ML12174A020

Draft Letter from C. Miller,. Region I to P. Freeman, Site Vice President, North Region, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC; Subject: Seabrook Station - NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011010, W/Handwritten Notes

ML12174A020
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/04/2012
From:	Chris Miller Division of Reactor Safety I
To:	Freeman P NextEra Energy Seabrook
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0119, ir-11-010
Download: ML12174A020 (3)

See also: IR 05000443/2011010

Text

Inspector and Tech Reviewer Areas to focus on:

1. Cover letter messages and request

2. Executive Summary (ES) for appropriateness and need

3. Length of Open URI section 40A5.2

4. Summary of POD assumptions issues from TIA in ES and 40A5

5. What to address in plans is only in cover letter (management integration of inspector observations

to TIA)

6. No immediate safety concerns in ES only.

7. List of ACRONYMS and Reference list ???????

Mr. Paul Freeman 0L,,s,1S-1 -

Site Vice President, North Region

Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC

c/o Mr. Michael O'Keefe

P.O. Box 300

Seabrook, NH 03874

SUBJECT: SEABROOK STATION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000443/2011010

Dear Mr. Freeman:

On January 20, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection

at Seabrook Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which

were discussed on January M 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 Commission's rules and regulationsp, and with the conditions of your

license. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and

interviewed personnel. The focus of this inspection was activities surrounding your

development actions related to the Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) problem occurring in safety

related structuresd and other structures of regulatory importance (covered by the maintenance

rule). In particular, we reviewed your Prompt Operability Determinations for certain structures

based on best available information. At the beginning of the inspection report period we noted

some areas that still needed to be addressed based on available information!! and h NextEra

hdsatisfactorily addressed them with revisions to the documents.

On January 20, 2011 a final exit meeting was conducted and lead by Mr. Richard J. Conte,

Chief Engineering Branch No. 1 of my staff. During the meeting, my staff summarized the

change in status of the new findings and our plans to issue a Task Interface Agreement

between Region I and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation simultaneously with this report.

The TIA was placed in the public document room (ADAMS Accession No. MLXXXXXXX). The

purpose of the Task Interface Agreement was for the NRR staff to identify the review criteria in

evaluating the operabilitýdetermination for the "B" Electrical Tunnel affected by ASR (part of the

Control Building) in assistanceto o the Region I staff by addressing questions we had

on the matter.

Also I on January F0, we focused on and summarized observations on your plans with respect

to the unwritten assumptions in your operability determinations. The NRC staff noted that these

P. Freeman 2

determinations listed no assumptions in the applicable sections 9f the du:dUntsr 0 and that the

design basis code ACI 318-1971 was based on empirical data for determining certain

parameters that were a part of the design bases. AlsoPoison's ratio on concrete cores were

not being testedle*termineidi or evaluatedi and this ratio wasi usedýs j, in the

UFSAR. The assumption of this empirical data was that the relationships were for ASR free

concrete. Specific areas for which your plans do not address unwritten assumptions being

made in the prompt operability determinations were list in section 40A5.2

In consultation with our technical reviewers in headquarters and to address the current

shortcomings on unwritten assumptions for your operability determinations, we have determine

that your plans do not sufficiently provide information related to: 1) condition assessment

(extent and characterization); 2) cause ýp rcauses of the ASR as it impacts current degradation

and operability; 3) estimate of AS.R affected. are expansion to date and current 10r6 n

expansion rate; 4) interim structural assessment as it impacts current operability vs. longer term

structural assessment and longer term monitoring i ensure operability in the near future vs.

longer term of the duration of the license (1-2 years vs. longer); and, 5) short term mitigation or

needed remedial actions. This is in distinction to your overall comprehensive plan for the

problem.

Accordingly, we request that you provide 9 your plans to address the above issues within 30

days of the date of this inspection report. We hiaV noted that, from the exit meeting of January

I you have agreed to this request and to review the report in 15 days and let us know of your

plans to honor our request or identify the need for a management meeting. We further request

that, should a management meeting be needed on these issues, it should be conducted within

30 days of the date of this report and a final response time will be negotiated at the

management meeting. If your root cause evaluation scheduled for Feb. 2012 and the associate

corrective action plan for this significant condition adverse to quality addresses the above,

please use them to respond to our request.

Also, the report documents two NRC-identified findings of very low significance (Green) that

were determined to involve a violation of NRC requirements. Because of the very low safety

significance, and because they are entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is

treating these findings as Non-cited Violations, consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the NRC

Enforcement Policy. If you contest any non-cited violations in this report, you should provide a

response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN.: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-

0001; with copies to the Regional Administrator, Region I; the Director, Office of Enforcement,

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the NRC

Resident Inspector at Seabrook Station. In addition, if you disagree with the cross-cutting

aspect assigned to any finding in this report, you should provide a response'within 30 days of

the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional

Administrator, Region I, and the NRC Resident Inspector at Seabrook.

P. Freeman 2

In accordance with 10 CFR 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 component of the NRC's

document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at

http://www.nrc.qov/readinq-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

Christopher G. Miller, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No.: 50-443

License No.: NPF-86

Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 05000443/201110

w/Attachment: Supplemental Information

cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