IR 05000443/2009003: 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)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 07/24/2009
| issue date = 07/24/2009
| title = IR 05000443-09-003, on 04/01/2009 - 06/30/2009; Seabrook Station, Unit 1, Routine Integrated Report
| title = IR 05000443-09-003, on 04/01/2009 - 06/30/2009; Seabrook Station, Unit 1, Routine Integrated Report
| author name = Burritt A L
| author name = Burritt A
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB3
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB3
| addressee name = St.Pierre G
| addressee name = St.Pierre G
Line 9: Line 9:
| docket = 05000443
| docket = 05000443
| license number = NPF-086
| license number = NPF-086
| contact person = Burritt A L RGN-I/DRP/PB3/610-337-5069
| contact person = Burritt A  RGN-I/DRP/PB3/610-337-5069
| document report number = IR-09-003
| document report number = IR-09-003
| document type = Inspection Report, Letter
| document type = Inspection Report, Letter
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:
{{#Wiki_filter:uly 24, 2009
[[Issue date::July 24, 2009]]


Mr. Gene S Vice President, North Region NEXTera Energy Seabrook Seabrook Station c/o Mr. Michael O'Keefe P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874
==SUBJECT:==
 
SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000443/2009003
SUBJECT: SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000443/2009003


==Dear Mr. St. Pierre:==
==Dear Mr. St. Pierre:==
On June 30, 2009, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings which were discussed on July 1, 2009, with Mr. S and other members of your staff.
On June 30, 2009, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings which were discussed on July 1, 2009, with Mr. S and other members of your staff.


This inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
This inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
 
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.


On the basis of the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.
On the basis of the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.


In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response (if any), will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC'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).
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response (if any), will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).


Sincerely,/RA/
Sincerely,
Arthur L. Burritt, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects  
/RA/
Arthur L. Burritt, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure: Inspection Report No. 05000443/2009003 w/ Attachment: Supplemental Information Docket No. 50-443 License No: NPF-86


===Enclosure:===
=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
Inspection Report No. 05000443/2009003 w/  
IR 05000443/2009003; 4/1/2009-6/30/2009; Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; Routine Integrated


===Attachment:===
Report.
Supplemental Information Docket No. 50-443 License No: NPF-86


=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
The report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident and regional specialist inspectors. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated December 2006.
IR 05000443/2009003; 4/1/2009-6/30/2009; Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; Routine Integrated Report.
 
The report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident and regional specialist inspectors. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 4, dated December 2006.


No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified.
Line 57: Line 54:


==REACTOR SAFETY==
==REACTOR SAFETY==
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity  
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
 
{{a|1R01}}
{{a|1R01}}
==1R01 Adverse Weather Preparation (71111.01 - 1 Sample)==
==1R01 Adverse Weather Preparation (71111.01 - 1 Sample)==


Line 67: Line 63:
The inspector completed one seasonal extreme weather conditions inspection sample.
The inspector completed one seasonal extreme weather conditions inspection sample.


The inspectors assessed NEXTera's readiness for the onset of extreme hot weather conditions. The inspectors reviewed the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) descriptions for related design features and verified the adequacy of the station procedures for hot weather protection. The inspectors reviewed NEXTera's actions per procedure ON1490.09 for seasonal readiness, and procedure OS1200.03 for severe weather. The inspectors also conducted walkdowns of susceptible systems, specifically the emergency feedwater and service water systems. The inspectors reviewed deficiencies related to extreme weather preparation and verified the issues were entered into the corrective action program. The references used for this review are listed in Attachment A.
The inspectors assessed NEXTeras readiness for the onset of extreme hot weather conditions. The inspectors reviewed the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR)descriptions for related design features and verified the adequacy of the station procedures for hot weather protection. The inspectors reviewed NEXTeras actions per procedure ON1490.09 for seasonal readiness, and procedure OS1200.03 for severe weather. The inspectors also conducted walkdowns of susceptible systems, specifically the emergency feedwater and service water systems. The inspectors reviewed deficiencies related to extreme weather preparation and verified the issues were entered into the corrective action program. The references used for this review are listed in A.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1R04}}
{{a|1R04}}
==1R04 Equipment Alignment (71111.04 - 3 Samples,==
==1R04 Equipment Alignment (71111.04 - 3 Samples, 71111.04S - 1 Samples)==
 
==71111.04S - 1 Samples)


===.1 Partial System Walkdown===
===.1 Partial System Walkdown===


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
==
The inspectors completed three partial system walkdown inspection samples for the plant systems listed below. The inspectors verified that valves, switches, and breakers were correctly aligned in accordance with Seabrook's procedures and that conditions that could affect system operability were appropriately addressed. The inspectors reviewed applicable piping and instrumentation drawings and system operational lineup procedures.
The inspectors completed three partial system walkdown inspection samples for the plant systems listed below. The inspectors verified that valves, switches, and breakers were correctly aligned in accordance with Seabrook's procedures and that conditions that could affect system operability were appropriately addressed. The inspectors reviewed applicable piping and instrumentation drawings and system operational lineup procedures.


Line 93: Line 91:


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1R05}}
{{a|1R05}}
==1R05 Fire Protection (71111.05Q - 4 Samples,==
==1R05 Fire Protection (71111.05Q - 4==


Samples, 71111.05A - 1 Sample)
==71111.05A - 1 Sample)


===.1 Quarterly Review of Fire Areas:===
===.1 Quarterly Review of Fire Areas:===


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
==
The inspectors completed four quarterly fire protection inspection samples. The inspectors examined the areas of the plant listed below to assess: the control of transient combustibles and ignition sources; the operational status and material condition of the fire detection, fire suppression, and manual fire fighting equipment; the material condition of the passive fire protection features; and the compensatory measures for out-of-service or degraded fire protection equipment. The inspectors verified that the fire areas were maintained in accordance with applicable portions of Fire Protection Pre-Fire Strategies and Fire Hazard
The inspectors completed four quarterly fire protection inspection samples. The inspectors examined the areas of the plant listed below to assess: the control of transient combustibles and ignition sources; the operational status and material condition of the fire detection, fire suppression, and manual fire fighting equipment; the material condition of the passive fire protection features; and the compensatory measures for out-of-service or degraded fire protection equipment. The inspectors verified that the fire areas were maintained in accordance with applicable portions of Fire Protection Pre-Fire Strategies and Fire Hazard


Line 116: Line 114:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors completed one annual fire drill observation inspection sample. The inspectors observed an announced fire brigade drill on May 12, 2009, on the 7' elevation of the PAB. The inspectors observed brigade performance during the drill to evaluate the following: donning and use of protective equipment; fire brigade leader command and control; fire brigade response time; radio communications; and the use of pre-fire plans. The inspectors attended the post-drill critique and reviewed the disposition of issues and deficiencies identified during the drill. The inspectors also verified that all fire fighting equipment used during the drill was returned to a condition of readiness.
The inspectors completed one annual fire drill observation inspection sample. The inspectors observed an announced fire brigade drill on May 12, 2009, on the 7 elevation of the PAB. The inspectors observed brigade performance during the drill to evaluate the following: donning and use of protective equipment; fire brigade leader command and control; fire brigade response time; radio communications; and the use of pre-fire plans.
 
