IR 05000395/2006002: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{IR-Nav| site = 05000395 | year = 2006 | report number = 002 | url = https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/oversight/reports/sum_2006002.pdf }}
{{Adams
| number = ML061140397
| issue date = 04/24/2006
| title = V. C. Summer Integrated Inspection Report 05000395-06-002 and Annual Assessment Summary
| author name = Landis K D
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/DRP/RPB5
| addressee name = Archie J B
| addressee affiliation = South Carolina Electric & Gas Co
| docket = 05000395
| license number = NPF-012
| contact person =
| document report number = IR-06-002
| document type = Inspection Report, Letter
| page count = 18
}}
 
{{IR-Nav| site = 05000395 | year = 2006 | report number = 002 }}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:
[[Issue date::April 24, 2006]]
 
South Carolina Electric & Gas CompanyATTN: Mr. Jeffrey B. Archie Vice President, Nuclear OperationsVirgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
 
P. O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065SUBJECT:VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTIONREPORT 05000395/2006002 AND ANNUAL ASSESSMENT
 
=SUMMARY=
Dear Mr. Archie:On March 31, 2006, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed aninspection at your Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. The enclosed integrated inspection reportdocuments the inspection results, which were discussed on April 11, 2006, with Mr. Jeff Archie and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance with the Commission's 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 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in theNRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) com ponent ofNRC's 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/Kerry D. Landis, Chief    Reactor Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor ProjectsDocket No.:  50-395License No.: NPF-12 Enclosure: NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000395/2006002                  w/Attachment: Supplemental Informationcc w/encl:  (See page 2)
SCE&G2cc w/encl:R. J. White Nuclear Coordinator  Mail Code 802 S.C. Public Service Authority Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionKathryn M. Sutton, Esq.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Electronic Mail DistributionHenry J. Porter, DirectorDiv. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
 
Dept. of Health and Environmental Control Electronic Mail DistributionR. Mike GandyDivision of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
 
S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control Electronic Mail DistributionRobert G. Sweet, ManagerNuclear Licensing  (Mail Code 830)
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionRobert M. Fowlkes, General ManagerEngineering Services South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionThomas D. Gatlin, General ManagerNuclear Plant Operations  (Mail Code 303)
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionDavid A. Lavigne, General ManagerOrganization Development South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Vigil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionDistribution w/encl:  (See page 3)
 
_________________________OFFICERII:DRPRII:DRPRII:DRSRII:DRSRII:DRPRII:DRPRII:DRPSIGNATUREJXZLXC per emailMSL forBWM1HJGKDL forJXZ forNAMEJZeilerMCainMScottBMillerHGepfordLGarnerJPolickoskiDATE04/21/200604/20/200604/24/200604/20/200604/21/200604/24/200604/21/2006 E-MAIL COPY?    YESNO      YESNO      YESNO      YESNO      YESNO      YESNO      YESNO EnclosureU. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONREGION IIDocket No.:50-395 License No.:NPF-12 Report No.:05000395/2006002 Licensee:South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Company Facility:Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Location:P. O. Box 88Jenkinsville, SC 29065Dates:January 1, 2006 - March 31, 2006 Inspectors:J. Zeiler, Senior Resident Inspector M. Cain, Resident Inspector J. Polickoski, Acting Resident Inspector B. Miller, Reactor Inspector, RII (Sections 1R12.2)
M. Scott, Senior Reactor Inspector, RII (Sections 1R12.2)Approved by:K. D. Landis, ChiefReactor Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor Projects EnclosureSUMMARY OF FINDINGSIR 05000395/2006002; 01/01/2006 - 03/31/2006; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station; RoutineIntegrated Report.The report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and oneannounced inspection by regional inspectors. No findings of significance were identified by the NRC. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red)using IMC 0609, "Significance Determination Process" (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. TheNRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors isdescribed in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 3, dated July 2000.A.
 
===NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings===
No findings of significance were identified.
 
===B.Licensee-Identified Violations===
None.
 
Enclosure
 
=REPORT DETAILS=
Summary of Plant StatusThe unit began the inspection period at 100 percent rated thermal power (RTP). The unitoperated at or near full power for the entire inspection period.1.REACTOR SAFETYCornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity1R01Adverse Weather Protection Unexpected Cold Weather Conditions
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors performed a readiness inspection during the week of February 13 forunexpected cold weather conditions. The inspectors reviewed the site's preparations and evaluated the implementation of Operations Administrative Procedure (OAP)-109.1,"Guidelines for Severe Weather."  The inspectors walked down accessible areas of risk-significant equipment, including, but not limited to, level instrumentation associated withthe refueling water storage tank and condensate storage tank, to assess whether the equipment was adequately protected from cold weather conditions. The inspectors evaluated the status of freeze protection equipment and alarms to verify there were no degradations which could challenge the capability of equipment important to plantoperation or safety. Also, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective action program (CAP) database to verify that freeze protection problems were being identified at the appropriate level, entered into the CAP, and appropriately resolved.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R04}}
==1R04 Equipment Alignment==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors conducted three partial equipment alignment walkdowns (listed below) toevaluate the operability of selected redundant trains or backup systems wit h the othertrain or system inoperable or out-of-service (OOS). Correct alignment and operatingconditions were determined from the applicable portions of drawings, system operatingprocedures (SOPs), Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and technical specifications (TS). The inspections included review of outstanding maintenance work requests (MWRs) and related Condition Evaluation Reports (CERs) to verify that the licensee had properly identified and resolved equipment alignment problems that could impact mitigating system availability. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
 
