IR 05000302/2009003: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | {{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION July 17, 2009 | ||
SUBJECT: CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000302/2009003 and 05000302/2009501 | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000302/2009003 and 05000302/2009501 | |||
==Dear Mr. Franke:== | ==Dear Mr. Franke:== | ||
On June 30, 2009, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your Crystal River Unit 3. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on July 6, 2009, with Mr. J. Holt and other members of your staff. | On June 30, 2009, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your Crystal River Unit 3. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on July 6, 2009, with Mr. J. Holt and other members of your staff. | ||
The inspections examined activities conducted under your license as they related to safety and compliance with the | The inspections examined activities conducted under your license as they related to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. | ||
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. | |||
Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified. | Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified. | ||
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the | In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). | ||
Sincerely, | Sincerely, | ||
/RA/ Marvin D. Sykes, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72 | /RA/ | ||
Marvin D. Sykes, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72 cc w/encl.: (See page 2) | |||
===Enclosure:=== | |||
Inspection Report 05000302/2009003 and 05000302/2009501 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information | |||
_________________________ XG SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE MDS OFFICE RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRS SIGNATURE SON MDS TXM1 by email RJR1 by email JXH19 by email LRM by email NAME SNinh MSykes TMorrissey RReyes JHeath LMiller DATE 07/17/2009 07/16/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009 7/ /2009 E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO | |||
FPC 2 | |||
REGION II== | REGION II== | ||
Docket No: 50-302 | Docket No: 50-302 License No: DPR-72 Report Nos.: 05000302/2009003 and 05000302/2009501 Licensee: Progress Energy (Florida Power Corporation) | ||
Facility: Crystal River Unit 3 Location: Crystal River, FL Dates: April 1, 2009 - June 30, 2009 May 4, 2009 - May 09, 2009 Inspectors: T. Morrissey, Senior Resident Inspector R. Reyes, Resident Inspector J. Heath, Project Engineer L. Miller, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector (Sections 1EP2, 1EP3, 1EP4, 4OA1.2 and 4OA5.2) | |||
Approved by: M. Sykes, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure | |||
=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS= | |||
IR 05000302/2009003; 04/01/2009-06/30/2009; IR 05000302/2009501; 05/04/2009- | |||
05/08/2009; Crystal River Unit 3; Routine Integrated Report. | |||
The report covered a three month period of inspection by resident inspectors, a region based project engineer, and a region based senior emergency preparedness inspector. 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. | |||
===NRC Identified=== | |||
= | |||
= | |||
& Self-Revealing Findings No findings of significance were identified. | & Self-Revealing Findings No findings of significance were identified. | ||
=== | ===Licensee Identified Violations=== | ||
None | None | ||
| Line 70: | Line 66: | ||
=REPORT DETAILS= | =REPORT DETAILS= | ||
Summary of Plant Status: | |||
Crystal River 3 began the inspection period at 100 percent rated thermal power (RTP). On April 21 the unit was reduced to approximately 90 percent RTP for planned secondary system work. The unit was returned to 100 percent RTP on April 23. On May 20 the unit was reduced to approximately 87 percent RTP to support planned surveillance testing. The unit was restored to 100 percent RTP on May 21. The unit remained at essentially 100 percent for the remainder of the inspection period. | |||
==REACTOR SAFETY== | ==REACTOR SAFETY== | ||
Cornerstones: | Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity R01 Adverse Weather Protection | ||
===.1 Adverse Weather Protection:=== | ===.1 Adverse Weather Protection: Hurricane Season Preparation=== | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors reviewed the | The inspectors reviewed the licensees hurricane season preparations using the licensees Emergency Management Procedure EM-220, Violent Weather. The inspectors checked that the licensee maintained the ability to protect vital systems and components from high winds and flooding associated with hurricanes. | ||
Additionally, the inspectors toured the five plant areas listed below to check for any vulnerabilities, such as inadequate sealing of water tight penetrations, or degraded barriers that could affect the associated systems. The inspectors verified that the licensees violent weather committee had been established and that an initial preparatory walkdown had been completed. Documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. Nuclear condition reports (NCRs) were reviewed to verify that the licensee was identifying and correcting adverse weather protection issues. | |||
* Emergency diesel generator rooms | * Emergency diesel generator rooms | ||
* Control complex flood walls and doors | * Control complex flood walls and doors | ||
| Line 98: | Line 95: | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
===.3 Adverse Weather Protection: | ===.3 Adverse Weather Protection: Offsite and Alternate AC Power System Readiness=== | ||
Offsite and Alternate AC Power System Readiness | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors evaluated the summer readiness of both the off-site and on-site alternate AC power systems. The inspectors walked down the safety-related emergency diesel generators (EGDG-1A, 1B), non-safety-related emergency diesel generator (EGDG-1C), and the safety-related diesel driven emergency feedwater pump (EFP-3) to verify they would be available during a loss of off-site power event. The inspectors performed a walked down of the switchyard with plant personnel to verify material condition of the offsite power sources was adequate. Open work orders (WO) for the offsite and onsite AC power systems were reviewed to ensure degraded conditions were properly addressed. The inspectors verified that licensee and transmission system operator procedures contained communication protocols addressing the exchange of appropriate information when issues arise that could impact the offsite power system. The inspectors verified that no equipment or operating procedure changes have occurred since the last performance of this inspection that would potentially affect operation or reliability of the offsite or onsite AC power systems. The documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. | The inspectors evaluated the summer readiness of both the off-site and on-site alternate AC power systems. The inspectors walked down the safety-related emergency diesel generators (EGDG-1A, 1B), non-safety-related emergency diesel generator (EGDG-1C), and the safety-related diesel driven emergency feedwater pump (EFP-3) to verify they would be available during a loss of off-site power event. | ||
The inspectors performed a walked down of the switchyard with plant personnel to verify material condition of the offsite power sources was adequate. Open work orders (WO) for the offsite and onsite AC power systems were reviewed to ensure degraded conditions were properly addressed. The inspectors verified that licensee and transmission system operator procedures contained communication protocols addressing the exchange of appropriate information when issues arise that could impact the offsite power system. The inspectors verified that no equipment or operating procedure changes have occurred since the last performance of this inspection that would potentially affect operation or reliability of the offsite or onsite AC power systems. The documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. | |||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
===.4 Adverse Weather Protection:=== | ===.4 Adverse Weather Protection: Tornado Watch=== | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
On April 14, 2009, the inspectors evaluated the | On April 14, 2009, the inspectors evaluated the licensees preparations when the site was informed of being in a tornado watch. The licensee implemented procedure EM-220, Violent Weather, for the tornado watch. The inspectors walked down the outside protective area to ensure actions required by EM-220 were implemented. | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. The tornado watch expired with no violent weather or tornado formation. | No findings of significance were identified. The tornado watch expired with no violent weather or tornado formation. | ||
R04 Equipment Alignment Partial Equipment Walkdowns | R04 Equipment Alignment Partial Equipment Walkdowns | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
| Line 127: | Line 124: | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R05 Fire Protection Fire Area Walkdowns | R05 Fire Protection Fire Area Walkdowns | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors walked down accessible portions of the plant to assess the | The inspectors walked down accessible portions of the plant to assess the licensees implementation of the fire protection program. The inspectors checked that the areas were free of transient combustible material and other ignition sources. Also, fire detection and suppression capabilities, fire barriers, and compensatory measures for fire protection problems were verified. The inspectors checked fire suppression and detection equipment to determine whether conditions or deficiencies existed which could impair the function of the equipment. The inspectors selected the areas based on a review of the licensees probabilistic risk assessment. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees fire protection program to verify the requirements of FSAR Section 9.8, Plant Fire Protection Program, were met. Documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. The inspectors toured the following five areas important to reactor safety: | ||