The inspectors attended the post-drill critique and reviewed the disposition of issues and deficiencies identified during the drill. The inspectors also verified that all fire fighting equipment used during the drill was returned to a condition of readiness.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1R06}}
{{a|1R06}}
==1R06 Flood Protection Measures (71111.06 - 1 Sample)==
==1R06 Flood Protection Measures (71111.06 - 1 Sample)==


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors completed one flood protection measures inspection sample. The inspectors reviewed the flood protection measures designed to protect the east main steam and feedwater (MS & FW) building from the effects of internal flooding. The inspectors reviewed NEXTera's flooding evaluation for the selected areas, the availability and testing of MS & FW building flooding alarms and alarm response procedures. The inspectors also performed walkdowns of the selected areas to verify that as-found equipment and conditions were consistent with the design basis documents. Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in the Attachment.
The inspectors completed one flood protection measures inspection sample. The inspectors reviewed the flood protection measures designed to protect the east main steam and feedwater (MS & FW) building from the effects of internal flooding. The inspectors reviewed NEXTeras flooding evaluation for the selected areas, the availability and testing of MS & FW building flooding alarms and alarm response procedures. The inspectors also performed walkdowns of the selected areas to verify that as-found equipment and conditions were consistent with the design basis documents. Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in the Attachment.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1R07}}
{{a|1R07}}
==1R07 Heat Sink Performance (71111.07A - 1 Sample)==
==1R07 Heat Sink Performance (71111.07A - 1 Sample)==


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors completed a heat sink inspection sample for the "A" emergency diesel generator jacket water heat exchanger to determine whether the heat exchanger could fulfill the design function. The inspectors reviewed thermal performance monitoring (WO 0509597), trending data for heat exchanger temperatures and fouling factors, and ES1850.017, "SW Heat Exchanger Program," Revision 0. The inspectors interviewed the system engineer to evaluate the process used to monitor the heat exchanger and commitments in Generic Letter 89-13, "Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment." The inspectors conducted system walkdowns and reviewed condition reports to verify that issues were identified and corrected associated with the heat exchangers.
The inspectors completed a heat sink inspection sample for the "A" emergency diesel generator jacket water heat exchanger to determine whether the heat exchanger could fulfill the design function. The inspectors reviewed thermal performance monitoring (WO 0509597), trending data for heat exchanger temperatures and fouling factors, and ES1850.017, "SW Heat Exchanger Program," Revision 0. The inspectors interviewed the system engineer to evaluate the process used to monitor the heat exchanger and commitments in Generic Letter 89-13, "Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment." The inspectors conducted system walkdowns and reviewed condition reports to verify that issues were identified and corrected associated with the heat exchangers.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified.


{{a|1R11}}
{{a|1R11}}
==1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program==
==1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program==
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.11Q|count=1}}
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.11Q|count=1}}
Line 144: Line 142:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors completed one quarterly licensed operator requalification program inspection sample. Specifically, the inspectors observed simulator examination of licensed operators on June 4 and 5, 2009, for scenarios involving transients and design basis events. The inspectors reviewed operator actions to implement the abnormal and emergency operating procedures. The inspectors examined the operators' ability to perform actions associated with high-risk activities, the Emergency Plan, previous lessons learned items, and the correct use and implementation of procedures. The inspectors observed and reviewed the training evaluator's critique of operator performance and verified that deficiencies were adequately identified, discussed, and entered into the corrective action program, as appropriate. The inspectors reviewed the simulator's physical fidelity in order to verify similarities between the Seabrook control room and the simulator. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
The inspectors completed one quarterly licensed operator requalification program inspection sample. Specifically, the inspectors observed simulator examination of licensed operators on June 4 and 5, 2009, for scenarios involving transients and design basis events. The inspectors reviewed operator actions to implement the abnormal and emergency operating procedures. The inspectors examined the operators ability to perform actions associated with high-risk activities, the Emergency Plan, previous lessons learned items, and the correct use and implementation of procedures. The inspectors observed and reviewed the training evaluators critique of operator performance and verified that deficiencies were adequately identified, discussed, and entered into the corrective action program, as appropriate. The inspectors reviewed the simulators physical fidelity in order to verify similarities between the Seabrook control room and the simulator. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.


The inspector also reviewed licensed operator just-in-time training on May 6, 2009, for the operator response actions to simulated events resulting from construction activities in the 345KV switchyard.
The inspector also reviewed licensed operator just-in-time training on May 6, 2009, for the operator response actions to simulated events resulting from construction activities in the 345KV switchyard.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1R12}}
{{a|1R12}}
==1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12Q - 2 Samples)==
==1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12Q - 2 Samples)==


Line 156: Line 153:
The inspectors completed two maintenance effectiveness inspection samples.
The inspectors completed two maintenance effectiveness inspection samples.


The inspectors reviewed performance-based problems or performance and condition history reviews involving selected in-scope structures, systems or components (SSCs) to assess the effectiveness of the maintenance program. Reviews focused on: proper Maintenance Rule (MR) scoping in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65; characterization of reliability issues; tracking system for component unavailability; 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(1) and (a)(2) classifications; identifying and addressing common cause failures, trending key parameters, and the appropriateness of performance criteria for SSCs classified (a)(2) as well as the adequacy of goals and corrective actions for SSCs classified (a)(1). The inspectors reviewed system health reports, maintenance backlogs, and MR basis documents. Other documents reviewed for the inspection are listed in the Attachment. The following samples were reviewed:
The inspectors reviewed performance-based problems or performance and condition history reviews involving selected in-scope structures, systems or components (SSCs) to assess the effectiveness of the maintenance program. Reviews focused on: proper Maintenance Rule (MR) scoping in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65; characterization of reliability issues; tracking system for component unavailability; 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(1) and (a)(2) classifications; identifying and addressing common cause failures, trending key parameters, and the appropriateness of performance criteria for SSCs classified (a)(2)as well as the adequacy of goals and corrective actions for SSCs classified (a)(1). The inspectors reviewed system health reports, maintenance backlogs, and MR basis documents. Other documents reviewed for the inspection are listed in the Attachment.
 
The following samples were reviewed:
* Service water system traveling water screen performance (AR01189905).
* Service water system traveling water screen performance (AR01189905).
* B EDG performance following a jacket water cooling system leak, resulting in a maintenance rule and maintenance preventable functional failure (AR121440). NRC review of this area is also described in Report 2009002.
* B EDG performance following a jacket water cooling system leak, resulting in a maintenance rule and maintenance preventable functional failure (AR121440). NRC review of this area is also described in Report 2009002.
Line 163: Line 162:
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified.


