1/2009-6/30/2009; Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; Routine Integrated
Report.
The report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident and regional specialist inspectors. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated December 2006.
No findings of significance were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
Summary of Plant Status
Seabrook operated at or near full power for the entire period.
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
1R01 Adverse Weather Preparation (71111.01 - 1 Sample)
.1 Readiness for Seasonal Extreme Weather Conditions
a. Inspection Scope
The inspector completed one seasonal extreme weather conditions inspection sample.
The inspectors assessed NEXTeras readiness for the onset of extreme hot weather conditions. The inspectors reviewed the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR)descriptions for related design features and verified the adequacy of the station procedures for hot weather protection. The inspectors reviewed NEXTeras actions per procedure ON1490.09 for seasonal readiness, and procedure OS1200.03 for severe weather. The inspectors also conducted walkdowns of susceptible systems, specifically the emergency feedwater and service water systems. The inspectors reviewed deficiencies related to extreme weather preparation and verified the issues were entered into the corrective action program. The references used for this review are listed in A.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R04 Equipment Alignment (71111.04 - 3 Samples,
==71111.04S - 1 Samples)
.1 Partial System Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
==
The inspectors completed three partial system walkdown inspection samples for the plant systems listed below. The inspectors verified that valves, switches, and breakers were correctly aligned in accordance with Seabrook's procedures and that conditions that could affect system operability were appropriately addressed. The inspectors reviewed applicable piping and instrumentation drawings and system operational lineup procedures.
Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in the Attachment.
- Turbine driven emergency feedwater pump and associated support systems during a planned maintenance was conducted on the 345 KV line on 5/18/09
- 345 KV switchyard and the A emergency diesel generator (EDG) and associated support systems during planned 345KV line relay calibrations on 6/11/09
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Complete Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed a complete system walkdown inspection of the emergency feedwater system (EFW) to verify the system was properly aligned and capable of performing its safety function. To ascertain the required system configuration, the inspectors reviewed plant procedures, system drawings, the UFSAR, and the TS. The inspectors walked down the accessible portions of the system to verify overall material condition; that valves were correctly positioned; that electrical power was available; that major system components were properly labeled; that essential support systems are operational; and that ancillary equipment or debris did not interfere with system performance. The inspectors reviewed applicable piping and instrumentation drawings and system operational lineup procedures. Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in Attachment A.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R05 Fire Protection (71111.05Q - 4 Samples,
==71111.05A - 1 Sample)
.1 Quarterly Review of Fire Areas:
a. Inspection Scope
==
The inspectors completed four quarterly fire protection inspection samples. The inspectors examined the areas of the plant listed below to assess: the control of transient combustibles and ignition sources; the operational status and material condition of the fire detection, fire suppression, and manual fire fighting equipment; the material condition of the passive fire protection features; and the compensatory measures for out-of-service or degraded fire protection equipment. The inspectors verified that the fire areas were maintained in accordance with applicable portions of Fire Protection Pre-Fire Strategies and Fire Hazard
Analysis.
- Emergency Feedwater Pump House (EFP-F-1-A)
- Control Room complex (CR-F-3A/B/C-A)
- B RHR Vault (RH-F-1A, 3A, 4A)
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Annual Inspection
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed one annual fire drill observation inspection sample. The inspectors observed an announced fire brigade drill on May 12, 2009, on the 7 elevation of the PAB. The inspectors observed brigade performance during the drill to evaluate the following: donning and use of protective equipment; fire brigade leader command and control; fire brigade response time; radio communications; and the use of pre-fire plans.