* Emergency diesel generator EGDG-1C building | * Emergency diesel generator EGDG-1C building | ||
* Cable spreading room | * Cable spreading room | ||
| Line 140: | Line 137: | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R06 Flood Protection Measures Internal Flood Protection | R06 Flood Protection Measures Internal Flood Protection | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
| Line 148: | Line 145: | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R07 Heat Sink Performance Annual Review | R07 Heat Sink Performance Annual Review | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
| Line 158: | Line 155: | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program Resident Inspector Quarterly Review | R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program Resident Inspector Quarterly Review | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
On April 28, the inspectors observed and assessed licensed operator crew response and actions for the Crystal River Unit 3 licensed operator simulator evaluated session SES-11. Session SES-11 involved a plant runback, a plant trip, and a steam line break outside containment. The inspectors observed the | On April 28, the inspectors observed and assessed licensed operator crew response and actions for the Crystal River Unit 3 licensed operator simulator evaluated session SES-11. Session SES-11 involved a plant runback, a plant trip, and a steam line break outside containment. The inspectors observed the operators use of abnormal procedures; AP-545, Plant Runback; and emergency operating procedures; EOP-02, Vital System Status Verification; and EOP-05, Excessive Heat Transfer. The operators actions were verified to be in accordance with the above procedures. | ||
Event classification and notifications were verified to be in accordance with emergency management procedure EM-202, Duties of the Emergency Coordinator. | |||
The simulator instrumentation and controls were verified to closely parallel those in the actual control room. The inspectors evaluated the following attributes related to crew performance: | |||
* Clarity and formality of communication | * Clarity and formality of communication | ||
* Ability to take timely action to safely control the unit | * Ability to take timely action to safely control the unit | ||
| Line 172: | Line 173: | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R12 Maintenance Effectiveness | |||
R12 Maintenance Effectiveness | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors reviewed the | The inspectors reviewed the licensees effectiveness in performing routine maintenance activities. The review included an assessment of the licensees practices associated with the identification, scope, and handling of degraded equipment conditions, as well as common cause failure evaluations and the resolution of historical equipment problems. For those systems, structures, and components within the scope of the Maintenance Rule (MR) per 10 CFR 50.65, the inspectors verified that reliability and unavailability were properly monitored and that 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(1) and (a)(2) classifications were justified in light of the reviewed degraded equipment condition. The documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. The inspectors conducted this inspection for the following two equipment issues: | ||
* NCR 308393, SWP-1A South pump inboard bearing vibration in alert | * NCR 308393, SWP-1A South pump inboard bearing vibration in alert | ||
* NCR 286943, EFV-11 closed without operator action | * NCR 286943, EFV-11 closed without operator action | ||
| Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control | |||
R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors reviewed the risk impact associated with those activities listed below and verified the | The inspectors reviewed the risk impact associated with those activities listed below and verified the licensees associated risk management actions were adequate. This review primarily focused on equipment determined to be risk significant within the maintenance rule. The inspectors also assessed the adequacy of the licensees identification and resolution of problems associated with risk management including emergent work activities. The licensees implementation of compliance procedure CP-253, Power Operation Risk Assessment, was verified in each of the following six work week assessments. | ||
* Work Week 09W13, Operations with decay heat valve DHV-12 unavailable due to planned maintenance, and separately with emergency diesel generator EGDG-1B unavailable due to surveillance testing | * Work Week 09W13, Operations with decay heat valve DHV-12 unavailable due to planned maintenance, and separately with emergency diesel generator EGDG-1B unavailable due to surveillance testing | ||
* Work Week 09W17, Operations with yellow risk condition with makeup pump MUP-1C out of service for planned maintenance and separately a yellow risk condition during an unplanned loss and recovery | * Work Week 09W17, Operations with yellow risk condition with makeup pump MUP-1C out of service for planned maintenance and separately a yellow risk condition during an unplanned loss and recovery of an engineered safeguards 480 volt motor control center (3B1) | ||
* Work Week 09W19, Operations with individually out of service for planned maintenance EGDG-1A and SWP-1A | * Work Week 09W19, Operations with individually out of service for planned maintenance EGDG-1A and SWP-1A | ||
* Work Week 09W20, Operations with raw water pump RWP-3A out of service for planned maintenance and Appendix R chiller CHHE-2 out of service for emergent maintenance | * Work Week 09W20, Operations with raw water pump RWP-3A out of service for planned maintenance and Appendix R chiller CHHE-2 out of service for emergent maintenance | ||
| Line 197: | Line 196: | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R15 Operability Evaluations The inspectors reviewed the following five NCRs to verify operability of systems important to safety was properly established, that the affected components or systems remained capable of performing their intended safety function, and that no unrecognized increase in plant or public risk occurred. The inspectors determined if operability of systems or components important to safety was consistent with TS, the FSAR, 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, and when applicable, NRC Inspection Manual, part 9900, Technical Guidance, Operability Determinations & Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety. The inspectors reviewed licensee NCRs, work schedules, and engineering documents to check if operability issues were being identified at an appropriate threshold and documented in the corrective action program, consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements; and licensee procedure CAP-NGGC-200, Corrective Action Program. | R15 Operability Evaluations The inspectors reviewed the following five NCRs to verify operability of systems important to safety was properly established, that the affected components or systems remained capable of performing their intended safety function, and that no unrecognized increase in plant or public risk occurred. The inspectors determined if operability of systems or components important to safety was consistent with TS, the FSAR, 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, and when applicable, NRC Inspection Manual, part 9900, Technical Guidance, Operability Determinations & Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety. The inspectors reviewed licensee NCRs, work schedules, and engineering documents to check if operability issues were being identified at an appropriate threshold and documented in the corrective action program, consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements; and licensee procedure CAP-NGGC-200, Corrective Action Program. | ||
* NCR 330057, During engineered safeguards testing, waste disposal system valve WSV-5 closed rendering RM-A6 inoperable | * NCR 330057, During engineered safeguards testing, waste disposal system valve WSV-5 closed rendering RM-A6 inoperable | ||
* NCR 328886, RWP-3B low differential pressure margin | * NCR 328886, RWP-3B low differential pressure margin | ||
* NCR 322371, Raw water piping unqualified coatings | * NCR 322371, Raw water piping unqualified coatings | ||
* NCR 335745, Service water leakage exceeded MR limit | * NCR 335745, Service water leakage exceeded MR limit | ||
* NCR 339361, Two pieces of urethane coating found in service water heat exchangers R18 Plant Modifications Temporary Plant Modifications | * NCR 339361, Two pieces of urethane coating found in service water heat exchangers R18 Plant Modifications Temporary Plant Modifications | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
| Line 210: | Line 209: | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R19 Post Maintenance Testing | |||
R19 Post Maintenance Testing | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
| Line 225: | Line 223: | ||
* SP-344A, RWP-2A, SWP-1A and Valve Surveillance, after performing maintenance on SWP-1A per WOs 1140146, 1179643, and 1466316 | * SP-344A, RWP-2A, SWP-1A and Valve Surveillance, after performing maintenance on SWP-1A per WOs 1140146, 1179643, and 1466316 | ||
* SP-332, Monthly Steam Line and Feedwater isolation Functional Test, after performing planned maintenance on main steam solenoid valves MSV-411-SV4 and MSV-414-SV4 per WO 1035984 | * SP-332, Monthly Steam Line and Feedwater isolation Functional Test, after performing planned maintenance on main steam solenoid valves MSV-411-SV4 and MSV-414-SV4 per WO 1035984 | ||
* SP-354B, Monthly Functional Test of the Emergency Diesel Generator EGDG-1B, and OP-707, Operation of the ES Emergency Diesel Generators after performing maintenance | * SP-354B, Monthly Functional Test of the Emergency Diesel Generator EGDG-1B, and OP-707, Operation of the ES Emergency Diesel Generators after performing maintenance on EGDG-1B per WOs 1064422, 1312569 and 1348361 | ||