{{a|1R13}}
{{a|1R13}}
==1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Evaluation==
==1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Evaluation==
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.13|count=4}}
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.13|count=4}}


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors completed four maintenance risk assessment and emergent risk evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed the scheduling and control of the emergent work activities listed below to evaluate the effect on plant risk. The inspectors conducted interviews with operators, risk analysts, maintenance technicians, and engineers to assess their knowledge of the risk associated with the work, and to ensure that appropriate risk management actions were implemented. The actions taken were evaluated using the following Seabrook procedures: Maintenance Manual 4.14, "Troubleshooting," Revision 0 and Work Management Manual 10.1, "On-Line Maintenance," Revision 3. Specific risk assessments were conducted using Seabrook's "Safety Monitor." The inspectors reviewed NEXTera actions and risk assessments to address deficiencies and verified the issues were entered into the corrective action program. The inspectors reviewed the following work activities:
The inspectors completed four maintenance risk assessment and emergent risk evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed the scheduling and control of the emergent work activities listed below to evaluate the effect on plant risk. The inspectors conducted interviews with operators, risk analysts, maintenance technicians, and engineers to assess their knowledge of the risk associated with the work, and to ensure that appropriate risk management actions were implemented. The actions taken were evaluated using the following Seabrook procedures: Maintenance Manual 4.14, "Troubleshooting, Revision 0 and Work Management Manual 10.1, "On-Line Maintenance, Revision 3. Specific risk assessments were conducted using Seabrook's "Safety Monitor." The inspectors reviewed NEXTera actions and risk assessments to address deficiencies and verified the issues were entered into the corrective action program. The inspectors reviewed the following work activities:
* Planned switchyard modification and steel erection work from 4/1 to 6/30/09 (WO 00628724, 00628743)
* Planned switchyard modification and steel erection work from 4/1 to 6/30/09 (WO 00628724, 00628743)
* Emergent work to replace supplemental emergency power supply SEPS 2B battery bank after it failed during testing on 5/21/09 (WO 94001046 / AR 00197823)
* Emergent work to replace supplemental emergency power supply SEPS 2B battery bank after it failed during testing on 5/21/09 (WO 94001046 / AR 00197823)
Line 175: Line 174:


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1R15}}
{{a|1R15}}
==1R15 Operability Evaluations (71111.15 - 5 Samples)==
==1R15 Operability Evaluations (71111.15 - 5 Samples)==


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors completed five operability evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed operability evaluations and condition reports to verify that identified conditions did not adversely affect safety system operability or overall plant safety. The evaluations were reviewed using criteria specified in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-20, "Revision to Guidance formerly contained in NRC Generic Letter 91-18, Information to Licensees Regarding two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operability" and Inspection Manual Part 9900, "Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety." In addition, where a component was determined to be inoperable, the inspectors verified that TS limiting condition for operation implications were properly addressed. The inspectors also performed field walk downs and interviewed personnel involved in identifying, evaluating or correcting the identified conditions. The following items were reviewed:
The inspectors completed five operability evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed operability evaluations and condition reports to verify that identified conditions did not adversely affect safety system operability or overall plant safety. The evaluations were reviewed using criteria specified in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-20, Revision to Guidance formerly contained in NRC Generic Letter 91-18, Information to Licensees Regarding two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operability and Inspection Manual Part 9900, "Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety." In addition, where a component was determined to be inoperable, the inspectors verified that TS limiting condition for operation implications were properly addressed. The inspectors also performed field walk downs and interviewed personnel involved in identifying, evaluating or correcting the identified conditions. The following items were reviewed:
* AR197823, control rod bank A group demand indicator operability when the step counter broke during testing
* AR197823, control rod bank A group demand indicator operability when the step counter broke during testing
* AR 195174, A EDG operability with degraded synchronization check relay
* AR 195174, A EDG operability with degraded synchronization check relay
Line 188: Line 186:


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1R19}}
{{a|1R19}}
==1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing (71111.19 - 5 Samples)==
==1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing (71111.19 - 5 Samples)==


Line 201: Line 198:


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified. {{a|1R22}}
{{a|1R22}}
==1R22 Surveillance Testing (71111.22 - 6 Samples)==
==1R22 Surveillance Testing (71111.22 - 6 Samples)==


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors observed portions of surveillance testing activities of safety-related systems to verify that the system and components were capable of performing their intended safety function, to verify operational readiness, and to ensure compliance with required Technical Specifications and surveillance procedures. The inspectors attended selected pre-evolution briefings, performed system and control room walkdowns, observed operators and technicians perform test evolutions, reviewed system parameters, and interviewed the system engineers and field operators. The test data recorded was compared to procedural and technical specification requirements, and to prior tests to identify any adverse trends. The inspection included the following six surveillance samples:
The inspectors observed portions of surveillance testing activities of safety-related systems to verify that the system and components were capable of performing their intended safety function, to verify operational readiness, and to ensure compliance with required Technical Specifications and surveillance procedures. The inspectors attended selected pre-evolution briefings, performed system and control room walkdowns, observed operators and technicians perform test evolutions, reviewed system parameters, and interviewed the system engineers and field operators. The test data recorded was compared to procedural and technical specification requirements, and to prior tests to identify any adverse trends. The inspection included the following six surveillance samples:
* OX1401.03, Revision 8, "RCS Vent Path Block Valve Quarterly, Cold Shutdown, and 18 Month Surveillance Test," Revision 08 on 04/08/09
* OX1401.03, Revision 8, RCS Vent Path Block Valve Quarterly, Cold Shutdown, and 18 Month Surveillance Test, Revision 08 on 04/08/09
* OS1023.51, "Control Room Ventilation and Air Conditioning System Operations," Revision 15 04/14/09
* OS1023.51, Control Room Ventilation and Air Conditioning System Operations, Revision 15 04/14/09
* OX1416.05, "Service Water Cooling Tower Pumps Quarterly and 2 Year Comprehensive Test," Revision 07 on 04/16/09
* OX1416.05, Service Water Cooling Tower Pumps Quarterly and 2 Year Comprehensive Test, Revision 07 on 04/16/09
* CS0910.01, "Primary Systems Sampling at SS-CP-166A," Revision 10 on 06/30/09
* CS0910.01, Primary Systems Sampling at SS-CP-166A, Revision 10 on 06/30/09
* CS0925.01, "Reactor Coolant Post Accident Sampling," Revision 11 on 04/15/09
* CS0925.01, Reactor Coolant Post Accident Sampling, Revision 11 on 04/15/09
* IX 1668.341, "Containment Pressure P-937 Protection Channel 1 Test", Revision 06 (WO 01179491) on 6/19/09
* IX 1668.341, Containment Pressure P-937 Protection Channel 1 Test, Revision 06 (WO 01179491) on 6/19/09


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
Line 222: Line 218:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
===Cornerstone:===
===Cornerstone: Mitigating System===
Mitigating System The inspectors reviewed NEXTera information from the second quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009 for the Seabrook mitigating systems performance index (MSPI) PIs listed below:
 
The inspectors reviewed NEXTera information from the second quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009 for the Seabrook mitigating systems performance index (MSPI) PIs listed below:
* Cooling Water System MSPI
* Cooling Water System MSPI
* Safety System Functional Failure The inspectors reviewed the consolidated data entry MSPI derivation reports for the unavailability and unreliability indexes (UAI and URI) for the monitored systems; the monitored component demands and demand failure data for the monitored systems; and the train and system unavailability data for the monitored systems. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the data by comparing it to corrective action program records, control room operators' logs, maintenance rule performance and scope reports, system performance/health reports, the equipment/operability issues database, the site operating history database, key performance indicator summary records, operating data reports and the MSPI basis document. To confirm the accuracy of the PI data reported during that period, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Indicator Guideline," Revision 5, was used to verify the basis for reporting each data element.
* Safety System Functional Failure The inspectors reviewed the consolidated data entry MSPI derivation reports for the unavailability and unreliability indexes (UAI and URI) for the monitored systems; the monitored component demands and demand failure data for the monitored systems; and the train and system unavailability data for the monitored systems. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the data by comparing it to corrective action program records, control room operators logs, maintenance rule performance and scope reports, system performance/health reports, the equipment/operability issues database, the site operating history database, key performance indicator summary records, operating data reports and the MSPI basis document. To confirm the accuracy of the PI data reported during that period, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Indicator Guideline," Revision 5, was used to verify the basis for reporting each data element.