2Enclosure*"A" and "B" service water (SW) pumps while the "C" SW pump was OOS forscheduled maintenance;*"A" emergency diesel generator (EDG) while the "B" EDG was OOS forscheduled quarterly preventive maintenance; and,*"A" and "B" motor driven emergency feedwater (MDEFW) pumps while theturbine driven emergency feedwater pump (TDEFW) was OOS for scheduled maintenance.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R05}}
==1R05 Fire Protection==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors reviewed recent CERs, MWRs, and impairments associated with the firesuppression system. The inspectors reviewed surveillance activities to determinewhether they supported the operability and availability of the fire protection system. Theinspectors assessed the material condition of the active and passive fire protection systems and features and observed the control of transient combustibles and ignitionsources. The inspectors conducted routine inspections of the following nine areas (respective fire zones also noted):*"A" and "B" EDG rooms (fire zones DG-1.1/1.2 and DG-2.1/2.2);*"A" and "B" heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) chilled water pumprooms (fire zones IB-7.2, IB-9, and IB-23.1);*"A" and "B" component cooling water pumps/heat exchangers and service waterbooster pump room (fire zones IB-25.1.1, IB-1.2, IB-1.3, and IB-1.5);*Turbine driven emergency feedwater pump room (fire zone IB-25.2);
*SW pump house (fire zones SWPH-1, SWPH-3, and SWPH-5.1/5.2);
*"A" and "B" residual heat removal and reactor building spray pump rooms (firezones AB-1);*Control Room (fire zone CB-17.1);
*1DA switchgear room (fire zone IB-20); and,
*"A," "B," and "C" charging pump rooms (fire zones AB-1.5, AB-1.6, and AB-1.7).
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R11}}
==1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
On March 6, 2006, the inspectors observed performance of senior reactor operators andreactor operators on the plant simulator during licensed operator requalification training.
 
3EnclosureThe training scenario (LOR-SA-006) involved a dropped control rod, high maingenerator turbine vibration, and a control rod ejection loss-of-coolant accident. The inspectors verified that training included risk-significant operator actions and implementation of emergency classification and the emergency plan. The inspectors assessed overall crew performance, communications, oversight of supervision, and the evaluators' critique. The inspectors verified that any training issues were appropriately captured in the licensee's CAP.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R12}}
==1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness==
 
===.1 Routine Maintenance Effectiveness Inspection===
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors evaluated two equipment issues described in the CERs listed below toverify the licensee's effectiveness of the corresponding preventive or corrective maintenance associated with structures, systems or components (SSCs). Theinspectors reviewed maintenance rule (MR) implementation to verify that component and equipment failures were identified, entered, and scoped within the MR program. Selected SSCs were reviewed to verify proper categorization and classification in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65. The inspectors examined (a)(1) corrective action plans to determine if the licensee was identifying issues related to the MR at an appropriate threshold and that corrective actions were established and effective. The inspectors' review also evaluated if maintenance preventable functional failures (MPFF) or other MR findings existed that the licensee had not identified. The inspectors reviewed thelicensee's controlling procedures, i.e., engineering services procedure (ES)-514, "Maintenance Rule Implementation," and the Virgil C. Summer "Important ToMaintenance Rule System Function and Performance Criteria Analysis" to verify consistency with the MR requirements.*CER 0-C-05-1341, Purge oil level switch for "B" HVAC chiller not functioningproperly; and,*CER 0-C-05-4573, Delta-flux for power range nuclear instrument N-43 failed tooperate properly due to degraded potentiometer.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
 
===.2 Maintenance Rule Periodic Evaluation (Triennial)===
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's Maintenance Rule periodic assessments, "Maintenance Rule Fifth Periodic Assessment [Cycle 14, June 3, 2002 - November 26, 2003, dated 4/19/05]" and "Maintenance Rule Periodic Assessment [Cycle 15,November 26, 2003 - June 1, 2005, dated 1/9/06]" while on-site the week of January 9,2006. These reports were issued to satisfy paragraph (a)(3) of 10 CFR 50.65, and covered two 18-month periods for the single unit. The inspection was to determine the effectiveness of the assessments, that they were issued in accordance with the time requirement of the MR, and included evaluation of:  balancing reliability andunavailability, (a)(1) activities, (a)(2) activities, and use of industry operating experience. To verify compliance with 10 CFR 50.65, the inspectors reviewed selected MR activities covered by the assessment periods for the following MR a(1) status component and
 