* SP-112P, Reactor Protection System Reactor Coolant Pump Power Monitor Calibration (Partial) after performing emergent maintenance on the reactor coolant pump power monitor per WO 1556566 | * SP-112P, Reactor Protection System Reactor Coolant Pump Power Monitor Calibration (Partial) after performing emergent maintenance on the reactor coolant pump power monitor per WO 1556566 | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
R22 Surveillance Testing | |||
R22 Surveillance Testing | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
| Line 247: | Line 244: | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
===Cornerstone: | ===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness=== | ||
EP2 | EP2 Alert and Notification System Testing | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspector evaluated the adequacy of licensee | The inspector evaluated the adequacy of licensee=s methods for testing the alert and notification system in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, Attachment 02, AAlert and Notification System Evaluation.@ The applicable planning standard 10 CFR Part 50.47(b)(5) and its related 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D requirements were used as reference criteria. The criteria contained in NUREG-0654, ACriteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,@ Revision 1, also were used as a reference. | ||
=s methods for testing the alert and notification system in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, Attachment 02, AAlert and Notification System Evaluation. | |||
@ | |||
The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the alert and notification system on a biennial basis. | The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the alert and notification system on a biennial basis. | ||
| Line 261: | Line 255: | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
EP3 Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Augmentation | |||
EP3 | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspector reviewed the licensee | The inspector reviewed the licensee=s Emergency Response Organization (ERO)augmentation staffing requirements and process for notifying the ERO to ensure the readiness of key staff for event response and timely facility activation. The qualification records of key position ERO personnel were reviewed to ensure all ERO qualifications were current. A sample of problems identified from augmentation drills or system tests performed since the last inspection were reviewed to assess the effectiveness of corrective actions. | ||
=s Emergency Response Organization (ERO) augmentation staffing requirements and process for notifying the ERO to ensure the readiness of key staff for event response and timely facility activation. The qualification records of key position ERO personnel were reviewed to ensure all ERO qualifications were current. A sample of problems identified from augmentation drills or system tests performed since the last inspection were reviewed to assess the effectiveness of corrective actions. | |||
The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, | The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, 03, AEmergency Response Organization Staffing and Augmentation System.@ The applicable planning standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and its related 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirements were used as reference criteria. | ||
The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the ERO staffing and augmentation system on a biennial basis. | The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the ERO staffing and augmentation system on a biennial basis. | ||
| Line 274: | Line 266: | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
EP4 Emergency Action Level (EAL) and Emergency Plan Changes | |||
EP4 | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
Since the last NRC inspection of this program area, Revision 28 of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan was implemented based on the | Since the last NRC inspection of this program area, Revision 28 of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan was implemented based on the licensees determination, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), that the changes resulted in no decrease in the effectiveness of the Plan, and that the revised Plan continued to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The inspector conducted a sampling review of the Plan changes and implementing procedure changes made between May 1, 2008, and April 30, 2009, to evaluate for potential decreases in effectiveness of the Plan. However, this review was not documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and does not constitute formal NRC approval of the changes. Therefore, these changes remain subject to future NRC inspection in their entirety. | ||
The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, | The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, 04, AEmergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes.@ The applicable planning standard (PS), 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and its related 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirements were used as reference criteria. | ||
@ | |||
The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the emergency action level and emergency plan changes on an annual basis. | The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the emergency action level and emergency plan changes on an annual basis. | ||
| Line 288: | Line 277: | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies | |||
EP5 | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspector reviewed the corrective actions identified through the Emergency Preparedness program to determine the significance of the issues and to determine if repeat problems were occurring. The facility | The inspector reviewed the corrective actions identified through the Emergency Preparedness program to determine the significance of the issues and to determine if repeat problems were occurring. The facility=s self-assessments and audits were reviewed to assess the licensee=s ability to be self-critical, thus avoiding complacency and degradation of their emergency preparedness program. In addition, the inspector reviewed licensee=s self-assessments and audits to assess the completeness and effectiveness of all emergency preparedness related corrective actions. | ||
=s self-assessments and audits were reviewed to assess the licensee | |||
=s ability to be self-critical, thus avoiding complacency and degradation of their emergency preparedness program. In addition, the inspector reviewed licensee | |||
=s self-assessments and audits to assess the completeness and effectiveness of all emergency preparedness related corrective actions. | |||
The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, | The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, 05, ACorrection of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses.@ The applicable planning standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and its related 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirements were used as reference criteria. The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the correction of emergency preparedness weaknesses on a biennial basis. | ||
Findings No findings of significance were identified. | |||
EP6 Drill Evaluation Emergency Preparedness Drill | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | |||
The inspectors observed and reviewed two emergency response activities to verify the licensee was properly classifying emergency events, making the required notifications, and appropriate protective action recommendations. The inspectors assessed the licensees ability to classify emergent situations and make timely notification to State and Federal officials in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72. | |||
Emergency activities were verified to be in accordance with the Crystal River Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Section 8.0, Emergency Classification System, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. Additionally, the inspectors verified that adequate licensee critiques were conducted in order to identify performance weaknesses and necessary improvements. | |||
* April 28, licensed operator simulator evaluated session SES-11, involving a plant runback, unit trip, and a main steam leak outside containment | * April 28, licensed operator simulator evaluated session SES-11, involving a plant runback, unit trip, and a main steam leak outside containment | ||
* June 30, licensee emergency response drill involving a fuel handling accident, a steam generator tube rupture, a steam line break and other complicating events | * June 30, licensee emergency response drill involving a fuel handling accident, a steam generator tube rupture, a steam line break and other complicating events | ||
| Line 324: | Line 309: | ||
Performance indicator data submitted from April 2008 through March 2009 was compared for consistency to data obtained through the review of chemistry department records, monthly operating reports, and control room records. | Performance indicator data submitted from April 2008 through March 2009 was compared for consistency to data obtained through the review of chemistry department records, monthly operating reports, and control room records. | ||
Performance indicator definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, | Performance indicator definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Rev. 5, were used to check the reporting for each data element. Surveillance procedures SP-317, Reactor Coolant System Water Inventory Balance, and SP-702A, Reactor Coolant Dose Equivalent I-131 were reviewed. | ||
* Reactor coolant system activity | * Reactor coolant system activity | ||
* Reactor coolant system leakage | * Reactor coolant system leakage | ||
| Line 334: | Line 319: | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspector sampled licensee submittals relative to the PIs listed below for the period April 2008 through December 2008. To verify the accuracy of the PI data reported during that period, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, | The inspector sampled licensee submittals relative to the PIs listed below for the period April 2008 through December 2008. To verify the accuracy of the PI data reported during that period, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5, were used to confirm the reporting basis for each data element. | ||
Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone | Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone | ||
* Emergency Response Organization Drill/Exercise Performance | * Emergency Response Organization Drill/Exercise Performance | ||
* ERO Drill Participation | * ERO Drill Participation | ||
* Alert and Notification System Reliability For the specified review period, the inspector examined data reported to the NRC, procedural guidance for reporting PI information, and records used by the licensee to identify potential PI occurrences. The inspector verified the accuracy of the PI for ERO drill and exercise performance through review of a sample of drill and event records. The inspector reviewed selected training records to verify the accuracy of the PI for ERO drill participation for personnel assigned to key positions in the ERO. The inspector verified the accuracy of the PI for alert and notification system reliability through review of a sample of the | * Alert and Notification System Reliability For the specified review period, the inspector examined data reported to the NRC, procedural guidance for reporting PI information, and records used by the licensee to identify potential PI occurrences. The inspector verified the accuracy of the PI for ERO drill and exercise performance through review of a sample of drill and event records. The inspector reviewed selected training records to verify the accuracy of the PI for ERO drill participation for personnel assigned to key positions in the ERO. | ||
The inspector verified the accuracy of the PI for alert and notification system reliability through review of a sample of the licensees records of periodic system tests. The inspector also interviewed the licensee personnel who were responsible for collecting and evaluating the PI data. Licensee procedures, records, and other documents reviewed within this inspection area are listed in the Attachment to this report. | |||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
{{a|OA2}} | |||
{{a|OA2}} | |||
==OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems== | ==OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems== | ||
| Line 350: | Line 336: | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of | As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of Problems, and in order to help identify equipment failures or specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the licensees CAP. This review was accomplished by attending daily plant status meetings, interviewing plant operators and applicable system engineers, and accessing the licensees computerized database. | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
| Line 358: | Line 344: | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of Problems, the inspectors performed a review of the | As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of Problems, the inspectors performed a review of the licensees CAP and associated documents to identify trends that could indicate the existence of a more significant safety issue. The inspectors review was focused on repetitive equipment issues, but also considered the results of daily inspector CAP item screening discussed in section 4OA2.1 above, plant status reviews, plant tours, and licensee trending efforts. | ||
The inspectors review nominally considered the six month period of January 2009 through June 2009. The review also included issues documented in the licensees Equipment Performance Priority List dated June 29, 2009; 1st quarter 2009 departmental CAP Rollup & Trend Analysis reports, various nuclear assessment section reports and maintenance rule (MR) reports. Corrective actions associated with a sample of the issues identified in the licensees corrective action program were reviewed for adequacy. | |||
b. Assessment and Observations No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors evaluated the licensees trend methodology and observed that the licensee had performed a detailed review. | |||
This observation resulted in the identification of a vulnerability associated with maintenance that does not require a clearance (tagout). The impact on the risk assessment was minimal since the | The inspectors review of licensee performance over the last six months noted one negative trend as discussed below. | ||
The inspectors identified a negative trend associated with implementation of the licensees on-line 10 CFR 50.65 a(4) risk assessment. Over the last 6 months, the inspectors identified four discrepancies associated with on-line risk assessment. Two discrepancies resulted in an inaccurate risk assessment. An Equipment out of Service (EOOS) software modeling issue resulted in a lower indicated risk for a tagged out emergency diesel generator compared to the same diesel later undergoing surveillance testing. The inspectors also identified that EOOS was not updated for a decay heat closed cycling cooling pump (DCP) breaker replacement. | |||
This observation resulted in the identification of a vulnerability associated with maintenance that does not require a clearance (tagout). The impact on the risk assessment was minimal since the DCPs supported system which was also out of service was adequately reflected in EOOS. The inspectors identified a third risk assessment that was changed without going through the formal review process. The risk profile was changed without issuing a new revision number. The inspectors identified a fourth risk assessment that had not been posted, as required, to the internal on-line scheduling Web site. The licensee documented the above issues in the corrective action program. Documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. | |||
===.3 Annual Sample Review=== | ===.3 Annual Sample Review=== | ||
| Line 371: | Line 361: | ||
The inspectors reviewed priority one NCR 333515 that addressed an arc flash incident (short to ground) during test equipment installation that resulted in a loss of a 480 volt engineered safeguards motor control center (MCC) and its associated loads. | The inspectors reviewed priority one NCR 333515 that addressed an arc flash incident (short to ground) during test equipment installation that resulted in a loss of a 480 volt engineered safeguards motor control center (MCC) and its associated loads. | ||
The inspectors checked that the issue had been completely and accurately identified in the | The inspectors checked that the issue had been completely and accurately identified in the licensees corrective action program, safety concerns were properly classified and prioritized for resolution, root cause determination was sufficiently thorough, and appropriate corrective actions were initiated. The inspectors also evaluated the NCR using the requirements of the licensees CAP as delineated in corrective action procedure CAP-NGGC-200, Corrective Action Program. | ||
====b. Findings and Observations==== | ====b. Findings and Observations==== | ||
The inspectors found that the | The inspectors found that the licensees investigation of the loss of the MCC and associated corrective actions were both comprehensive and thorough. The regulatory aspects of the event will be reviewed during the closure of the events licensee event report (LER 50-302/2009-002-00) during a subsequent NRC inspection. | ||
===.4 Annual Sample Review=== | ===.4 Annual Sample Review=== | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
The inspectors reviewed NCR 317302 which was a priority one NCR that addressed a failure to open of a main feedwater isolation valve during reactor power ascension. The inspectors checked that the issues had been completely and accurately identified in the | The inspectors reviewed NCR 317302 which was a priority one NCR that addressed a failure to open of a main feedwater isolation valve during reactor power ascension. | ||
The inspectors checked that the issues had been completely and accurately identified in the licensees corrective action and maintenance rule programs, and that safety concerns were properly classified and prioritized for resolution, apparent cause determination was sufficiently thorough and appropriate corrective actions assignments and maintenance rule (MR) a(1) goals were implemented in a manner consistent with the licensees program procedures. | |||
====b. Findings and Observations==== | ====b. Findings and Observations==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors found that the investigation of the valve failure, including the root cause and review of operating experience, was thorough and complete, and the assigned corrective actions were comprehensive. The inspector found that prior to this failure, the main feedwater system had been entered into MR a(1) and goals had been established and were being monitored. As a result of this failure however, those a(1) goals had been exceeded. In reviewing the MR a(1) aspects of this failure, the inspector found that the NCR did not include an evaluation describing the main feedwater system having exceeded the MR a(1) goals. Corrective action procedure, CAP-NGGC-200, requires that a priority 2A NCR be initiated when maintenance rule a(1) goals are not met. The inspectors attended the maintenance rule expert panel meeting held on April 21, in which the panel discussed the feedwater system having exceeded the MR a(1) goals, but as described above, this information had not been captured in the CAP. The licensee initiated NCR 335315 to document exceeding the main feedwater system MR a | No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors found that the investigation of the valve failure, including the root cause and review of operating experience, was thorough and complete, and the assigned corrective actions were comprehensive. The inspector found that prior to this failure, the main feedwater system had been entered into MR a(1) and goals had been established and were being monitored. As a result of this failure however, those a(1) goals had been exceeded. In reviewing the MR a(1) aspects of this failure, the inspector found that the NCR did not include an evaluation describing the main feedwater system having exceeded the MR a(1) goals. Corrective action procedure, CAP-NGGC-200, requires that a priority 2A NCR be initiated when maintenance rule a(1) goals are not met. | ||