===Cornerstone:===
===Cornerstone: Barrier Integrity===
Barrier Integrity
* RCS Specific Activity The inspectors observed sample collection and reviewed the results of an RCS sample for iodine analysis performed on June 30, 2009, per procedure CS0910.01. The inspectors compared the analysis results of the sample performed by the chemistry department to the limits in T5 3.4.8, Specific Activity, and previously reported RCS activity performance indicator data.
* RCS Specific Activity The inspectors observed sample collection and reviewed the results of an RCS sample for iodine analysis performed on June 30, 2009, per procedure CS0910.01. The inspectors compared the analysis results of the sample performed by the chemistry department to the limits in T5 3.4.8, "Specific Activity," and previously reported RCS activity performance indicator data.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified.
 
{{a|4OA2}}
{{a|4OA2}}
==4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems (71152 - 2 Samples)==
==4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems (71152 - 2 Samples)==


Line 240: Line 235:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, "Identification and Resolution of Problems,"
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of Problems, and in order to help identify repetitive equipment failures or specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the Seabrook corrective action program (CAP). This review was accomplished by accessing NEXTeras computerized database.
and in order to help identify repetitive equipment failures or specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the Seabrook corrective action program (CAP). This review was accomplished by accessing NEXTera's computerized database.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
Line 249: Line 243:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, "Problem Identification and Resolution," the inspectors performed a review of the Seabrook CAP and associated documents to identify trends that may indicate existence of safety significant issues. The inspectors' review was focused on repetitive equipment and corrective maintenance issues, but also considered the results of daily CAP item screening. The inspectors compared their results with the results contained in the Seabrook CAP Quarterly Trend Reports.
As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Problem Identification and Resolution, the inspectors performed a review of the Seabrook CAP and associated documents to identify trends that may indicate existence of safety significant issues. The inspectors review was focused on repetitive equipment and corrective maintenance issues, but also considered the results of daily CAP item screening. The inspectors compared their results with the results contained in the Seabrook CAP Quarterly Trend Reports.


b. Assessment and Observations No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors did not identify any trends that NEXTera had not already identified.
b. Assessment and Observations No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors did not identify any trends that NEXTera had not already identified.
Line 256: Line 250:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The inspectors completed one problem identification and resolution annual inspection sample by completing a review of operator workarounds at Seabrook. The inspectors reviewed Seabrook
The inspectors completed one problem identification and resolution annual inspection sample by completing a review of operator workarounds at Seabrook. The inspectors reviewed Seabrook=s open operator workarounds and burdens to assess the cumulative impact of these issues on an operator=s ability to implement emergency procedures or respond to plant transients. The inspectors verified that identified workarounds were properly tracked and that corrective maintenance for each issue was appropriately scheduled based on safety significance and the potential impact on plant operation.
=s open operator workarounds and burdens to assess the cumulative impact of these issues on an operator
=s ability to implement emergency procedures or respond to plant transients. The inspectors verified that identified workarounds were properly tracked and that corrective maintenance for each issue was appropriately scheduled based on safety significance and the potential impact on plant operation.


The inspectors examined Seabrook procedure NAP-402, "Conduct of Operations,@ Attachment K, "Operator Workarounds and Burdens," to verify that the procedure provided the guidance necessary to adequately assess and address the cumulative impact of identified workarounds on the safe operation of the plant. The inspectors reviewed "turnover" information and toured the plant to verify that degraded conditions were appropriately identified and assessed as an operator workaround or burden.
The inspectors examined Seabrook procedure NAP-402, "Conduct of Operations,@
K, "Operator Workarounds and Burdens, to verify that the procedure provided the guidance necessary to adequately assess and address the cumulative impact of identified workarounds on the safe operation of the plant. The inspectors reviewed "turnover" information and toured the plant to verify that degraded conditions were appropriately identified and assessed as an operator workaround or burden.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified.
 
{{a|4OA5}}
{{a|4OA5}}
==4OA5 Other Activities==
==4OA5 Other Activities==


Line 271: Line 263:


====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 NEXTera security procedures and regulatory requirements related to nuclear plant security. These observations took place during both normal and off-normal plant working hours. These observations did not constitute an additional inspection sample. Rather, they were considered an integral part of the inspectors' normal plant status reviews and inspection activities.
During the inspection period the inspectors conducted observations of security force personnel and activities to ensure that the activities were consistent with NEXTera security procedures and regulatory requirements related to nuclear plant security.
 
These observations took place during both normal and off-normal plant working hours.
 
These observations did not constitute an additional inspection sample. Rather, they were considered an integral part of the inspectors' normal plant status reviews and inspection activities.


====b. Findings====
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.
No findings of significance were identified.
 
{{a|4OA6}}
{{a|4OA6}}
==4OA6 Meetings, including Exit==
==4OA6 Meetings, including Exit==


Line 283: Line 278:
The inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Paul Freeman on July 1, 2009, following the conclusion of the period. NEXTera Energy acknowledged the findings presented and indicated that none of the information presented at the exit meeting was proprietary.
The inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Paul Freeman on July 1, 2009, following the conclusion of the period. NEXTera Energy acknowledged the findings presented and indicated that none of the information presented at the exit meeting was proprietary.