attendant systems:  Emergency Feedwater, Building Services, Reactor Coolant, AirHandling, and Instrument Air. Specific procedures and documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. During the inspection, the inspectors reviewed selected plant work order data,assessments, modifications, and the site guidance implementing procedures; discussed and reviewed relevant corrective action reports, reviewed generic operations event data, attendant MR related meeting minutes, and probabilistic risk reports; and discussedissues with system engineers. Operational event information was evaluated by theinspectors in its use in MR functions. The inspectors selected work orders and other corrective action documents on systems recently removed from 10 CFR 50.65 a(1)status and those in a(2) status for the assessment periods to investigate the justificationfor their status (service water, control building chillers, and component cooling). Theinspectors selected MR valves found in the plant's emergency operating procedures (EOPs) to verify functional testing. The inspectors toured and inspected repaired components. The documents were compared to the site's MR program criteria, the MR a(1) evaluations, and MR related data bases.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R13}}
==1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's assessments of the risk impacts of removingfrom service those components associated with planned and emergent work items. Theinspectors evaluated the six selected work activities listed below for:
: (1) theeffectiveness of the risk assessments performed before maintenance activities wereconducted;
: (2) the management of risk;
: (3) that, upon identification of an unforseensituation, necessary steps were taken to plan and control the resulting emergent work 5Enclosureactivities; and
: (4) that emergent work problems were adequately identified and resolved. The inspectors evaluated the licensee's work prioritization and risk characterization to determine, as appropriate, whether necessary steps were properly planned, controlled, and executed for the planned and emergent work activities listed below:*Work Week 2006-4, risk assessment for "C" SW pump and component coolingwater system non-essential cross connect valves (XVB-9525A and XVB-9687A)OOS for scheduled maintenance;*Work Week 2006-5, risk assessment for switchyard thermography datacollection, "B" charging pump OOS for scheduled maintenance, and emergent troubleshooting to repair intermittent steamline low pressure bistable actuation;*Work Week 2006-6, risk assessment for "B" MDEFW pump, "B" SW pump, andmain steam to "A" moisture separator steam pressure transmitter OOS for scheduled maintenance;*Risk assessment for emergent work to replace "B" solid state protection systemisolation and universal logic circuit cards due to degraded condition;*Work Week 2006-11, risk assessment for "A" EDG OOS for scheduled quarterlymaintenance and emergency safeguards transformer XTF-005 work; and,*Work Week 2006-13, risk assessment for "B" EDG OOS for scheduled quarterlypreventive maintenance and testing.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R15}}
==1R15 Operability Evaluations==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors reviewed four operability evaluations affecting risk significant mitigatingsystems to assess, as appropriate:
: (1) the technical adequacy of the evaluations; (2)whether operability was properly justified and the subject component or systemremained available, such that no unrecognized increase in risk occurred;
: (3) whether other existing degraded conditions were considered;
: (4) where compensatory measures were involved, whether the compensatory measures were in place, would work as intended, and were appropriately controlled; and
: (5) the impact on TS limiting conditions for operations and the risk significance in accordance with the Significance Determination Process (SDP). Also, the inspectors verified that the operabilityevaluations were performed in accordance with station administrative procedure (SAP)-999, "Corrective Action Program."*CER 0-C-06-0181, "A" EDG rocker arm lube oil sump level found low;*CER 0-C-06-0406, steamline pressure low annunciation and steamline pressurechannel III loop "B" bistable actuation;*CER 0-C-06-0237, TDEFW discharge flow control valve (1FV-3556) indication ofmid-position from Hagen controller; and, 6Enclosure*CER 0-C-06-0725, Excessive oil leakage from TDEFW turbine inboard bearingwhile operating.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R17}}
==1R17 Permanent Plant Modifications==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors evaluated an engineering change request (ECR) package for modification in the cornerstone area to evaluate the modification foradverse effects on system availability, reliability, and functional capability. Themodification and the associated attributes reviewed is as follows:ECR 50459, "Replacement of Main Plant Vent Atmospheric Radiation Monitor Controls(RMA-13) and Reactor Building Purge Exhaust Atmospheric Radiation Monitor Controls (RMA-14)":
*Plant Document Updating
*Post-Modification Testing
*Installation Records
*Materials / Replacement ComponentsFor the selected modification package, the inspectors observed the as-builtconfiguration. Documents reviewed included procedures, engineering calculations, modification design and implementation packages, work orders, site drawings, corrective action documents, applicable sections of the FSAR, supporting analyses, technical specifications, and design basis information. The inspectors witnessed aspects of the post-modification testing to verify adequate testing of the new radiation monitors was implemented following installation. The inspectors also reviewed selected CERs associated with the modification to confirm that problems encountered with the implementation of the modification were entered into the CAP.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R19}}
==1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
For the five maintenance activities listed below, the inspectors reviewed the associatedpost-maintenance testing (PMT) procedures and witnessed either the testing and/or reviewed test records to assess whether:
: (1) the effect of testing on the plant had been adequately addressed by control room and/or engineering personnel;
: (2) testing was adequate for the maintenance performed;
: (3) test acceptance criteria were clear and 7Enclosureadequately demonstrated operational readiness consistent with design and licensingbasis documents;
: (4) test instrumentation had current calibrations, range, and accuracy consistent with the application;
: (5) tests were performed as written with applicable prerequisites satisfied;
: (6) jumpers installed or leads lifted were properly controlled; (7)test equipment was removed following testing; and
: (8) equipment was returned to the status required to perform its safety function. The inspectors verified that these activities were performed in accordance with general test procedure (GTP)-214, "Post Maintenance Testing Guideline."*PMT for loop "B" steam generator steamline pressure instrument 1PT00485emergent repair maintenance (MWR 0601372);*PMT for "B" MDEFW pump and associated room cooling fan following scheduledpreventive maintenance (MWRs 0523822 and 0526179);*PMT for motor operated valve breaker testing on "B" SW screen wash isolationvalve (MWR 0523811);*PMT for TDEFW pump following scheduled preventive maintenance (MWRs0524222, 0524260, 06014550, and 0601570); and,*PMT for "B" EDG following scheduled quarterly preventive maintenanceactivities.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R22}}
==1R22 Surveillance Testing==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors observed and/or reviewed the six surveillance tests listed below to verifythat TS surveillance requirements were followed and that test acceptance criteria were properly specified to ensure that the equipment could perform its intended safety function. The inspectors verified that proper test conditions were established as specified in the procedures, that no equipment preconditioning activities occurred, and that acceptance criteria had been met.In-Service Tests
:*Surveillance Test Procedure (STP)-223.002A, "Service Water Pump Test" (for"B" SW pump)Reactor Coolant System Leakage Tests
:*STP-114.002, "Operational Leakage Test" 8EnclosureOther Surveillance Tests
:*STP-105.016A, "Train A Charging Pump and Diesel Generator Slave RelayTest;"*STP-125.002A, "Diesel Generator A Operability Test;"*STP-345.074, "Solid State Protection System Actuation Logic and Master RelayTest - Train B;" and,*Preventative Test Procedure (PTP)-102.001, "Main Turbine Tests."
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
{{a|1R23}}
==1R23 Temporary Plant Modifications==
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors reviewed the following two plant equipment changes that wereconsidered temporary modifications. The inspectors evaluated the change documents
 
and the associated 10 CFR 50.59 screenings against t he system design basisdocumentation and FSAR to verify that the changes did not adversely affect the safetyfunction of important safety systems. In addition, the inspectors verified that thechanges were developed and implemented in accordance with licensee procedures SAP-148, "Temporary Bypass, Jumper, and Lifted Lead Control," and SAP-300, "Conduct of Maintenance."*Bypass Authorization Request (BAR) 06-01, bypass annunciator alarm of failedcontainment fire protection heat detector ITE65040; and,*Removal and Restoration 060007, Loosening diesel generator building link sealsaround "A" SW pipe header to allow groundwater drainage.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.Cornerstone:  Emergency Preparedness 1EP6Drill Evaluation
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
On March 6, 2006, the inspectors reviewed and observed the performance of a licenseeoperator requalification simulator drill that involved a dropped control rod, high maingenerator turbine vibration, and a control rod ejection loss of coolant accident (LOR-SA-006). The inspectors assessed emergency procedure usage and verified the licensee was properly classifying emergency events and making the required notifications and protective action recommendations in accordance with emergency plan procedures 9Enclosure(EPP)-001, "Activation and Implementation of Emergency Plan," EPP-001.2, "Alert,"EPP-001.3, "Site Area Emergency," and EPP-002, "Communication and Notification."
 