The inspectors attended the maintenance rule expert panel meeting held on April 21, in which the panel discussed the feedwater system having exceeded the MR a(1)goals, but as described above, this information had not been captured in the CAP. | |||
The licensee initiated NCR 335315 to document exceeding the main feedwater system MR a | |||
: (1) goals and the maintenance rule expert panel results. | : (1) goals and the maintenance rule expert panel results. | ||
| Line 391: | Line 387: | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
For the one non-routine plant evolution described below, the inspectors reviewed the operating | For the one non-routine plant evolution described below, the inspectors reviewed the operating crews performance, operator logs, control board indications, and the plant computer data to verify that operator response was in accordance with plant procedures. | ||
* April 30, Loss of engineered safeguards motor control center (MCC) 3B1 due to a short to ground (arc) when installing test equipment | * April 30, Loss of engineered safeguards motor control center (MCC) 3B1 due to a short to ground (arc) when installing test equipment | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
{{a|OA5}} | |||
{{a|OA5}} | |||
==OA5 Other Activities== | ==OA5 Other Activities== | ||
| Line 403: | Line 398: | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====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 licensee security procedures and regulatory requirements relating to nuclear plant security. These observations took place during normal and off-normal plant working hours. | During the inspection period, the inspectors conducted observations of security force personnel and activities to ensure that the activities were consistent with licensee security procedures and regulatory requirements relating to nuclear plant security. | ||
These observations took place during normal and off-normal plant working hours. | |||
These quarterly resident inspector observations of security force personnel and activities did not constitute any additional inspection samples. Rather, they were considered an integral part of the inspectors | These quarterly resident inspector observations of security force personnel and activities did not constitute any additional inspection samples. Rather, they were considered an integral part of the inspectors normal plant status reviews and inspection activities. | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
No findings of significance were identified. | No findings of significance were identified. | ||
===.2 (Closed) NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2525/175, Emergency Response | ===.2 (Closed) NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2525/175, Emergency Response=== | ||
The inspector completed Temporary Instruction TI 2515/175, Emergency Response Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, Program Review. Appropriate documentation of the results was provided to NRC, HQ, as required by the TI. | Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, Program Review The inspector completed Temporary Instruction TI 2515/175, Emergency Response Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, Program Review. Appropriate documentation of the results was provided to NRC, HQ, as required by the TI. | ||
{{a|OA6}} | {{a|OA6}} | ||
| Line 419: | Line 416: | ||
===Exit Meeting Summary=== | ===Exit Meeting Summary=== | ||
On July 6, 2009, the resident inspectors presented the inspection results to | On July 6, 2009, the resident inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. J. Holt, Plant General Manager, and other members of licensee management. | ||
The inspectors confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the inspection. | |||
ATTACHMENT: | ATTACHMENT: | ||
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION= | =SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION= | ||
| Line 429: | Line 428: | ||
===Licensee personnel=== | ===Licensee personnel=== | ||
: | : | ||
: [[contact::J. Holt]], Plant General Manager | : [[contact::J. Holt]], Plant General Manager | ||
: [[contact::J. Dufner]], Manager, Maintenance | : [[contact::J. Dufner]], Manager, Maintenance | ||
: [[contact::S. Cahill]], Manager, Engineering | : [[contact::S. Cahill]], Manager, Engineering | ||
: [[contact::J. Huegel]], Manager, Nuclear Oversite | : [[contact::J. Huegel]], Manager, Nuclear Oversite | ||
: [[contact::R. Hons]], Manager Training | : [[contact::R. Hons]], Manager Training | ||
: [[contact::C. Morris]], Manager, Operations | : [[contact::C. Morris]], Manager, Operations | ||
: [[contact::D. Westcott]], Supervisor, Licensing | : [[contact::D. Westcott]], Supervisor, Licensing | ||
: [[contact::B. Akins]], Superintendent, Radiation Protection | : [[contact::B. Akins]], Superintendent, Radiation Protection | ||
: [[contact::C. Poliseno]], Supervisor, Emergency Preparedness | : [[contact::C. Poliseno]], Supervisor, Emergency Preparedness | ||
: [[contact::J. Stephenson]], Manager, Fleet Emergency Preparedness | : [[contact::J. Stephenson]], Manager, Fleet Emergency Preparedness | ||
: [[contact::I. Wilson]], Manager Outage and Scheduling | : [[contact::I. Wilson]], Manager Outage and Scheduling | ||
: [[contact::J. Franke]], Vice President, Crystal River Nuclear Plant | : [[contact::J. Franke]], Vice President, Crystal River Nuclear Plant | ||
===NRC personnel=== | ===NRC personnel=== | ||
: | : | ||
: [[contact::M. Sykes]], Chief, Branch 3, Division of Reactor Projects | : [[contact::M. Sykes]], Chief, Branch 3, Division of Reactor Projects | ||
==LIST OF ITEMS== | ==LIST OF ITEMS== | ||
| Line 450: | Line 449: | ||
===Closed=== | ===Closed=== | ||
: 05000302/2525/175 | : 05000302/2525/175 TI Emergency Response Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, Program Review | ||
==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED== | ==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED== | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:59, 21 December 2019
| ML091980032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/2009 |
| From: | Marvin Sykes NRC/RGN-II/DRP/RPB3 |
| To: | Franke J Progress Energy Florida |
| References | |
| IR-09-003, IR-09-501 | |
| Download: ML091980032 (26) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION July 17, 2009
SUBJECT:
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000302/2009003 and 05000302/2009501
Dear Mr. Franke:
On June 30, 2009, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your Crystal River Unit 3. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on July 6, 2009, with Mr. J. Holt and other members of your staff.
The inspections examined activities conducted under your license as they related to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Marvin D. Sykes, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72 cc w/encl.: (See page 2)
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 05000302/2009003 and 05000302/2009501 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
_________________________ XG SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE MDS OFFICE RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRS SIGNATURE SON MDS TXM1 by email RJR1 by email JXH19 by email LRM by email NAME SNinh MSykes TMorrissey RReyes JHeath LMiller DATE 07/17/2009 07/16/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009 7/ /2009 E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
FPC 2
REGION II==
Docket No: 50-302 License No: DPR-72 Report Nos.: 05000302/2009003 and 05000302/2009501 Licensee: Progress Energy (Florida Power Corporation)
Facility: Crystal River Unit 3 Location: Crystal River, FL Dates: April 1, 2009 - June 30, 2009 May 4, 2009 - May 09, 2009 Inspectors: T. Morrissey, Senior Resident Inspector R. Reyes, Resident Inspector J. Heath, Project Engineer L. Miller, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector (Sections 1EP2, 1EP3, 1EP4, 4OA1.2 and 4OA5.2)
Approved by: M. Sykes, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000302/2009003; 04/01/2009-06/30/2009; IR 05000302/2009501; 05/04/2009-
05/08/2009; Crystal River Unit 3; Routine Integrated Report.
The report covered a three month period of inspection by resident inspectors, a region based project engineer, and a region based senior emergency preparedness inspector. 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.
NRC Identified
& Self-Revealing Findings No findings of significance were identified.
Licensee Identified Violations
None
REPORT DETAILS
Summary of Plant Status:
Crystal River 3 began the inspection period at 100 percent rated thermal power (RTP). On April 21 the unit was reduced to approximately 90 percent RTP for planned secondary system work. The unit was returned to 100 percent RTP on April 23. On May 20 the unit was reduced to approximately 87 percent RTP to support planned surveillance testing. The unit was restored to 100 percent RTP on May 21. The unit remained at essentially 100 percent for the remainder of the inspection period.
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity R01 Adverse Weather Protection
.1 Adverse Weather Protection: Hurricane Season Preparation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees hurricane season preparations using the licensees Emergency Management Procedure EM-220, Violent Weather. The inspectors checked that the licensee maintained the ability to protect vital systems and components from high winds and flooding associated with hurricanes.
Additionally, the inspectors toured the five plant areas listed below to check for any vulnerabilities, such as inadequate sealing of water tight penetrations, or degraded barriers that could affect the associated systems. The inspectors verified that the licensees violent weather committee had been established and that an initial preparatory walkdown had been completed. Documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. Nuclear condition reports (NCRs) were reviewed to verify that the licensee was identifying and correcting adverse weather protection issues.