ATTACHMENT:
ATTACHMENT:  


=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=
Line 290: Line 285:


===Licensee personnel===
===Licensee personnel===
: [[contact::R. Arns]], EDG System Engineer  
: [[contact::R. Arns]], EDG System Engineer
: [[contact::B. Brown]], Plant Engineer  
: [[contact::B. Brown]], Plant Engineer
: [[contact::R. Campo]], Plant Engineer  
: [[contact::R. Campo]], Plant Engineer
: [[contact::P. Casey]], Emergency Preparedness  
: [[contact::P. Casey]], Emergency Preparedness
: [[contact::D. Robinson]], Chemistry Manager  
: [[contact::D. Robinson]], Chemistry Manager
: [[contact::J. Finnigan]], Procedures  
: [[contact::J. Finnigan]], Procedures
: [[contact::M. Forrest]], Shift Manager  
: [[contact::M. Forrest]], Shift Manager
: [[contact::P. Freeman]], Plant General Manager  
: [[contact::P. Freeman]], Plant General Manager
: [[contact::M. Hansen]], Shift Manager  
: [[contact::M. Hansen]], Shift Manager
: [[contact::R. Jamison]], Design Engineer Electrical  
: [[contact::R. Jamison]], Design Engineer Electrical
: [[contact::G. Kim]], Risk Analyst  
: [[contact::G. Kim]], Risk Analyst
: [[contact::E. Metcalf]], Operations Manager  
: [[contact::E. Metcalf]], Operations Manager
: [[contact::D. Master]], Plant Engineer  
: [[contact::D. Master]], Plant Engineer
: [[contact::B. McAllister]], SW System Engineer  
: [[contact::B. McAllister]], SW System Engineer
: [[contact::W. Meyer]], Radiation Protection Manager  
: [[contact::W. Meyer]], Radiation Protection Manager
: [[contact::M. O'Keefe]], Licensing Manager  
: [[contact::M. OKeefe]], Licensing Manager
: [[contact::M. Ossing]], Engineering Support Manager  
: [[contact::M. Ossing]], Engineering Support Manager
: [[contact::R. Plante]], Maintenance Supervisor  
: [[contact::R. Plante]], Maintenance Supervisor
: [[contact::G. Sessler]], EDG System Engineer  
: [[contact::G. Sessler]], EDG System Engineer
: [[contact::G. St. Pierre]], Site Vice President  
: [[contact::G. St. Pierre]], Site Vice President
: [[contact::J. Walsh]], CVCS System Engineer  
: [[contact::J. Walsh]], CVCS System Engineer


==LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED==
==LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED==


===Opened===
===Opened===
None  
 
None


===Opened and Closed===
===Opened and Closed===


None
None
 
===Discussed===
===Discussed===
None 
==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
==Section 1R01: Adverse Weather Protection==
: ON1490.09r01, Summer Readiness Surveillance
: ON1490.10r2, Operational Status Check of Station Ventilation / Cooling Systems OS1200.03r15, Severe Weather Conditions OS1216.01r12, Degraded Ultimate Heat Sink OS1023.74, Maintenance of Safety Related HVAC Systems - Compensatory Ventilation 
===Procedure===
: Attachment Seabrook Daily Quality Summary dated April 28, 2009
: WO 01169940,
: 0533568,
: Technical Requirements 24, Area Temperature Monitoring Service Environment Chart 1-NHY-300219, sheet 1 to 5
: EE-98015r2, Evaluation of Control Room Temperature
: EE-87027, Area Temperature Monitoring System Health Reports and Plant Engineering Action Plan Register
: ER 1.1r46, Classification of Emergencies UFSAR Section 9.4, Air Conditioning, Heating, Cooling and Ventilation Systems UFSAR Section 2.3, Meteorology


==Section 1R04: Equipment Alignment==
None
: OS1090.05r7, Component Configuration Control OS1026.13r9, Operating the DG 1B Fuel Oil System OX1426.19r3, Aligning the DG 1B for Auto Start OS1423.2, EFW Pump House Ventilation Quarterly Operability Test OS1036.01, Aligning the Emergency Feedwater System for Automatic Initiation OS1035.02, Startup Feed Pump Operation
: DBD-EFW-01, Emergency Feedwater System PID B20688, 20582, 20687, 20579, 20426, 20686 System Health Reports Plant Engineering Action Plan Register TR31-3.1, Supplemental Emergency Power System (SEPS)
: UFSAR, Section 9.5, 8.3, 6.8 and 3.9(B)-27


==Section 1R05: Fire Protection==
==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
: UFSAR Section 9.5.1 Fire Protection Systems Fire Protection Pre-fire Strategies Fire Drill Evaluation / Scenario for May 12, 2009 Announced Fire Drill
: WO 1189803 Fire Brigade Ready Area Monthly Inventory (pre drill)
: WO 1190769 Fire Brigade Ready Area Monthly Inventory (post drill) ON0443.35 R5 Fire Brigade Ready Area Inventory Qualification Records for Fire Brigade Member / Leader
: OS1200.00Ar12, Fire Hazards Analysis for Affected Area / Zone - Appendix A OS1200.00r12 Response to Fire or Fire Alarm Actuation ER 1.1 r46 Classification of Emergencies
: AR 197301, 197031
 
==Section 1R06: Flood Protection Measures==
: UFSAR Section 3.4, Water Level (Flood) Design, Revision 12 UFSAR Section 9.3.3, Equipment and Floor Drainage System, Revision 12 Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Study, Section 12, 2006 Update Alarm Response Procedure D5487 East MS/FW Sump High Alarm Response Procedure D5488 West MS/FW Sump High
: DBD-PB-01, Plant Barriers, Revision 2
: Drawing 1-NHY-BD-2033, Main steam Feedwater Pipe Enclosure, Revision 5 PM 1-DF-L-5958-CAL-1-010
: WO 0732801 Action Requests
: 0196356,
: 0195980,
: 0195982 Wiring Diagram 1-NHY-310236,310903
: Attachment
 
==Section 1R07: Heat Sink Performance==
: ES 1850.017, Service Water Heat Exchanger Program, Revision 0
: Calculation 4.3.08.78F, Diesel Generator HX Flow Rate
: PEG-208, Service Water System Performance Monitoring, Revision 3
: WO 0815735
: SW-E-42A Temperature and Thermal Performance Monitoring Data
: CP4.2, Chlorine Management Program, Revision 13
: SW-E-42A Performance Monitoring Trend Data
: WO 0810400
: DG-E-42-A temperature 9/24/08
 
==Section 1R11: Licensed Operator Requalification Program==
: Standing Operating Order 09-006 Emergency Operating Procedures E-0,
: ES-0.1,
: ES-0.2,
: ECA-0.0, E-3 VAS digital point alarms D6654, D6659, D6671 Simulator Demonstrative Exam #60
 
==Section 1R13: Maintenance Risk and Emergent Work==
: WO 94001046,
: 01191145,
: 01176325,
: 01176894,
: 01176294
: CR 200076,
: 198269,
: 200661,
: 195709,
: 195652
: OX 1456.49r7, Train B ESFAS Slave Relay K615 Quarterly Go Test TALT
: EC 145015
: WM-AA-1000, Work
: Activity Risk Management Process
: WM 10.1, On-Line Maintenance
: WM 8.0, Work Control Practices Work Management Manual
===Action Request===
: AR 00197823,
: 198013,
: 197963 Vender Drawing B02648-B,
: HBV-A2-06-0035, FP24679, PID B20794, 20795, 20446
: Switchyard
: WO 00628724,
: 00628986,
: 00628746,
: 00628743 PRA Review of Seabrook Transmission Substation Reliability Upgrade Maintenance Rule Risk Assessment Report SORC Meeting 09-013 50.59 Screen No. 09-003 for 09DCR001
: Mobile Crane Lift Plan (WO 00628743) Rigging Lift Plan (WO 00628743) North Atlantic Lift System Manual Certificate of Inspection #36809 and Rated Load Test for 200 T Demag Crane 24028 Engineering Change
: EC 12734 (09DCR001) Equipment Enclosure and Overhead Crane Structure
 