The inspectors evaluated the adequacy of the licensee's conduct of the dr ill and critiqueperformance and verified that drill performance issues were captured by the licensee intheir CAP.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.4.OTHER ACTIVITIES4OA2Identification and Resolution of Problems
 
===.1 Daily Screening of Corrective Action Items===
 
====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 licensee's corrective action program. This review was accomplished by either attending daily screening meetings that briefly discussed major CERs, or accessing the licensee's computerized corrective action database and reviewing each CER that was initiated.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
 
===.2 Annual Sample Review===
 
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors reviewed one issue in detail to evaluate the effectiveness of thelicensee's corrective actions for important safety issues documented in CER 0-C-05-4111 and CER 0-C-05-4167. These CERs were associated with various equipment degradations associated with the feedwater heater drain system (i.e., solenoid valves,air operated valve positioners/actuators/regulators, and instrument air tubing) which, onone occasion, resulted in the need to downpower the unit in November 2005. The inspectors assessed whether the licensee adequately addressed all of the applicable causal factors and identified effective corrective actions. Also, the inspectors verified the issue was processed in accordance with SAP-999, "Corrective Action Program."
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
 
10Enclosure4OA6Meetings, Including Exit
 
===.1 Exit Meeting SummaryThe inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Jeff Archie and other members ofthe licensee staff on April 11, 2006.===
The inspectors confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the inspection.
 
===.2 Annual Assessment Meeting SummaryOn March 31, 2006, the NRC Chief of Reactor Projects Branch 5 met with SouthCarolina Electric and Gas Company to discuss the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process(ROP) and the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station annual assessment of safety===
 
performance for the period of January 1, 2005 - December 31, 2005. The major topics addressed were the NRC's assessment program and the results of the Virgil C. Summerassessment. Attendees included Virgil C. Summer site management, members of site staff, and a representative of Santee Cooper.This meeting was open to the public. The presentation material used for the discussionis available from the NRC's document system (ADAMS) as accession number ML060970298. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).ATTACHMENT: 
 
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=
 
==KEY POINTS OF CONTACT==
Licensee
: [[contact::J. Archie]], Vice President, Nuclear Operations
: [[contact::F. Bacon]], Manager, Chemistry Services
: [[contact::M. Browne]], Manager, Quality Systems
: [[contact::A. Cribb]], Acting Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing
: [[contact::M. Findlay]], Manager, Nuclear Protection Services
: [[contact::M. Fowlkes]], General Manager, Engineering Services
: [[contact::D. Gatlin]], General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations
: [[contact::D. Lavigne]], General Manager, Organizational Effectiveness Training
: [[contact::G. Lippard]], Manager, Operations
: [[contact::G. Moffit]], Manager, Nuclear Operations Training
: [[contact::P. Mothena]], Acting Manager, Health Physics and Safety Services
: [[contact::J. Nesbitt]], Manager, Materials and Procurement
: [[contact::K. Nettles]], General Manager, Nuclear Support Services
: [[contact::R. Stokes]], Manager, Design Engineering
: [[contact::W. Stuart]], Manager, Plant Support Engineering
: [[contact::R. Sweet]], Acting Manager, Nuclear Licensing
: [[contact::A. Torres]], Manager, Planning / Scheduling and Project Management
: [[contact::S. Zarandi]], Manager, Maintenance Services
NRC
: [[contact::K. Landis]], Chief, Branch 5, Division of Reactor Projects, Region II
==ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED==
 
===Opened===
None.ClosedNone.
 
===Discussed===
None.
A-2Attachment
==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
==Section 1R04: Equipment AlignmentSOP-117, "Service Water System"SOP-211, "Emergency Feedwater System"==
: SOP-306, "Emergency Diesel Generator"
 
==Section 1R12: Maintenance EffectivenessProceduresES-437, Inspections for Maintenance Rule - Structures, Revision 1ES-514, Maintenance Rule Program Implementation, Revision 3==
: SAP-157, Maintenance Rule Program, Revision 0
: EOP-2.3, Transfer to Hot Leg Recirculation, Revision 10
: EOP-15.0, Response to Loss of Secondary Heat Sink, Revision 13
: EOP-17.1, Response to Reactor Building Flooding, Revision 5Audits or Self AssessmentsSelf Assessment Report SA05-PS-03, Assessment of Maintenance Rule Activities During Cycle
: 15Non-Conformance Reports (NCN)03-3436, "C" RCP injection line weld04-0879, "C" RCP injection line weldMaintenance Rule Meeting MinutesFile No.
: CGSS-05-0095, 8/02/05File No.
: CGSS-05-0050, 4/26/05Work Orders0501808, VU chiller C functional test0503531, VU chiller A functional test0507324, VU chiller B functional test
: 0418029,
: ECR-50469, Install relief valve XVR19657-CC (TYPICAL)
: 0510779, Investigate and repair "C" SW pump lower bearing flow (TYPICAL)Condition Evaluation Reports (CERs) 05-0856, AH fan XFN0030B failed to start during test04-3702, AH fan XFN0030B failed to start during test
: 03-2648, AH and VL temperature monitoring
: 98-1047, ground water corrosion on BS guard pipes
: 03-2872, IA compressor bypass and suction valves
: 03-4348, EF TD governor valve linkage
: 06-0031, Structural Inspections
: A-3Attachment
==LIST OF ACRONYMS==
BARBypass Authorization RequestCAPCorrective Action Program
CERCondition Evaluation Report
CFRCode of Federal Regulations
ECREngineering Change Request
EDGEmergency Diesel Generator
EOPEmergency Operating Procedure
EPPEmergency Plan Procedure
ESEngineering Services Procedure
FSARFinal Safety Analysis Report
GTPGeneral Test Procedure
HVACHeating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IMCInspection Manual Chapter
MDEFWMotor Driven Emergency Feedwater
MPFFMaintenance Preventable Functional Failures
MRMaintenance Rule
MWRMaintenance Work Request
NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission
OAPOperations Administrative Procedure
OOSOut-of-Service
PMTPost-Maintenance Testing
PTPPreventive Test Procedure
ROPReactor Oversight Process
RTPRated Thermal Power
SAPStation Administrative Procedure
SDPSignificance Determination Process
SOPSystem Operating Procedure
SSCStructures, Systems, or Components
STPSurveillance Test Procedure
SWService Water
TDEFWTurbine Driven Emergency Feedwater
TITemporary Instruction
: [[TST]] [[echnical Specification]]
}}