- Control complex flood walls and doors
- South berm area and intake canal area
- Turbine building flood walls and doors
- Auxiliary building sea water room
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Adverse Weather Protection: External Flooding
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed an inspection of the external flood protection features for Crystal River, Unit 3. The inspectors reviewed the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Chapter 2.4.2.4 Facilities Required for Flood Protection that depicted the design flood levels and protection areas containing safety-related equipment to identify areas that may be affected by external flooding. The inspectors conducted a general site walkdown of all external areas of the plant including the turbine building, auxiliary building, and berm to ensure that flood protection measures were erected in accordance with design specifications. Procedure EM-220, Violent Weather, was checked to verify that adequate measures were planned or established to protect against external flooding due to hurricanes. Specific plant attributes that were checked included structural integrity, sealing of penetrations below the design flood line, and adequacy of watertight doors between flood areas. The documents reviewed are listed in the attachment.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.3 Adverse Weather Protection: Offsite and Alternate AC Power System Readiness
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the summer readiness of both the off-site and on-site alternate AC power systems. The inspectors walked down the safety-related emergency diesel generators (EGDG-1A, 1B), non-safety-related emergency diesel generator (EGDG-1C), and the safety-related diesel driven emergency feedwater pump (EFP-3) to verify they would be available during a loss of off-site power event.
The inspectors performed a walked down of the switchyard with plant personnel to verify material condition of the offsite power sources was adequate. Open work orders (WO) for the offsite and onsite AC power systems were reviewed to ensure degraded conditions were properly addressed. The inspectors verified that licensee and transmission system operator procedures contained communication protocols addressing the exchange of appropriate information when issues arise that could impact the offsite power system. The inspectors verified that no equipment or operating procedure changes have occurred since the last performance of this inspection that would potentially affect operation or reliability of the offsite or onsite AC power systems. The documents reviewed are listed in the attachment.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.4 Adverse Weather Protection: Tornado Watch
a. Inspection Scope
On April 14, 2009, the inspectors evaluated the licensees preparations when the site was informed of being in a tornado watch. The licensee implemented procedure EM-220, Violent Weather, for the tornado watch. The inspectors walked down the outside protective area to ensure actions required by EM-220 were implemented.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified. The tornado watch expired with no violent weather or tornado formation.
R04 Equipment Alignment Partial Equipment Walkdowns
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed walkdowns of the critical portions of the selected trains to verify correct system alignment. The inspectors reviewed plant documents to determine the correct system and power alignments, and the required positions of select valves and breakers. The inspectors verified that the licensee had properly identified and resolved equipment alignment problems that could cause initiating events or impact mitigating system availability. The inspectors verified the following three partial system alignments in system walkdowns using the listed documents:
- Makeup pumps MUP-1A and MUP-1C using operating procedure OP-402, Makeup and Purification System, while makeup pump MUP-1B was out of service for planned maintenance
- Decay heat closed cycle (DC) system and feedwater pump FWP-7 using OP-404, Decay Heat Removal System, and OP-605, Feedwater System , while MUP-1C was out of service during planned maintenance
- Raw water pump RWP-2A and service water pump SWP-1A, using OP-408, Nuclear Services Cooling System, while emergency diesel generator EGDG-1B was out of service for planned maintenance
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R05 Fire Protection Fire Area Walkdowns
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors walked down accessible portions of the plant to assess the licensees implementation of the fire protection program. The inspectors checked that the areas were free of transient combustible material and other ignition sources. Also, fire detection and suppression capabilities, fire barriers, and compensatory measures for fire protection problems were verified. The inspectors checked fire suppression and detection equipment to determine whether conditions or deficiencies existed which could impair the function of the equipment. The inspectors selected the areas based on a review of the licensees probabilistic risk assessment. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees fire protection program to verify the requirements of FSAR Section 9.8, Plant Fire Protection Program, were met. Documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. The inspectors toured the following five areas important to reactor safety:
- Emergency diesel generator EGDG-1C building
- Cable spreading room
- Feedwater pump FWP-7 area
- Control rod drive room
- A and B train vital battery rooms
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R06 Flood Protection Measures Internal Flood Protection
a. Inspection Scope
The Inspectors reviewed the Crystal River Unit 3, FSAR, Chapter 2.4.2.4, Facilities Required for Flood Protection, and the Crystal River Unit 3 Design Basis Documents that depicted protection for areas containing safety-related equipment to identify areas that may be affected by internal flooding. A walkdown of the makeup pump area was conducted to ensure that flood protection measures were in accordance with design specifications. Specific plant attributes that were checked included structural integrity, sealing of penetrations, and operability of sump systems.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R07 Heat Sink Performance Annual Review
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed maintenance personnel perform heat exchanger inspections and cleaning for the two listed heat exchangers. The inspector observed as-found conditions when the heat exchangers were opened for inspection and tube cleaning to verify the heat exchangers were in an acceptable condition to perform their design function. The documents reviewed are listed in the attachment.
- Service water heat exchanger SWHE-1A
- Service water heat exchanger SWHE-1B
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program Resident Inspector Quarterly Review
a. Inspection Scope
On April 28, the inspectors observed and assessed licensed operator crew response and actions for the Crystal River Unit 3 licensed operator simulator evaluated session SES-11. Session SES-11 involved a plant runback, a plant trip, and a steam line break outside containment. The inspectors observed the operators use of abnormal procedures; AP-545, Plant Runback; and emergency operating procedures; EOP-02, Vital System Status Verification; and EOP-05, Excessive Heat Transfer. The operators actions were verified to be in accordance with the above procedures.
Event classification and notifications were verified to be in accordance with emergency management procedure EM-202, Duties of the Emergency Coordinator.
The simulator instrumentation and controls were verified to closely parallel those in the actual control room. The inspectors evaluated the following attributes related to crew performance:
- Clarity and formality of communication
- Ability to take timely action to safely control the unit
- Prioritization, interpretation, and verification of alarms
- Correct use and implementation of abnormal and emergency operation procedures; and emergency plan implementing procedures
- Control board operation and manipulation, including high-risk operator actions
- Oversight and direction provided by supervision, including ability to identify and implement appropriate Technical Specification (TS) actions, regulatory reporting requirements, and emergency plan classification and notification
- Crew overall performance and interactions
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R12 Maintenance Effectiveness
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees effectiveness in performing routine maintenance activities. The review included an assessment of the licensees practices associated with the identification, scope, and handling of degraded equipment conditions, as well as common cause failure evaluations and the resolution of historical equipment problems. For those systems, structures, and components within the scope of the Maintenance Rule (MR) per 10 CFR 50.65, the inspectors verified that reliability and unavailability were properly monitored and that 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(1) and (a)(2) classifications were justified in light of the reviewed degraded equipment condition. The documents reviewed are listed in the attachment. The inspectors conducted this inspection for the following two equipment issues:
- NCR 308393, SWP-1A South pump inboard bearing vibration in alert
- NCR 286943, EFV-11 closed without operator action
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the risk impact associated with those activities listed below and verified the licensees associated risk management actions were adequate. This review primarily focused on equipment determined to be risk significant within the maintenance rule. The inspectors also assessed the adequacy of the licensees identification and resolution of problems associated with risk management including emergent work activities. The licensees implementation of compliance procedure CP-253, Power Operation Risk Assessment, was verified in each of the following six work week assessments.
- Work Week 09W13, Operations with decay heat valve DHV-12 unavailable due to planned maintenance, and separately with emergency diesel generator EGDG-1B unavailable due to surveillance testing
- Work Week 09W17, Operations with yellow risk condition with makeup pump MUP-1C out of service for planned maintenance and separately a yellow risk condition during an unplanned loss and recovery of an engineered safeguards 480 volt motor control center (3B1)
- Work Week 09W19, Operations with individually out of service for planned maintenance EGDG-1A and SWP-1A
- Work Week 09W20, Operations with raw water pump RWP-3A out of service for planned maintenance and Appendix R chiller CHHE-2 out of service for emergent maintenance
- Work Week 09W21, Operations with EGDG-1B out of service for planned maintenance and emergent work on one channel of the reactor coolant pump power monitor
- Work Week 09W22, Operations with feedwater pump FWP-7, SWP-1B and the alternate AC emergency diesel generator EGDG-1C individually out of service for planned maintenance
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R15 Operability Evaluations The inspectors reviewed the following five NCRs to verify operability of systems important to safety was properly established, that the affected components or systems remained capable of performing their intended safety function, and that no unrecognized increase in plant or public risk occurred. The inspectors determined if operability of systems or components important to safety was consistent with TS, the FSAR, 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, and when applicable, NRC Inspection Manual, part 9900, Technical Guidance, Operability Determinations & Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety. The inspectors reviewed licensee NCRs, work schedules, and engineering documents to check if operability issues were being identified at an appropriate threshold and documented in the corrective action program, consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements; and licensee procedure CAP-NGGC-200, Corrective Action Program.
