IR 05000305/2006015

IR 05000305-06-015, on 08/14/2006 - 8/18/2006; Kewaunee Power Station. Supplemental Inspection 95002, Inspection for One Degraded Cornerstone or Any Three White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area

ML062650366
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	09/22/2006
From:	Pederson C Division of Reactor Safety III
To:	Christian D Dominion, Dominion Energy Kewaunee
References
EA-05-157, EA-05-176 IR-06-015
Download: ML062650366 (26)

Text

September 22, 2006EA 05-157 EA 05-176Mr. David A. ChristianSenior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060-6711SUBJECT:KEWAUNEE POWER STATION - NRC SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTIONREPORT 05000305/2006015(DRS)

Dear Mr. Christian:

On August 18, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed asupplemental inspection pursuant to Inspection Procedure 95002, "Inspection For One Degraded Cornerstone or any Three White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area," at your Kewaunee Power Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on August 18, 2006, with Ms. L. Hartz, Site Vice-President, and other members of your staff.As discussed in our annual end-of-cycle assessment letter dated March 4, 2006, plantperformance for Kewaunee was categorized within the Degraded Cornerstone column of the Action Matrix of NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0305, "Operating Reactor AssessmentProgram," based on performance deficiencies in the Mitigating Systems cornerstone. The findings involved: (1) a performance issue having substantial safety significance (Yellow)

related to the potential for flooding of safety-related structures, systems, or components; and(2) a performance issue having low to moderate safety significance (White) related to the potential for air entrainment into the auxiliary feedwater pumps. These performancedeficiencies were previously described in Inspection Reports (IRs) 05000305/2005014 and 05000305/2005018, respectively. A supplemental inspection as prescribed by the Action Matrix was performed in May 2006, and documented in IR 05000305/2006007. The report identified performance deficiencies and concluded that your staff had not conducted the root causeevaluation to a level of detail commensurate with the significance of the problem. Furthermore, the NRC determined that not all corrective actions were sufficiently developed to ensure thatthe identified performance deficiencies were adequately addressed. Finally, the NRC concluded that your staff had not established either qualitative or quantitative measures fordetermining the effectiveness of the corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Consequently, the NRC did not have assurance that your planned corrective actions were sufficient to addressthe causes for the performance deficiencies associated with the violations.

D. Christian-2-The specific purposes of the current inspection were to: (1) assess deficiencies identified in IR 05000305/2006007; (2) assess the corrected root causes for the above findings; and (3)

assess in accordance with the guidance outlined in Inspection Procedure 95002 the combined root cause evaluation that was performed as a result of the deficiencies identified in IR 05000305/2006007. Based upon the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified and theinspectors concluded that adequate actions had been taken by Kewaunee to address deficiencies identified during the May 2006 inspection. As discussed in Section 06.01 of IMC 0305, safety-significant inspection findings are carried forward for four calendar quarters or until appropriate licensee corrective actions have been completed, whichever is greater. Therefore, the White finding related to the potential for air entrainment into the auxiliary feedwater pumps,which was identified in 3 rd quarter of 2005, and the Yellow finding related to the potential forflooding of safety-related structures, systems, and components, which was identified in the 4 thquarter of 2005, will no longer be considered in the assessment process after the 3 rd quarter of 2006. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter andits enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public DocumentRoom or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's documentsystem (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/

Cynthia D. Pederson, DirectorDivision of Reactor SafetyDocket No. 50-305License No. DPR-43Enclosure:Inspection Report 05000305/2006015(DRS)w/Attachments: Supplemental Informationcc w/encl:L. Hartz, Site Vice PresidentC. Funderburk, Director, Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support T. Breene, Manager, Nuclear Licensing L. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel D. Zellner, Chairman, Town of Carlton J. Kitsembel, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin State Liaison Officer, State of Wisconsin

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000305/2006015(DRS); 8/14/2006 - 8/18/2006; Kewaunee Power Station. SupplementalInspection 95002, Inspection for One Degraded Cornerstone or any Three White Inputs in a

Strategic Performance Area.This report documents a supplemental inspection by NRC inspectors. The inspection identifiedno violations of NRC requirements but discusses a White finding and a Yellow finding from aprevious inspection. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White,

Yellow, or Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, "Significance Determination Process."

Findings for which the significance determination process does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRC's program for overseeingthe safe operation of commercial nuclear power plants is described in NUREG-1649, "ReactorOversight Process," Revision 3, dated July 2000.