Revision as of 00:50, 28 October 2018

V. C. Summer Integrated Inspection Report 05000395-06-002 and Annual Assessment Summary
ML061140397
Person / Time
Site: Summer South Carolina Electric & Gas Company icon.png
Issue date: 04/24/2006
From: Landis K D
NRC/RGN-II/DRP/RPB5
To: Archie J B
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co
References
IR-06-002
Download: ML061140397 (18)
v • d • e


Text

April 24, 2006

South Carolina Electric & Gas CompanyATTN: Mr. Jeffrey B. Archie Vice President, Nuclear OperationsVirgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

P. O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065SUBJECT:VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTIONREPORT 05000395/2006002 AND ANNUAL ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Archie:On March 31, 2006, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed aninspection at your Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. The enclosed integrated inspection reportdocuments the inspection results, which were discussed on April 11, 2006, with Mr. Jeff Archie and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance with the Commission's 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 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in theNRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) com ponent ofNRC's 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/Kerry D. Landis, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor ProjectsDocket No.: 50-395License No.: NPF-12 Enclosure: NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000395/2006002 w/Attachment: Supplemental Informationcc w/encl: (See page 2)

SCE&G2cc w/encl:R. J. White Nuclear Coordinator Mail Code 802 S.C. Public Service Authority Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionKathryn M. Sutton, Esq.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Electronic Mail DistributionHenry J. Porter, DirectorDiv. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.

Dept. of Health and Environmental Control Electronic Mail DistributionR. Mike GandyDivision of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.

S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control Electronic Mail DistributionRobert G. Sweet, ManagerNuclear Licensing (Mail Code 830)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionRobert M. Fowlkes, General ManagerEngineering Services South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionThomas D. Gatlin, General ManagerNuclear Plant Operations (Mail Code 303)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionDavid A. Lavigne, General ManagerOrganization Development South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Vigil C. Summer Nuclear Station Electronic Mail DistributionDistribution w/encl: (See page 3)

_________________________OFFICERII:DRPRII:DRPRII:DRSRII:DRSRII:DRPRII:DRPRII:DRPSIGNATUREJXZLXC per emailMSL forBWM1HJGKDL forJXZ forNAMEJZeilerMCainMScottBMillerHGepfordLGarnerJPolickoskiDATE04/21/200604/20/200604/24/200604/20/200604/21/200604/24/200604/21/2006 E-MAIL COPY? YESNO YESNO YESNO YESNO YESNO YESNO YESNO EnclosureU. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONREGION IIDocket No.:50-395 License No.:NPF-12 Report No.:05000395/2006002 Licensee:South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Company Facility:Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Location:P. O. Box 88Jenkinsville, SC 29065Dates:January 1, 2006 - March 31, 2006 Inspectors:J. Zeiler, Senior Resident Inspector M. Cain, Resident Inspector J. Polickoski, Acting Resident Inspector B. Miller, Reactor Inspector, RII (Sections 1R12.2)

M. Scott, Senior Reactor Inspector, RII (Sections 1R12.2)Approved by:K. D. Landis, ChiefReactor Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor Projects EnclosureSUMMARY OF FINDINGSIR 05000395/2006002; 01/01/2006 - 03/31/2006; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station; RoutineIntegrated Report.The report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and oneannounced inspection by regional inspectors. No findings of significance were identified by the NRC. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red)using IMC 0609, "Significance Determination Process" (SDP). Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. TheNRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors isdescribed in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 3, dated July 2000.A.

NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

B.Licensee-Identified Violations

None.

Enclosure

REPORT DETAILS

Summary of Plant StatusThe unit began the inspection period at 100 percent rated thermal power (RTP). The unitoperated at or near full power for the entire inspection period.1.REACTOR SAFETYCornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity1R01Adverse Weather Protection Unexpected Cold Weather Conditions

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors performed a readiness inspection during the week of February 13 forunexpected cold weather conditions. The inspectors reviewed the site's preparations and evaluated the implementation of Operations Administrative Procedure (OAP)-109.1,"Guidelines for Severe Weather." The inspectors walked down accessible areas of risk-significant equipment, including, but not limited to, level instrumentation associated withthe refueling water storage tank and condensate storage tank, to assess whether the equipment was adequately protected from cold weather conditions. The inspectors evaluated the status of freeze protection equipment and alarms to verify there were no degradations which could challenge the capability of equipment important to plantoperation or safety. Also, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective action program (CAP) database to verify that freeze protection problems were being identified at the appropriate level, entered into the CAP, and appropriately resolved.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R04 Equipment Alignment

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors conducted three partial equipment alignment walkdowns (listed below) toevaluate the operability of selected redundant trains or backup systems wit h the othertrain or system inoperable or out-of-service (OOS). Correct alignment and operatingconditions were determined from the applicable portions of drawings, system operatingprocedures (SOPs), Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and technical specifications (TS). The inspections included review of outstanding maintenance work requests (MWRs) and related Condition Evaluation Reports (CERs) to verify that the licensee had properly identified and resolved equipment alignment problems that could impact mitigating system availability. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