- NCR 330057, During engineered safeguards testing, waste disposal system valve WSV-5 closed rendering RM-A6 inoperable
- NCR 328886, RWP-3B low differential pressure margin
- NCR 335745, Service water leakage exceeded MR limit
- NCR 339361, Two pieces of urethane coating found in service water heat exchangers R18 Plant Modifications Temporary Plant Modifications
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed one temporary modification listed below and the associated 10 CFR 50.59 screening against the system design basis documentation and FSAR to verify the modification did not adversely affect the safety functions of important safety systems. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed licensee procedure EGR-NGGC-00005, Engineering Change, to assess if the modification was properly developed and implemented.
- NCR 335794, Temporary repair of vital bus transformer VBTR- 4D capacitor connection.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R19 Post Maintenance Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors witnessed and/or reviewed post-maintenance test procedures an/or test activities, as appropriate, for selected risk significant systems to verify whether:
- (1) testing was adequate for the maintenance performed;
- (2) acceptance criteria were clear, and adequately demonstrated operational readiness consistent with design and licensing basis documents;
- (3) test instrumentation had current calibrations, range, and accuracy consistent with the application;
- (4) tests were performed as written with applicable prerequisites satisfied, and
- (5) equipment was returned to the status required to perform its safety function. The seven post-maintenance tests reviewed are listed below:
- SP- 340C, MUP-1A, MUP-1B and Valve Surveillance, after performing maintenance on makeup pump MUP-1B per WO 1357282
- SP-340F, MUP-1C and Valve Surveillance, after performing planned maintenance on MUP-1C and associated valves per WOs 817870 , 1360409, and 1327512
- SP-354A, Monthly Functional Test of the Emergency Diesel Generator EGDG-1A, and OP-707, Operation of the ES Emergency Diesel Generators, after performing maintenance on EGDG-1A per WOs 1350162, 1064423 and 1382571
- SP-344A, RWP-2A, SWP-1A and Valve Surveillance, after performing maintenance on SWP-1A per WOs 1140146, 1179643, and 1466316
- SP-332, Monthly Steam Line and Feedwater isolation Functional Test, after performing planned maintenance on main steam solenoid valves MSV-411-SV4 and MSV-414-SV4 per WO 1035984
- SP-354B, Monthly Functional Test of the Emergency Diesel Generator EGDG-1B, and OP-707, Operation of the ES Emergency Diesel Generators after performing maintenance on EGDG-1B per WOs 1064422, 1312569 and 1348361
- SP-112P, Reactor Protection System Reactor Coolant Pump Power Monitor Calibration (Partial) after performing emergent maintenance on the reactor coolant pump power monitor per WO 1556566
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
R22 Surveillance Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed and/or reviewed six surveillance tests listed below to verify that TS surveillance requirements were followed and that test acceptance criteria were properly specified. 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. Additionally, the inspectors also verified that equipment was properly returned to service and that proper testing was specified and conducted to ensure that the equipment could perform its intended safety function following maintenance or as part of surveillance testing.
In-Service Test:
- SP-340B, DHP-1A, BSP-1A and Valve Surveillance Surveillance Test:
- SP-354A, Monthly Functional Test Of The Emergency Diesel Generator EGDG-1A
- SP-340D, RWP-3B, DCP-1B and Valve Surveillance (RWP-3B only, increase frequency surveillance)
- SP-146A, Emergency Feedwater Initiation and Control (EFIC) Monthly Functional Test
- SP-130, Engineered Safeguards Monthly Functional Test
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
EP2 Alert and Notification System Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspector evaluated the adequacy of licensee=s methods for testing the alert and notification system in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, Attachment 02, AAlert and Notification System Evaluation.@ The applicable planning standard 10 CFR Part 50.47(b)(5) and its related 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D requirements were used as reference criteria. The criteria contained in NUREG-0654, ACriteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,@ Revision 1, also were used as a reference.
The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the alert and notification system on a biennial basis.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
EP3 Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Augmentation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspector reviewed the licensee=s Emergency Response Organization (ERO)augmentation staffing requirements and process for notifying the ERO to ensure the readiness of key staff for event response and timely facility activation. The qualification records of key position ERO personnel were reviewed to ensure all ERO qualifications were current. A sample of problems identified from augmentation drills or system tests performed since the last inspection were reviewed to assess the effectiveness of corrective actions.
The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, 03, AEmergency Response Organization Staffing and Augmentation System.@ The applicable planning standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and its related 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirements were used as reference criteria.
The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the ERO staffing and augmentation system on a biennial basis.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
EP4 Emergency Action Level (EAL) and Emergency Plan Changes
a. Inspection Scope
Since the last NRC inspection of this program area, Revision 28 of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan was implemented based on the licensees determination, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), that the changes resulted in no decrease in the effectiveness of the Plan, and that the revised Plan continued to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The inspector conducted a sampling review of the Plan changes and implementing procedure changes made between May 1, 2008, and April 30, 2009, to evaluate for potential decreases in effectiveness of the Plan. However, this review was not documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and does not constitute formal NRC approval of the changes. Therefore, these changes remain subject to future NRC inspection in their entirety.
The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, 04, AEmergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes.@ The applicable planning standard (PS), 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and its related 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirements were used as reference criteria.
The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the emergency action level and emergency plan changes on an annual basis.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses and Deficiencies
a. Inspection Scope
The inspector reviewed the corrective actions identified through the Emergency Preparedness program to determine the significance of the issues and to determine if repeat problems were occurring. The facility=s self-assessments and audits were reviewed to assess the licensee=s ability to be self-critical, thus avoiding complacency and degradation of their emergency preparedness program. In addition, the inspector reviewed licensee=s self-assessments and audits to assess the completeness and effectiveness of all emergency preparedness related corrective actions.
The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, 05, ACorrection of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses.@ The applicable planning standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and its related 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirements were used as reference criteria. The inspector reviewed various documents which are listed in the Attachment to this report. This inspection activity satisfied one inspection sample for the correction of emergency preparedness weaknesses on a biennial basis.
Findings No findings of significance were identified.
EP6 Drill Evaluation Emergency Preparedness Drill
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed and reviewed two emergency response activities to verify the licensee was properly classifying emergency events, making the required notifications, and appropriate protective action recommendations. The inspectors assessed the licensees ability to classify emergent situations and make timely notification to State and Federal officials in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72.
Emergency activities were verified to be in accordance with the Crystal River Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Section 8.0, Emergency Classification System, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. Additionally, the inspectors verified that adequate licensee critiques were conducted in order to identify performance weaknesses and necessary improvements.
- April 28, licensed operator simulator evaluated session SES-11, involving a plant runback, unit trip, and a main steam leak outside containment
- June 30, licensee emergency response drill involving a fuel handling accident, a steam generator tube rupture, a steam line break and other complicating events
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
OA1 Performance Indicator (PI) Verification
.1 Initiating Events and Mitigating Systems Cornerstones
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors checked the accuracy of the two performance indicators listed below.
Performance indicator data submitted from April 2008 through March 2009 was compared for consistency to data obtained through the review of chemistry department records, monthly operating reports, and control room records.