==Section 1R15: Operability Evaluations==
: AR 195174, Potentially Faulty Relay 25Y1 at
: DG-CP-75-A Condition Reports
: 200510197,
: 200503439
: WO 01169171 Drawing 1-NHY-310102, Sheets A52b and C07/2c
: UFSAR Sections 11 and 15
: AR 198881,
: 197823,
: 195112,
: 195167 NRC
: RIS 2009-02, January 29, 2009
: TSTF-513, Revise PWR Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation Prompt Operability Determination AR194818/194816 dated 04-10-09 
: Attachment UFSAR Chapter 9.2.1, Station Service Water System Plant Engineering Action Plan Register, Long Range inspection Plan for Service Water Piping, dated 07-19-2006)
: EN-AA-203-1001r1, Operability Determinations / Functionality Assessments
===Drawings===
: B20794
: Calculation C-S-1-45832
: WO 0520594,
: 052582,
: 0520583, 0520584
 
==Section 1R19: Post Maintenance Testing==
: Plant Engineering Action Plan Register, Service Water System
: WO 01189905,
: 01167966,
: 01167968
: TR 14, Motor Operated Valves with Thermal Overload Protection Devices LS0569.20r0, Lubrication PM and Starter Inspection for Motor Operated Valve Actuators LX0557.03r2 Thermal Overload Protection Relay Replacement for MOV
: MA3.5r10, Post Maintenance Testing
: OX1456.36r7, Train A ESFAS Slave Relay K643 Quarterly Go Test
: UFSAR Chapter 8.1, Electrical Power OX1406.02r9, Containment Spray Pump and Valve Quarterly Operability, 18 Month Position Indication, and Comprehensive Pump Testing
: AR 192784, 195442
 
==Section 1R22: Surveillance Testing==
: PID: B20845, B20846, B20795, B20794, B20792
: WO 01174993,
: 01174967,
: 01167932,
: 01175175,
: 01177578,
: 0117576,
: 01174918,
: 01174917,
: 01171221,
: 01171220 IST Power Operated Valve Stroke Time Date Sheets for
: RC-V122, V124 & FV2881 OX1456.81r7, Operability Testing of IST Valves OX1423.28r2, Control Room Air Conditioning System Quarterly Surveillance OS1023.51r15, Control Room Ventilation and Air Conditioning System Operation OX1423.27r4, Control Room Area Ventilation System Surveillance OS1216.01r12, Degraded Ultimate Heat Sink OX1423.29r0, Train A CBA East Air Intake Radiation Monitor Go Test OS1090.05, Component Configuration Control ES1804.055, Motor Operated Valve Performance Monitoring
: OX1416.06r5, Service Water Discharge Valves Quarterly Test
: OX1416.05r7, Service Water Cooling Tower Pumps Quarterly
: CS0932.17r8, Post Accident Sample System Operational Surveillance HD0955.31r3, Determination of Portable Instrument Response Check Data White Paper Seabrook Station Policy on Component Preconditioning, dated 02/16/99
: WM8.0r8, Work Control Practices (for preconditioning) Inservice Testing Reference Manual, section
: VR-1 UFSAR Chapter 9.2 and 9.4 Technical Requirements 6, Containment Isolation Valves CS0910.08r12, Miscellaneous Primary Side Sampling
: AR 193589,
: CR 08-12641 2009 PASS Remedial Drill Planning Elements


==Section 40A1: Performance Indicator Verification==
: Seabrook Station Condition Reports and Action Requests 2008-2009
: Station Operating Logs for 2008-2009 Seabrook Station License Event Reports
: AR 007721,
: 006865,
: 200203 
: Attachment
==LIST OF ACRONYMS==
: [[ADAMS]] [[Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System]]
: [[EDG]] [[Emergency Diesel Generator]]
: [[ESFAS]] [[Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System]]
: [[IMC]] [[Inspection Manual Chapter]]
: [[LER]] [[Licensee Event Reports]]
: [[MPCS]] [[Main Plant Computer System]]
: [[MS]] [[Main Steam]]
: [[NCV]] [[Non-Cited Violation]]
: [[NRC]] [[U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]
: [[NRR]] [[Nuclear Reactor Regulation]]
: [[PAB]] [[Primary Auxiliary Building]]
: [[PARS]] [[Publicly Available Records]]
: [[PMT]] [[Post-Maintenance Testing]]
: [[PWR]] [[Pressurized Water Reactor]]
: [[RCS]] [[Reactor Coolant System]]
: [[RV]] [[Reactor Vessel]]
: [[SDP]] [[Significance Determination Process]]
: [[SFP]] [[Spent Fuel Pool]]
: [[SG]] [[Steam Generator]]
: [[TI]] [[Temporary Instruction]]
: [[TS]] [[Technical Specifications]]
: [[UFSAR]] [[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report WO                  Work Order]]
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 22:54, 21 December 2019

IR 05000443-09-003, on 04/01/2009 - 06/30/2009; Seabrook Station, Unit 1, Routine Integrated Report
ML092050679
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/24/2009
From: Arthur Burritt
Reactor Projects Branch 3
To: St.Pierre G
NextEra Energy Seabrook
Burritt A RGN-I/DRP/PB3/610-337-5069
References
IR-09-003
Download: ML092050679 (21)
v • d • e


Text

uly 24, 2009

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000443/2009003

Dear Mr. St. Pierre:

On June 30, 2009, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings which were discussed on July 1, 2009, with Mr. S and other members of your staff.

This inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.

The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.

On the basis of the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure, and your response (if any), will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/

Arthur L. Burritt, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure: Inspection Report No. 05000443/2009003 w/ Attachment: Supplemental Information Docket No. 50-443 License No: NPF-86

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000443/2009003; 4/1/2009-6/30/2009; Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; Routine Integrated

Report.

The report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident and regional specialist inspectors. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated December 2006.

No findings of significance were identified.

REPORT DETAILS

Summary of Plant Status

Seabrook operated at or near full power for the entire period.

REACTOR SAFETY

Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity

1R01 Adverse Weather Preparation (71111.01 - 1 Sample)

.1 Readiness for Seasonal Extreme Weather Conditions

a. Inspection Scope

The inspector completed one seasonal extreme weather conditions inspection sample.

The inspectors assessed NEXTeras readiness for the onset of extreme hot weather conditions. The inspectors reviewed the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR)descriptions for related design features and verified the adequacy of the station procedures for hot weather protection. The inspectors reviewed NEXTeras actions per procedure ON1490.09 for seasonal readiness, and procedure OS1200.03 for severe weather. The inspectors also conducted walkdowns of susceptible systems, specifically the emergency feedwater and service water systems. The inspectors reviewed deficiencies related to extreme weather preparation and verified the issues were entered into the corrective action program. The references used for this review are listed in A.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R04 Equipment Alignment (71111.04 - 3 Samples,

==71111.04S - 1 Samples)

.1 Partial System Walkdown

a. Inspection Scope

==

The inspectors completed three partial system walkdown inspection samples for the plant systems listed below. The inspectors verified that valves, switches, and breakers were correctly aligned in accordance with Seabrook's procedures and that conditions that could affect system operability were appropriately addressed. The inspectors reviewed applicable piping and instrumentation drawings and system operational lineup procedures.

Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in the Attachment.

  • B EDG and associated support systems during the planned operability run of the A EDG on 5/13/09
  • Turbine driven emergency feedwater pump and associated support systems during a planned maintenance was conducted on the 345 KV line on 5/18/09

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Complete Walkdown

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors performed a complete system walkdown inspection of the emergency feedwater system (EFW) to verify the system was properly aligned and capable of performing its safety function. To ascertain the required system configuration, the inspectors reviewed plant procedures, system drawings, the UFSAR, and the TS. The inspectors walked down the accessible portions of the system to verify overall material condition; that valves were correctly positioned; that electrical power was available; that major system components were properly labeled; that essential support systems are operational; and that ancillary equipment or debris did not interfere with system performance. The inspectors reviewed applicable piping and instrumentation drawings and system operational lineup procedures. Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in Attachment A.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R05 Fire Protection (71111.05Q - 4 Samples,

==71111.05A - 1 Sample)

.1 Quarterly Review of Fire Areas:

a. Inspection Scope

==

The inspectors completed four quarterly fire protection inspection samples. The inspectors examined the areas of the plant listed below to assess: the control of transient combustibles and ignition sources; the operational status and material condition of the fire detection, fire suppression, and manual fire fighting equipment; the material condition of the passive fire protection features; and the compensatory measures for out-of-service or degraded fire protection equipment. The inspectors verified that the fire areas were maintained in accordance with applicable portions of Fire Protection Pre-Fire Strategies and Fire Hazard

Analysis.
  • Control Room complex (CR-F-3A/B/C-A)
  • B RHR Vault (RH-F-1A, 3A, 4A)

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Annual Inspection

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed one annual fire drill observation inspection sample. The inspectors observed an announced fire brigade drill on May 12, 2009, on the 7 elevation of the PAB. The inspectors observed brigade performance during the drill to evaluate the following: donning and use of protective equipment; fire brigade leader command and control; fire brigade response time; radio communications; and the use of pre-fire plans.

The inspectors attended the post-drill critique and reviewed the disposition of issues and deficiencies identified during the drill. The inspectors also verified that all fire fighting equipment used during the drill was returned to a condition of readiness.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R06 Flood Protection Measures (71111.06 - 1 Sample)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed one flood protection measures inspection sample. The inspectors reviewed the flood protection measures designed to protect the east main steam and feedwater (MS & FW) building from the effects of internal flooding. The inspectors reviewed NEXTeras flooding evaluation for the selected areas, the availability and testing of MS & FW building flooding alarms and alarm response procedures. The inspectors also performed walkdowns of the selected areas to verify that as-found equipment and conditions were consistent with the design basis documents. Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in the Attachment.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R07 Heat Sink Performance (71111.07A - 1 Sample)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed a heat sink inspection sample for the "A" emergency diesel generator jacket water heat exchanger to determine whether the heat exchanger could fulfill the design function. The inspectors reviewed thermal performance monitoring (WO 0509597), trending data for heat exchanger temperatures and fouling factors, and ES1850.017, "SW Heat Exchanger Program," Revision 0. The inspectors interviewed the system engineer to evaluate the process used to monitor the heat exchanger and commitments in Generic Letter 89-13, "Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment." The inspectors conducted system walkdowns and reviewed condition reports to verify that issues were identified and corrected associated with the heat exchangers.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program

Main article: IP 71111.11Q

.1 Quarterly Resident Inspector Review

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed one quarterly licensed operator requalification program inspection sample. Specifically, the inspectors observed simulator examination of licensed operators on June 4 and 5, 2009, for scenarios involving transients and design basis events. The inspectors reviewed operator actions to implement the abnormal and emergency operating procedures. The inspectors examined the operators ability to perform actions associated with high-risk activities, the Emergency Plan, previous lessons learned items, and the correct use and implementation of procedures. The inspectors observed and reviewed the training evaluators critique of operator performance and verified that deficiencies were adequately identified, discussed, and entered into the corrective action program, as appropriate. The inspectors reviewed the simulators physical fidelity in order to verify similarities between the Seabrook control room and the simulator. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

The inspector also reviewed licensed operator just-in-time training on May 6, 2009, for the operator response actions to simulated events resulting from construction activities in the 345KV switchyard.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12Q - 2 Samples)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed two maintenance effectiveness inspection samples.

The inspectors reviewed performance-based problems or performance and condition history reviews involving selected in-scope structures, systems or components (SSCs) to assess the effectiveness of the maintenance program. Reviews focused on: proper Maintenance Rule (MR) scoping in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65; characterization of reliability issues; tracking system for component unavailability; 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(1) and (a)(2) classifications; identifying and addressing common cause failures, trending key parameters, and the appropriateness of performance criteria for SSCs classified (a)(2)as well as the adequacy of goals and corrective actions for SSCs classified (a)(1). The inspectors reviewed system health reports, maintenance backlogs, and MR basis documents. Other documents reviewed for the inspection are listed in the Attachment.

The following samples were reviewed:

  • B EDG performance following a jacket water cooling system leak, resulting in a maintenance rule and maintenance preventable functional failure (AR121440121440. NRC review of this area is also described in Report 2009002.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Evaluation

Main article: IP 71111.13

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed four maintenance risk assessment and emergent risk evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed the scheduling and control of the emergent work activities listed below to evaluate the effect on plant risk. The inspectors conducted interviews with operators, risk analysts, maintenance technicians, and engineers to assess their knowledge of the risk associated with the work, and to ensure that appropriate risk management actions were implemented. The actions taken were evaluated using the following Seabrook procedures: Maintenance Manual 4.14, "Troubleshooting, Revision 0 and Work Management Manual 10.1, "On-Line Maintenance, Revision 3. Specific risk assessments were conducted using Seabrook's "Safety Monitor." The inspectors reviewed NEXTera actions and risk assessments to address deficiencies and verified the issues were entered into the corrective action program. The inspectors reviewed the following work activities:

  • Emergent work to replace supplemental emergency power supply SEPS 2B battery bank after it failed during testing on 5/21/09 (WO 94001046 / AR 00197823)
  • Planned maintenance on emergency feedwater pump FW-P-37B and containment building spray valve CBS-V-5 on 5/18/09 (WO 01176294)

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R15 Operability Evaluations (71111.15 - 5 Samples)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed five operability evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed operability evaluations and condition reports to verify that identified conditions did not adversely affect safety system operability or overall plant safety. The evaluations were reviewed using criteria specified in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-20, Revision to Guidance formerly contained in NRC Generic Letter 91-18, Information to Licensees Regarding two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operability and Inspection Manual Part 9900, "Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments for Resolution of Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety." In addition, where a component was determined to be inoperable, the inspectors verified that TS limiting condition for operation implications were properly addressed. The inspectors also performed field walk downs and interviewed personnel involved in identifying, evaluating or correcting the identified conditions. The following items were reviewed:

  • AR197823197823 control rod bank A group demand indicator operability when the step counter broke during testing
  • AR 195174195174 A EDG operability with degraded synchronization check relay
  • AR 195112195112and 195167, operability of the RCS leak detection system with the containment radiation monitor inoperable

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing (71111.19 - 5 Samples)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed five post-maintenance testing (PMT) inspection samples. The inspectors observed portions of PMT activities in the field to verify the tests were performed in accordance with the approved procedures. The inspectors assessed the test adequacy by comparing the test methodology to the scope of maintenance work performed. The inspectors evaluated established test acceptance criteria to verify that the reviewed test procedures ensured that systems and components satisfied applicable design, licensing bases and technical specification (TS) requirements. The inspectors also reviewed the recorded data to confirm applicable acceptance criteria were satisfied during testing. The activities reviewed included:

  • WO 01174967 which involved the Train A ESFAS Slave Relay K643 Quarterly Go Test for work completed on 1-CBS-V38 on 04/16/09
  • WO94000972 retest following emergent maintenance of C steam generator ASDV pressure indicating channel MS-PI-3003 failure on 5/15/09
  • Post modification testing to commission the main generator power system stabilizer per IPTE EX2100 on 6/12/09
  • WO01191668 leak rate retest of the containment inner door following failure of the personnel hatch leak rate test due to a failed test assembly on 6/17/09

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R22 Surveillance Testing (71111.22 - 6 Samples)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors observed portions of surveillance testing activities of safety-related systems to verify that the system and components were capable of performing their intended safety function, to verify operational readiness, and to ensure compliance with required Technical Specifications and surveillance procedures. The inspectors attended selected pre-evolution briefings, performed system and control room walkdowns, observed operators and technicians perform test evolutions, reviewed system parameters, and interviewed the system engineers and field operators. The test data recorded was compared to procedural and technical specification requirements, and to prior tests to identify any adverse trends. The inspection included the following six surveillance samples:

  • OX1401.03, Revision 8, RCS Vent Path Block Valve Quarterly, Cold Shutdown, and 18 Month Surveillance Test, Revision 08 on 04/08/09
  • OS1023.51, Control Room Ventilation and Air Conditioning System Operations, Revision 15 04/14/09
  • CS0910.01, Primary Systems Sampling at SS-CP-166A, Revision 10 on 06/30/09
  • IX 1668.341, Containment Pressure P-937 Protection Channel 1 Test, Revision 06 (WO 01179491) on 6/19/09

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

4OA1 Performance Indicator (PI) Verification (71151 - 3 Samples)

a. Inspection Scope

Cornerstone: Mitigating System

The inspectors reviewed NEXTera information from the second quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009 for the Seabrook mitigating systems performance index (MSPI) PIs listed below:

  • Cooling Water System MSPI
  • Safety System Functional Failure The inspectors reviewed the consolidated data entry MSPI derivation reports for the unavailability and unreliability indexes (UAI and URI) for the monitored systems; the monitored component demands and demand failure data for the monitored systems; and the train and system unavailability data for the monitored systems. The inspectors verified the accuracy of the data by comparing it to corrective action program records, control room operators logs, maintenance rule performance and scope reports, system performance/health reports, the equipment/operability issues database, the site operating history database, key performance indicator summary records, operating data reports and the MSPI basis document. To confirm the accuracy of the PI data reported during that period, PI definitions and guidance contained in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Indicator Guideline," Revision 5, was used to verify the basis for reporting each data element.

Cornerstone: Barrier Integrity

  • RCS Specific Activity The inspectors observed sample collection and reviewed the results of an RCS sample for iodine analysis performed on June 30, 2009, per procedure CS0910.01. The inspectors compared the analysis results of the sample performed by the chemistry department to the limits in T5 3.4.8, Specific Activity, and previously reported RCS activity performance indicator data.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems (71152 - 2 Samples)

.1 Review of Items Entered into the Corrective Action Program

a. Inspection Scope

As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Identification and Resolution of Problems, and in order to help identify repetitive equipment failures or specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the Seabrook corrective action program (CAP). This review was accomplished by accessing NEXTeras computerized database.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Semi-annual Review to Identify Trends

a. Inspection Scope

As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, Problem Identification and Resolution, the inspectors performed a review of the Seabrook CAP and associated documents to identify trends that may indicate existence of safety significant issues. The inspectors review was focused on repetitive equipment and corrective maintenance issues, but also considered the results of daily CAP item screening. The inspectors compared their results with the results contained in the Seabrook CAP Quarterly Trend Reports.

b. Assessment and Observations No findings of significance were identified. The inspectors did not identify any trends that NEXTera had not already identified.

.3 Annual Review of Operator Workarounds

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors completed one problem identification and resolution annual inspection sample by completing a review of operator workarounds at Seabrook. The inspectors reviewed Seabrook=s open operator workarounds and burdens to assess the cumulative impact of these issues on an operator=s ability to implement emergency procedures or respond to plant transients. The inspectors verified that identified workarounds were properly tracked and that corrective maintenance for each issue was appropriately scheduled based on safety significance and the potential impact on plant operation.

The inspectors examined Seabrook procedure NAP-402, "Conduct of Operations,@

K, "Operator Workarounds and Burdens, to verify that the procedure provided the guidance necessary to adequately assess and address the cumulative impact of identified workarounds on the safe operation of the plant. The inspectors reviewed "turnover" information and toured the plant to verify that degraded conditions were appropriately identified and assessed as an operator workaround or burden.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA5 Other Activities

.1 Quarterly Resident Inspector Observations of Security Personnel and Activities

a. Inspection Scope

During the inspection period the inspectors conducted observations of security force personnel and activities to ensure that the activities were consistent with NEXTera security procedures and regulatory requirements related to nuclear plant security.

These observations took place during both normal and off-normal plant working hours.

These observations did not constitute an additional inspection sample. Rather, they were considered an integral part of the inspectors' normal plant status reviews and inspection activities.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA6 Meetings, including Exit

Exit Meeting Summary

The inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Paul Freeman on July 1, 2009, following the conclusion of the period. NEXTera Energy acknowledged the findings presented and indicated that none of the information presented at the exit meeting was proprietary.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee personnel

R. Arns, EDG System Engineer
B. Brown, Plant Engineer
R. Campo, Plant Engineer
P. Casey, Emergency Preparedness
D. Robinson, Chemistry Manager
J. Finnigan, Procedures
M. Forrest, Shift Manager
P. Freeman, Plant General Manager
M. Hansen, Shift Manager
R. Jamison, Design Engineer Electrical
G. Kim, Risk Analyst
E. Metcalf, Operations Manager
D. Master, Plant Engineer
B. McAllister, SW System Engineer
W. Meyer, Radiation Protection Manager
M. OKeefe, Licensing Manager
M. Ossing, Engineering Support Manager
R. Plante, Maintenance Supervisor
G. Sessler, EDG System Engineer
G. St. Pierre, Site Vice President
J. Walsh, CVCS System Engineer

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

None

Opened and Closed

None

Discussed

None

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000443/2009003&oldid=2285272"