2Enclosure*"A" and "B" service water (SW) pumps while the "C" SW pump was OOS forscheduled maintenance;*"A" emergency diesel generator (EDG) while the "B" EDG was OOS forscheduled quarterly preventive maintenance; and,*"A" and "B" motor driven emergency feedwater (MDEFW) pumps while theturbine driven emergency feedwater pump (TDEFW) was OOS for scheduled maintenance.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R05 Fire Protection

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed recent CERs, MWRs, and impairments associated with the firesuppression system. The inspectors reviewed surveillance activities to determinewhether they supported the operability and availability of the fire protection system. Theinspectors assessed the material condition of the active and passive fire protection systems and features and observed the control of transient combustibles and ignitionsources. The inspectors conducted routine inspections of the following nine areas (respective fire zones also noted):*"A" and "B" EDG rooms (fire zones DG-1.1/1.2 and DG-2.1/2.2);*"A" and "B" heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) chilled water pumprooms (fire zones IB-7.2, IB-9, and IB-23.1);*"A" and "B" component cooling water pumps/heat exchangers and service waterbooster pump room (fire zones IB-25.1.1, IB-1.2, IB-1.3, and IB-1.5);*Turbine driven emergency feedwater pump room (fire zone IB-25.2);

  • SW pump house (fire zones SWPH-1, SWPH-3, and SWPH-5.1/5.2);
  • "A" and "B" residual heat removal and reactor building spray pump rooms (firezones AB-1);*Control Room (fire zone CB-17.1);
  • 1DA switchgear room (fire zone IB-20); and,
  • "A," "B," and "C" charging pump rooms (fire zones AB-1.5, AB-1.6, and AB-1.7).

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program

a. Inspection Scope

On March 6, 2006, the inspectors observed performance of senior reactor operators andreactor operators on the plant simulator during licensed operator requalification training.

3EnclosureThe training scenario (LOR-SA-006) involved a dropped control rod, high maingenerator turbine vibration, and a control rod ejection loss-of-coolant accident. The inspectors verified that training included risk-significant operator actions and implementation of emergency classification and the emergency plan. The inspectors assessed overall crew performance, communications, oversight of supervision, and the evaluators' critique. The inspectors verified that any training issues were appropriately captured in the licensee's CAP.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness

.1 Routine Maintenance Effectiveness Inspection

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors evaluated two equipment issues described in the CERs listed below toverify the licensee's effectiveness of the corresponding preventive or corrective maintenance associated with structures, systems or components (SSCs). Theinspectors reviewed maintenance rule (MR) implementation to verify that component and equipment failures were identified, entered, and scoped within the MR program. Selected SSCs were reviewed to verify proper categorization and classification in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65. The inspectors examined (a)(1) corrective action plans to determine if the licensee was identifying issues related to the MR at an appropriate threshold and that corrective actions were established and effective. The inspectors' review also evaluated if maintenance preventable functional failures (MPFF) or other MR findings existed that the licensee had not identified. The inspectors reviewed thelicensee's controlling procedures, i.e., engineering services procedure (ES)-514, "Maintenance Rule Implementation," and the Virgil C. Summer "Important ToMaintenance Rule System Function and Performance Criteria Analysis" to verify consistency with the MR requirements.*CER 0-C-05-1341, Purge oil level switch for "B" HVAC chiller not functioningproperly; and,*CER 0-C-05-4573, Delta-flux for power range nuclear instrument N-43 failed tooperate properly due to degraded potentiometer.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Maintenance Rule Periodic Evaluation (Triennial)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's Maintenance Rule periodic assessments, "Maintenance Rule Fifth Periodic Assessment [Cycle 14, June 3, 2002 - November 26, 2003, dated 4/19/05]" and "Maintenance Rule Periodic Assessment [Cycle 15,November 26, 2003 - June 1, 2005, dated 1/9/06]" while on-site the week of January 9,2006. These reports were issued to satisfy paragraph (a)(3) of 10 CFR 50.65, and covered two 18-month periods for the single unit. The inspection was to determine the effectiveness of the assessments, that they were issued in accordance with the time requirement of the MR, and included evaluation of: balancing reliability andunavailability, (a)(1) activities, (a)(2) activities, and use of industry operating experience. To verify compliance with 10 CFR 50.65, the inspectors reviewed selected MR activities covered by the assessment periods for the following MR a(1) status component and

attendant systems: Emergency Feedwater, Building Services, Reactor Coolant, AirHandling, and Instrument Air. Specific procedures and documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. During the inspection, the inspectors reviewed selected plant work order data,assessments, modifications, and the site guidance implementing procedures; discussed and reviewed relevant corrective action reports, reviewed generic operations event data, attendant MR related meeting minutes, and probabilistic risk reports; and discussedissues with system engineers. Operational event information was evaluated by theinspectors in its use in MR functions. The inspectors selected work orders and other corrective action documents on systems recently removed from 10 CFR 50.65 a(1)status and those in a(2) status for the assessment periods to investigate the justificationfor their status (service water, control building chillers, and component cooling). Theinspectors selected MR valves found in the plant's emergency operating procedures (EOPs) to verify functional testing. The inspectors toured and inspected repaired components. The documents were compared to the site's MR program criteria, the MR a(1) evaluations, and MR related data bases.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's assessments of the risk impacts of removingfrom service those components associated with planned and emergent work items. Theinspectors evaluated the six selected work activities listed below for:

(1) theeffectiveness of the risk assessments performed before maintenance activities wereconducted;
(2) the management of risk;
(3) that, upon identification of an unforseensituation, necessary steps were taken to plan and control the resulting emergent work 5Enclosureactivities; and
(4) that emergent work problems were adequately identified and resolved. The inspectors evaluated the licensee's work prioritization and risk characterization to determine, as appropriate, whether necessary steps were properly planned, controlled, and executed for the planned and emergent work activities listed below:*Work Week 2006-4, risk assessment for "C" SW pump and component coolingwater system non-essential cross connect valves (XVB-9525A and XVB-9687A)OOS for scheduled maintenance;*Work Week 2006-5, risk assessment for switchyard thermography datacollection, "B" charging pump OOS for scheduled maintenance, and emergent troubleshooting to repair intermittent steamline low pressure bistable actuation;*Work Week 2006-6, risk assessment for "B" MDEFW pump, "B" SW pump, andmain steam to "A" moisture separator steam pressure transmitter OOS for scheduled maintenance;*Risk assessment for emergent work to replace "B" solid state protection systemisolation and universal logic circuit cards due to degraded condition;*Work Week 2006-11, risk assessment for "A" EDG OOS for scheduled quarterlymaintenance and emergency safeguards transformer XTF-005 work; and,*Work Week 2006-13, risk assessment for "B" EDG OOS for scheduled quarterlypreventive maintenance and testing.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R15 Operability Evaluations