Performance indicator definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Rev. 5, were used to check the reporting for each data element. Surveillance procedures SP-317, Reactor Coolant System Water Inventory Balance, and SP-702A, Reactor Coolant Dose Equivalent I-131 were reviewed.
- Reactor coolant system activity
- Reactor coolant system leakage
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone
a. Inspection Scope
The inspector sampled licensee submittals relative to the PIs listed below for the period April 2008 through December 2008. To verify the accuracy of the PI data reported during that period, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 5, were used to confirm the reporting basis for each data element.
Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone
- Emergency Response Organization Drill/Exercise Performance
- ERO Drill Participation
- Alert and Notification System Reliability For the specified review period, the inspector examined data reported to the NRC, procedural guidance for reporting PI information, and records used by the licensee to identify potential PI occurrences. The inspector verified the accuracy of the PI for ERO drill and exercise performance through review of a sample of drill and event records. The inspector reviewed selected training records to verify the accuracy of the PI for ERO drill participation for personnel assigned to key positions in the ERO.
The inspector verified the accuracy of the PI for alert and notification system reliability through review of a sample of the licensees records of periodic system tests. The inspector also interviewed the licensee personnel who were responsible for collecting and evaluating the PI data. Licensee procedures, records, and other documents reviewed within this inspection area are listed in the Attachment to this report.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems
.1 Daily Review
a. Inspection Scope
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of Problems, and in order to help identify equipment failures or specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the licensees CAP. This review was accomplished by attending daily plant status meetings, interviewing plant operators and applicable system engineers, and accessing the licensees computerized database.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Semi-Annual Trend Review
a. Inspection Scope
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of Problems, the inspectors performed a review of the licensees CAP and associated documents to identify trends that could indicate the existence of a more significant safety issue. The inspectors review was focused on repetitive equipment issues, but also considered the results of daily inspector CAP item screening discussed in section 4OA2.1 above, plant status reviews, plant tours, and licensee trending efforts.
The inspectors review nominally considered the six month period of January 2009 through June 2009. The review also included issues documented in the licensees Equipment Performance Priority List dated June 29, 2009; 1st quarter 2009 departmental CAP Rollup & Trend Analysis reports, various nuclear assessment section reports and maintenance rule (MR) reports. Corrective actions associated with a sample of the issues identified in the licensees corrective action program were reviewed for adequacy.
b. Assessment and Observations No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors evaluated the licensees trend methodology and observed that the licensee had performed a detailed review.
The inspectors review of licensee performance over the last six months noted one negative trend as discussed below.
The inspectors identified a negative trend associated with implementation of the licensees on-line 10 CFR 50.65 a(4) risk assessment. Over the last 6 months, the inspectors identified four discrepancies associated with on-line risk assessment. Two discrepancies resulted in an inaccurate risk assessment. An Equipment out of Service (EOOS) software modeling issue resulted in a lower indicated risk for a tagged out emergency diesel generator compared to the same diesel later undergoing surveillance testing. The inspectors also identified that EOOS was not updated for a decay heat closed cycling cooling pump (DCP) breaker replacement.
This observation resulted in the identification of a vulnerability associated with maintenance that does not require a clearance (tagout). The impact on the risk assessment was minimal since the DCPs supported system which was also out of service was adequately reflected in EOOS. The inspectors identified a third risk assessment that was changed without going through the formal review process. The risk profile was changed without issuing a new revision number. The inspectors identified a fourth risk assessment that had not been posted, as required, to the internal on-line scheduling Web site. The licensee documented the above issues in the corrective action program. Documents reviewed are listed in the attachment.
.3 Annual Sample Review
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed priority one NCR 333515 that addressed an arc flash incident (short to ground) during test equipment installation that resulted in a loss of a 480 volt engineered safeguards motor control center (MCC) and its associated loads.
The inspectors checked that the issue had been completely and accurately identified in the licensees corrective action program, safety concerns were properly classified and prioritized for resolution, root cause determination was sufficiently thorough, and appropriate corrective actions were initiated. The inspectors also evaluated the NCR using the requirements of the licensees CAP as delineated in corrective action procedure CAP-NGGC-200, Corrective Action Program.
b. Findings and Observations
The inspectors found that the licensees investigation of the loss of the MCC and associated corrective actions were both comprehensive and thorough. The regulatory aspects of the event will be reviewed during the closure of the events licensee event report (LER 50-302/2009-002-00) during a subsequent NRC inspection.
.4 Annual Sample Review
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed NCR 317302 which was a priority one NCR that addressed a failure to open of a main feedwater isolation valve during reactor power ascension.
The inspectors checked that the issues had been completely and accurately identified in the licensees corrective action and maintenance rule programs, and that safety concerns were properly classified and prioritized for resolution, apparent cause determination was sufficiently thorough and appropriate corrective actions assignments and maintenance rule (MR) a(1) goals were implemented in a manner consistent with the licensees program procedures.
b. Findings and Observations
No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors found that the investigation of the valve failure, including the root cause and review of operating experience, was thorough and complete, and the assigned corrective actions were comprehensive. The inspector found that prior to this failure, the main feedwater system had been entered into MR a(1) and goals had been established and were being monitored. As a result of this failure however, those a(1) goals had been exceeded. In reviewing the MR a(1) aspects of this failure, the inspector found that the NCR did not include an evaluation describing the main feedwater system having exceeded the MR a(1) goals. Corrective action procedure, CAP-NGGC-200, requires that a priority 2A NCR be initiated when maintenance rule a(1) goals are not met.
The inspectors attended the maintenance rule expert panel meeting held on April 21, in which the panel discussed the feedwater system having exceeded the MR a(1)goals, but as described above, this information had not been captured in the CAP.
The licensee initiated NCR 335315 to document exceeding the main feedwater system MR a
- (1) goals and the maintenance rule expert panel results.
OA3 Event Follow-up
Operator Performance During Non-Routine Event
a. Inspection Scope
For the one non-routine plant evolution described below, the inspectors reviewed the operating crews performance, operator logs, control board indications, and the plant computer data to verify that operator response was in accordance with plant procedures.
- April 30, Loss of engineered safeguards motor control center (MCC) 3B1 due to a short to ground (arc) when installing test equipment
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
OA5 Other Activities
.1 Quarterly Resident Inspector Observations of Security Personnel 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 licensee security procedures and regulatory requirements relating to nuclear plant security.
These observations took place during normal and off-normal plant working hours.
These quarterly resident inspector observations of security force personnel and activities did not constitute any additional inspection samples. 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.
.2 (Closed) NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2525/175, Emergency Response
Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, Program Review The inspector completed Temporary Instruction TI 2515/175, Emergency Response Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, Program Review. Appropriate documentation of the results was provided to NRC, HQ, as required by the TI.
OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
Exit Meeting Summary
On July 6, 2009, the resident inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. J. Holt, Plant General Manager, and other members of licensee management.
The inspectors confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the inspection.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee personnel
- J. Holt, Plant General Manager
- J. Dufner, Manager, Maintenance
- S. Cahill, Manager, Engineering
- J. Huegel, Manager, Nuclear Oversite
- R. Hons, Manager Training
- C. Morris, Manager, Operations
- D. Westcott, Supervisor, Licensing
- B. Akins, Superintendent, Radiation Protection
- C. Poliseno, Supervisor, Emergency Preparedness
- J. Stephenson, Manager, Fleet Emergency Preparedness
- I. Wilson, Manager Outage and Scheduling
- J. Franke, Vice President, Crystal River Nuclear Plant
NRC personnel
- M. Sykes, Chief, Branch 3, Division of Reactor Projects
LIST OF ITEMS
OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED
Closed
- 05000302/2525/175 TI Emergency Response Organization, Drill/Exercise Performance Indicator, Program Review