The inspectors attended the post-drill critique and reviewed the disposition of issues and deficiencies identified during the drill. The inspectors also verified that all fire fighting equipment used during the drill was returned to a condition of readiness.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R06 Flood Protection Measures (71111.06 - 1 Sample)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed one flood protection measures inspection sample. The inspectors reviewed the flood protection measures designed to protect the east main steam and feedwater (MS & FW) building from the effects of internal flooding. The inspectors reviewed NEXTeras flooding evaluation for the selected areas, the availability and testing of MS & FW building flooding alarms and alarm response procedures. The inspectors also performed walkdowns of the selected areas to verify that as-found equipment and conditions were consistent with the design basis documents. Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in the Attachment.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R07 Heat Sink Performance (71111.07A - 1 Sample)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed a heat sink inspection sample for the "A" emergency diesel generator jacket water heat exchanger to determine whether the heat exchanger could fulfill the design function. The inspectors reviewed thermal performance monitoring (WO 0509597), trending data for heat exchanger temperatures and fouling factors, and ES1850.017, "SW Heat Exchanger Program," Revision 0. The inspectors interviewed the system engineer to evaluate the process used to monitor the heat exchanger and commitments in Generic Letter 89-13, "Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment." The inspectors conducted system walkdowns and reviewed condition reports to verify that issues were identified and corrected associated with the heat exchangers.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program
.1 Quarterly Resident Inspector Review
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed one quarterly licensed operator requalification program inspection sample. Specifically, the inspectors observed simulator examination of licensed operators on June 4 and 5, 2009, for scenarios involving transients and design basis events. The inspectors reviewed operator actions to implement the abnormal and emergency operating procedures. The inspectors examined the operators ability to perform actions associated with high-risk activities, the Emergency Plan, previous lessons learned items, and the correct use and implementation of procedures. The inspectors observed and reviewed the training evaluators critique of operator performance and verified that deficiencies were adequately identified, discussed, and entered into the corrective action program, as appropriate. The inspectors reviewed the simulators physical fidelity in order to verify similarities between the Seabrook control room and the simulator. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
The inspector also reviewed licensed operator just-in-time training on May 6, 2009, for the operator response actions to simulated events resulting from construction activities in the 345KV switchyard.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12Q - 2 Samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed two maintenance effectiveness inspection samples.
The inspectors reviewed performance-based problems or performance and condition history reviews involving selected in-scope structures, systems or components (SSCs) to assess the effectiveness of the maintenance program. Reviews focused on: proper Maintenance Rule (MR) scoping in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65; characterization of reliability issues; tracking system for component unavailability; 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(1) and (a)(2) classifications; identifying and addressing common cause failures, trending key parameters, and the appropriateness of performance criteria for SSCs classified (a)(2)as well as the adequacy of goals and corrective actions for SSCs classified (a)(1). The inspectors reviewed system health reports, maintenance backlogs, and MR basis documents. Other documents reviewed for the inspection are listed in the Attachment.
The following samples were reviewed:
- Service water system traveling water screen performance (AR01189905).
- B EDG performance following a jacket water cooling system leak, resulting in a maintenance rule and maintenance preventable functional failure (AR121440). NRC review of this area is also described in Report 2009002.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Evaluation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed four maintenance risk assessment and emergent risk evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed the scheduling and control of the emergent work activities listed below to evaluate the effect on plant risk. The inspectors conducted interviews with operators, risk analysts, maintenance technicians, and engineers to assess their knowledge of the risk associated with the work, and to ensure that appropriate risk management actions were implemented. The actions taken were evaluated using the following Seabrook procedures: Maintenance Manual 4.14, "Troubleshooting, Revision 0 and Work Management Manual 10.1, "On-Line Maintenance, Revision 3. Specific risk assessments were conducted using Seabrook's "Safety Monitor." The inspectors reviewed NEXTera actions and risk assessments to address deficiencies and verified the issues were entered into the corrective action program. The inspectors reviewed the following work activities:
- Planned switchyard modification and steel erection work from 4/1 to 6/30/09 (WO 00628724, 00628743)
- Emergent work to replace supplemental emergency power supply SEPS 2B battery bank after it failed during testing on 5/21/09 (WO 94001046 / AR 00197823)
- Emergent maintenance due to a degraded bolting condition on service water valve SW-V-515 on 5/27/09 (WO 01176325)
