ML12174A020
| 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 assistance to 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 tested le*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