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed four operability evaluations affecting risk significant mitigatingsystems to assess, as appropriate:

(1) the technical adequacy of the evaluations; (2)whether operability was properly justified and the subject component or systemremained available, such that no unrecognized increase in risk occurred;
(3) whether other existing degraded conditions were considered;
(4) where compensatory measures were involved, whether the compensatory measures were in place, would work as intended, and were appropriately controlled; and
(5) the impact on TS limiting conditions for operations and the risk significance in accordance with the Significance Determination Process (SDP). Also, the inspectors verified that the operabilityevaluations were performed in accordance with station administrative procedure (SAP)-999, "Corrective Action Program."*CER 0-C-06-0181, "A" EDG rocker arm lube oil sump level found low;*CER 0-C-06-0406, steamline pressure low annunciation and steamline pressurechannel III loop "B" bistable actuation;*CER 0-C-06-0237, TDEFW discharge flow control valve (1FV-3556) indication ofmid-position from Hagen controller; and, 6Enclosure*CER 0-C-06-0725, Excessive oil leakage from TDEFW turbine inboard bearingwhile operating.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R17 Permanent Plant Modifications

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors evaluated an engineering change request (ECR) package for modification in the cornerstone area to evaluate the modification foradverse effects on system availability, reliability, and functional capability. Themodification and the associated attributes reviewed is as follows:ECR 50459, "Replacement of Main Plant Vent Atmospheric Radiation Monitor Controls(RMA-13) and Reactor Building Purge Exhaust Atmospheric Radiation Monitor Controls (RMA-14)":

  • Plant Document Updating
  • Post-Modification Testing
  • Installation Records
  • Materials / Replacement ComponentsFor the selected modification package, the inspectors observed the as-builtconfiguration. Documents reviewed included procedures, engineering calculations, modification design and implementation packages, work orders, site drawings, corrective action documents, applicable sections of the FSAR, supporting analyses, technical specifications, and design basis information. The inspectors witnessed aspects of the post-modification testing to verify adequate testing of the new radiation monitors was implemented following installation. The inspectors also reviewed selected CERs associated with the modification to confirm that problems encountered with the implementation of the modification were entered into the CAP.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing

a. Inspection Scope

For the five maintenance activities listed below, the inspectors reviewed the associatedpost-maintenance testing (PMT) procedures and witnessed either the testing and/or reviewed test records to assess whether:

(1) the effect of testing on the plant had been adequately addressed by control room and/or engineering personnel;
(2) testing was adequate for the maintenance performed;
(3) test acceptance criteria were clear and 7Enclosureadequately demonstrated operational readiness consistent with design and licensingbasis documents;
(4) test instrumentation had current calibrations, range, and accuracy consistent with the application;
(5) tests were performed as written with applicable prerequisites satisfied;
(6) jumpers installed or leads lifted were properly controlled; (7)test equipment was removed following testing; and
(8) equipment was returned to the status required to perform its safety function. The inspectors verified that these activities were performed in accordance with general test procedure (GTP)-214, "Post Maintenance Testing Guideline."*PMT for loop "B" steam generator steamline pressure instrument 1PT00485emergent repair maintenance (MWR 0601372);*PMT for "B" MDEFW pump and associated room cooling fan following scheduledpreventive maintenance (MWRs 0523822 and 0526179);*PMT for motor operated valve breaker testing on "B" SW screen wash isolationvalve (MWR 0523811);*PMT for TDEFW pump following scheduled preventive maintenance (MWRs0524222, 0524260, 06014550, and 0601570); and,*PMT for "B" EDG following scheduled quarterly preventive maintenanceactivities.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R22 Surveillance Testing

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors observed and/or reviewed the six surveillance tests listed below to verifythat TS surveillance requirements were followed and that test acceptance criteria were properly specified to ensure that the equipment could perform its intended safety function. The inspectors verified that proper test conditions were established as specified in the procedures, that no equipment preconditioning activities occurred, and that acceptance criteria had been met.In-Service Tests

  • STP-105.016A, "Train A Charging Pump and Diesel Generator Slave RelayTest;"*STP-125.002A, "Diesel Generator A Operability Test;"*STP-345.074, "Solid State Protection System Actuation Logic and Master RelayTest - Train B;" and,*Preventative Test Procedure (PTP)-102.001, "Main Turbine Tests."

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R23 Temporary Plant Modifications

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the following two plant equipment changes that wereconsidered temporary modifications. The inspectors evaluated the change documents

and the associated 10 CFR 50.59 screenings against t he system design basisdocumentation and FSAR to verify that the changes did not adversely affect the safetyfunction of important safety systems. In addition, the inspectors verified that thechanges were developed and implemented in accordance with licensee procedures SAP-148, "Temporary Bypass, Jumper, and Lifted Lead Control," and SAP-300, "Conduct of Maintenance."*Bypass Authorization Request (BAR) 06-01, bypass annunciator alarm of failedcontainment fire protection heat detector ITE65040; and,*Removal and Restoration 060007, Loosening diesel generator building link sealsaround "A" SW pipe header to allow groundwater drainage.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness 1EP6Drill Evaluation

a. Inspection Scope

On March 6, 2006, the inspectors reviewed and observed the performance of a licenseeoperator requalification simulator drill that involved a dropped control rod, high maingenerator turbine vibration, and a control rod ejection loss of coolant accident (LOR-SA-006). The inspectors assessed emergency procedure usage and verified the licensee was properly classifying emergency events and making the required notifications and protective action recommendations in accordance with emergency plan procedures 9Enclosure(EPP)-001, "Activation and Implementation of Emergency Plan," EPP-001.2, "Alert,"EPP-001.3, "Site Area Emergency," and EPP-002, "Communication and Notification."