- Planned maintenance on emergency feedwater pump FW-P-37B and containment building spray valve CBS-V-5 on 5/18/09 (WO 01176294)
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R15 Operability Evaluations (71111.15 - 5 Samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed five operability evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed operability evaluations and condition reports to verify that identified conditions did not adversely affect safety system operability or overall plant safety. The evaluations were reviewed using criteria specified in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-20, Revision to Guidance formerly contained in NRC Generic Letter 91-18, Information to Licensees Regarding two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operability and Inspection Manual Part 9900, "Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety." In addition, where a component was determined to be inoperable, the inspectors verified that TS limiting condition for operation implications were properly addressed. The inspectors also performed field walk downs and interviewed personnel involved in identifying, evaluating or correcting the identified conditions. The following items were reviewed:
- AR197823, control rod bank A group demand indicator operability when the step counter broke during testing
- AR 198881, inadequate visual inspection of steam generator and pressurizer manways
- AR 195112 and 195167, operability of the RCS leak detection system with the containment radiation monitor inoperable
- AR 194816, service water pipe degradation downstream of orifice 1-SW-RO-6107, and 1-SW-RO-6104 (AR194818)
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing (71111.19 - 5 Samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed five post-maintenance testing (PMT) inspection samples. The inspectors observed portions of PMT activities in the field to verify the tests were performed in accordance with the approved procedures. The inspectors assessed the test adequacy by comparing the test methodology to the scope of maintenance work performed. The inspectors evaluated established test acceptance criteria to verify that the reviewed test procedures ensured that systems and components satisfied applicable design, licensing bases and technical specification (TS) requirements. The inspectors also reviewed the recorded data to confirm applicable acceptance criteria were satisfied during testing. The activities reviewed included:
- WO 01174967 which involved the Train A ESFAS Slave Relay K643 Quarterly Go Test for work completed on 1-CBS-V38 on 04/16/09
- WO 01189905 which involved work on the Service Water Traveling Screen (SW-SR-2-A) on 04/23/09
- WO94000972 retest following emergent maintenance of C steam generator ASDV pressure indicating channel MS-PI-3003 failure on 5/15/09
- Post modification testing to commission the main generator power system stabilizer per IPTE EX2100 on 6/12/09
- WO01191668 leak rate retest of the containment inner door following failure of the personnel hatch leak rate test due to a failed test assembly on 6/17/09
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R22 Surveillance Testing (71111.22 - 6 Samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed portions of surveillance testing activities of safety-related systems to verify that the system and components were capable of performing their intended safety function, to verify operational readiness, and to ensure compliance with required Technical Specifications and surveillance procedures. The inspectors attended selected pre-evolution briefings, performed system and control room walkdowns, observed operators and technicians perform test evolutions, reviewed system parameters, and interviewed the system engineers and field operators. The test data recorded was compared to procedural and technical specification requirements, and to prior tests to identify any adverse trends. The inspection included the following six surveillance samples:
- OX1401.03, Revision 8, RCS Vent Path Block Valve Quarterly, Cold Shutdown, and 18 Month Surveillance Test, Revision 08 on 04/08/09
- OS1023.51, Control Room Ventilation and Air Conditioning System Operations, Revision 15 04/14/09
- OX1416.05, Service Water Cooling Tower Pumps Quarterly and 2 Year Comprehensive Test, Revision 07 on 04/16/09
- CS0910.01, Primary Systems Sampling at SS-CP-166A, Revision 10 on 06/30/09
- CS0925.01, Reactor Coolant Post Accident Sampling, Revision 11 on 04/15/09
- IX 1668.341, Containment Pressure P-937 Protection Channel 1 Test, Revision 06 (WO 01179491) on 6/19/09
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA1 Performance Indicator (PI) Verification (71151 - 3 Samples)
a. Inspection Scope
Cornerstone: Mitigating System
The inspectors reviewed NEXTera information from the second quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009 for the Seabrook mitigating systems performance index (MSPI) PIs listed below:
- Cooling Water System MSPI
- Safety System Functional Failure The inspectors reviewed the consolidated data entry MSPI derivation reports for the unavailability and unreliability indexes (UAI and URI) for the monitored systems; the monitored component demands and demand failure data for the monitored systems; and the train and system unavailability data for the monitored systems. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the data by comparing it to corrective action program records, control room operators logs, maintenance rule performance and scope reports, system performance/health reports, the equipment/operability issues database, the site operating history database, key performance indicator summary records, operating data reports and the MSPI basis document. To confirm the accuracy of the PI data reported during that period, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Indicator Guideline," Revision 5, was used to verify the basis for reporting each data element.
Cornerstone: Barrier Integrity
- RCS Specific Activity The inspectors observed sample collection and reviewed the results of an RCS sample for iodine analysis performed on June 30, 2009, per procedure CS0910.01. The inspectors compared the analysis results of the sample performed by the chemistry department to the limits in T5 3.4.8, Specific Activity, and previously reported RCS activity performance indicator data.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems (71152 - 2 Samples)
.1 Review of Items Entered into the Corrective Action Program
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 items entered into the Seabrook corrective action program (CAP). This review was accomplished by accessing NEXTeras computerized database.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Semi-annual Review to Identify Trends
a. Inspection Scope
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Problem Identification and Resolution, the inspectors performed a review of the Seabrook CAP and associated documents to identify trends that may indicate existence of safety significant issues. The inspectors review was focused on repetitive equipment and corrective maintenance issues, but also considered the results of daily CAP item screening. The inspectors compared their results with the results contained in the Seabrook CAP Quarterly Trend Reports.
b. Assessment and Observations No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors did not identify any trends that NEXTera had not already identified.
.3 Annual Review of Operator Workarounds
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors completed one problem identification and resolution annual inspection sample by completing a review of operator workarounds at Seabrook. The inspectors reviewed Seabrook=s open operator workarounds and burdens to assess the cumulative impact of these issues on an operator=s ability to implement emergency procedures or respond to plant transients. The inspectors verified that identified workarounds were properly tracked and that corrective maintenance for each issue was appropriately scheduled based on safety significance and the potential impact on plant operation.
The inspectors examined Seabrook procedure NAP-402, "Conduct of Operations,@
K, "Operator Workarounds and Burdens, to verify that the procedure provided the guidance necessary to adequately assess and address the cumulative impact of identified workarounds on the safe operation of the plant. The inspectors reviewed "turnover" information and toured the plant to verify that degraded conditions were appropriately identified and assessed as an operator workaround or burden.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA5 Other Activities
.1 Quarterly Resident Inspector Observations of Security Personnel and Activities
a. Inspection Scope
During the inspection period the inspectors conducted observations of security force personnel and activities to ensure that the activities were consistent with NEXTera security procedures and regulatory requirements related to nuclear plant security.
These observations took place during both normal and off-normal plant working hours.
These observations did not constitute an additional inspection sample. Rather, they were considered an integral part of the inspectors' normal plant status reviews and inspection activities.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA6 Meetings, including Exit
Exit Meeting Summary
The inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Paul Freeman on July 1, 2009, following the conclusion of the period. NEXTera Energy acknowledged the findings presented and indicated that none of the information presented at the exit meeting was proprietary.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee personnel
- B. Brown, Plant Engineer
- R. Campo, Plant Engineer
- D. Robinson, Chemistry Manager
- J. Finnigan, Procedures
- M. Forrest, Shift Manager
- P. Freeman, Plant General Manager
- M. Hansen, Shift Manager
- R. Jamison, Design Engineer Electrical
- G. Kim, Risk Analyst
- E. Metcalf, Operations Manager
- D. Master, Plant Engineer
- B. McAllister, SW System Engineer
- W. Meyer, Radiation Protection Manager
- M. OKeefe, Licensing Manager
- M. Ossing, Engineering Support Manager
- R. Plante, Maintenance Supervisor
- G. Sessler, EDG System Engineer
- G. St. Pierre, Site Vice President
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
None
Opened and Closed
None
Discussed
None