The inspectors evaluated the adequacy of the licensee's conduct of the dr ill and critiqueperformance and verified that drill performance issues were captured by the licensee intheir CAP.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.4.OTHER ACTIVITIES4OA2Identification and Resolution of Problems

.1 Daily Screening of Corrective Action Items

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 licensee's corrective action program. This review was accomplished by either attending daily screening meetings that briefly discussed major CERs, or accessing the licensee's computerized corrective action database and reviewing each CER that was initiated.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Annual Sample Review

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed one issue in detail to evaluate the effectiveness of thelicensee's corrective actions for important safety issues documented in CER 0-C-05-4111 and CER 0-C-05-4167. These CERs were associated with various equipment degradations associated with the feedwater heater drain system (i.e., solenoid valves,air operated valve positioners/actuators/regulators, and instrument air tubing) which, onone occasion, resulted in the need to downpower the unit in November 2005. The inspectors assessed whether the licensee adequately addressed all of the applicable causal factors and identified effective corrective actions. Also, the inspectors verified the issue was processed in accordance with SAP-999, "Corrective Action Program."

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

10Enclosure4OA6Meetings, Including Exit

.1 Exit Meeting SummaryThe inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Jeff Archie and other members ofthe licensee staff on April 11, 2006.

The inspectors confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the inspection.

.2 Annual Assessment Meeting SummaryOn March 31, 2006, the NRC Chief of Reactor Projects Branch 5 met with SouthCarolina Electric and Gas Company to discuss the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process(ROP) and the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station annual assessment of safety

performance for the period of January 1, 2005 - December 31, 2005. The major topics addressed were the NRC's assessment program and the results of the Virgil C. Summerassessment. Attendees included Virgil C. Summer site management, members of site staff, and a representative of Santee Cooper.This meeting was open to the public. The presentation material used for the discussionis available from the NRC's document system (ADAMS) as accession number ML060970298. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

J. Archie, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
F. Bacon, Manager, Chemistry Services
M. Browne, Manager, Quality Systems
A. Cribb, Acting Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing
M. Findlay, Manager, Nuclear Protection Services
M. Fowlkes, General Manager, Engineering Services
D. Gatlin, General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations
D. Lavigne, General Manager, Organizational Effectiveness Training
G. Lippard, Manager, Operations
G. Moffit, Manager, Nuclear Operations Training
P. Mothena, Acting Manager, Health Physics and Safety Services
J. Nesbitt, Manager, Materials and Procurement
K. Nettles, General Manager, Nuclear Support Services
R. Stokes, Manager, Design Engineering
W. Stuart, Manager, Plant Support Engineering
R. Sweet, Acting Manager, Nuclear Licensing
A. Torres, Manager, Planning / Scheduling and Project Management
S. Zarandi, Manager, Maintenance Services

NRC

K. Landis, Chief, Branch 5, Division of Reactor Projects, Region II

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

None.ClosedNone.

Discussed

None.

A-2Attachment

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Section 1R04: Equipment AlignmentSOP-117, "Service Water System"SOP-211, "Emergency Feedwater System"

SOP-306, "Emergency Diesel Generator"

Section 1R12: Maintenance EffectivenessProceduresES-437, Inspections for Maintenance Rule - Structures, Revision 1ES-514, Maintenance Rule Program Implementation, Revision 3

SAP-157, Maintenance Rule Program, Revision 0
EOP-2.3, Transfer to Hot Leg Recirculation, Revision 10
EOP-15.0, Response to Loss of Secondary Heat Sink, Revision 13
EOP-17.1, Response to Reactor Building Flooding, Revision 5Audits or Self AssessmentsSelf Assessment Report SA05-PS-03, Assessment of Maintenance Rule Activities During Cycle
15Non-Conformance Reports (NCN)03-3436, "C" RCP injection line weld04-0879, "C" RCP injection line weldMaintenance Rule Meeting MinutesFile No.
CGSS-05-0095, 8/02/05File No.
CGSS-05-0050, 4/26/05Work Orders0501808, VU chiller C functional test0503531, VU chiller A functional test0507324, VU chiller B functional test
0418029,
ECR-50469, Install relief valve XVR19657-CC (TYPICAL)
0510779, Investigate and repair "C" SW pump lower bearing flow (TYPICAL)Condition Evaluation Reports (CERs) 05-0856, AH fan XFN0030B failed to start during test04-3702, AH fan XFN0030B failed to start during test
03-2648, AH and VL temperature monitoring
98-1047, ground water corrosion on BS guard pipes
03-2872, IA compressor bypass and suction valves
03-4348, EF TD governor valve linkage
06-0031, Structural Inspections
A-3Attachment

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BARBypass Authorization RequestCAPCorrective Action Program

CERCondition Evaluation Report

CFRCode of Federal Regulations

ECREngineering Change Request

EDGEmergency Diesel Generator

EOPEmergency Operating Procedure

EPPEmergency Plan Procedure

ESEngineering Services Procedure

FSARFinal Safety Analysis Report

GTPGeneral Test Procedure

HVACHeating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IMCInspection Manual Chapter

MDEFWMotor Driven Emergency Feedwater

MPFFMaintenance Preventable Functional Failures

MRMaintenance Rule

MWRMaintenance Work Request

NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission

OAPOperations Administrative Procedure

OOSOut-of-Service

PMTPost-Maintenance Testing

PTPPreventive Test Procedure

ROPReactor Oversight Process

RTPRated Thermal Power

SAPStation Administrative Procedure

SDPSignificance Determination Process

SOPSystem Operating Procedure

SSCStructures, Systems, or Components

STPSurveillance Test Procedure

SWService Water

TDEFWTurbine Driven Emergency Feedwater

TITemporary Instruction

TST echnical Specification
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000395/2006002&oldid=1151192"