Cornerstone: Mitigating Systems

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) performed this supplemental inspection, inaccordance with Inspection Procedure (IP) 95002, to assess the licensee's corrective actions and additional evaluations performed as a result of deficiencies identified in May 2006, during an IP 95002 supplemental inspection and documented in Inspection Report (IR) 05000305/

2006007. The supplemental inspection documented in IR 05000305/2006007 was conducted to assessthe licensee's evaluations associated with a degraded cornerstone, due to two findings characterized as having low to moderate (White) and substantial (Yellow) risk significance. The findings involved: (1) a performance deficiency having substantial safety significance (Yellow)related to the potential for flooding of safety-related systems, components or structures; and (2)a performance deficiency having low to moderate safety significance (White) related to the potential for air entrainment into the auxiliary feedwater pumps. These performancedeficiencies were previously described in NRC Inspection Reports 05000305/2005014 and05000305/2005018, respectively.Report 05000305/2006007 identified performance deficiencies and concluded that the licenseehad not conducted the root cause evaluation to a level of detail commensurate with thesignificance of the problem. Furthermore, the NRC determined that not all corrective actionswere sufficiently developed to ensure that the identified performance deficiencies were adequately addressed. Finally, the NRC concluded that the licensee had not established eitherqualitative or quantitative measures for determining the effectiveness of the corrective actionsto prevent recurrence. Consequently, the NRC did not have assurance that planned correctiveactions were sufficient to address the causes for the performance deficiencies associated with the violations.As a result of the current inspection, the NRC concluded that the licensee's evaluationsadequately addressed issues remaining open from IR 05000305/2006007. Additionally, the revised individual root cause evaluations and the associated revised common cause evaluation appeared thorough and these evaluations appropriately evaluated the root and contributingcauses, addressed the extent of condition/cause, assessed safety culture, and established 2corrective actions for risk significant performance issues that were sufficient to address thecauses and prevent recurrence. However, the inspectors identified during the inspection that tools were not established to measure the success of the related corrective actions. As a result, the licensee revised procedures and corrective actions to provide assurance that the corrective actions would be measurable and successful. Consequently, the NRC concl udedthat the Yellow finding for flooding (05000305/2004009-03) and the White finding for auxiliaryfeedwater (05000305/2005002-05) are closed.

3

REPORT DETAILS

01INSPECTION SCOPEThis inspection was conducted in accordance with Inspection Procedure (IP) 95002, "Inspectionfor One Degraded Cornerstone or any Three White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area," to assess the licensee's evaluation of one White and one Yellow inspection finding in the Mitigating Systems cornerstone. The inspection objectives were to assess, per the requirements of IP 95002:*deficiencies identified in May 2006, during a previous inspection anddocumented in Inspection Report (IR) 05000305/2006007*the corrected root causes for the related White and Yellow findings

• the combined root cause evaluation that was re-performed as a result of thedeficiencies identified during the May 2006 inspectionKewaunee entered the Degraded Cornerstone column of the NRC's Action Matrix in the fourthquarter of 2005, as a result of a Yellow inspection finding related to turbine building flooding. At the time, the licensee was in the Regulatory Response column of the action matrix due to a White inspection finding related to possible air entrainment in the auxiliary feedwater pumps. These findings were discussed in detail in IRs 05000305/2005010 (Auxiliary Feedwater) and05000305/2005011 (Flooding); the final regulatory significance was documented in IRs 05000305/2005014 (Auxiliary Feedwater) and 05000305/2005018 (Flooding); and IR 05000305/2006007 documented the results of the NRC's first review of the licensee'sevaluation and corrective actions associated with these findings.02EVALUATION OF INSPECTION REQUIREMENTSYellow Finding: Turbine Building Flooding of Safety and Risk Significant Components02.01Problem Identification a.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation specified who identified theissue and under what conditions IR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory. For the currentinspection, the inspectors reviewed Root Cause Evaluation (RCE) 685, "Kewaunee Power Station Flooding Mitigation/Control Systems Root Cause Evaluation," Revision 4,and reached the same conclusion.

b.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation documented how long theissue existed, and whether there were any prior opportunities for identificationIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory. For the currentinspection, the inspectors reviewed RCE-685, Revision 4, and reached the same conclusion.

4 c.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation documented the plant-specific risk consequences and compliance concerns associated with the issueIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory. For the currentinspection, the inspectors reviewed RCE-685, Revision 4, and reached the same conclusion. Section 2.3 of RCE-685, Revision 4, satisfactorily documented the plant-specific risk consequences and compliance concerns associated with the issue.02.02Root Cause and Extent of Condition Evaluation a.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation appli ed systematic methodsin evaluating the issue in order to identify root causes and contributing causes.IR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory. For the currentinspection, the inspectors reviewed RCE-685, Revision 4, and reached the same conclusion. RCE-685 applied the following systematic met hods: event and causal factorcharting, comparative time-line, barrier analysis, and 'why staircase.'

b.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation was conducted to a level ofdetail commensurate with the significance of the problemIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and:

• the RCE was not conducted to a level of detail commensurate with thesignificance of the problem and that systematic root cause methods failed todrive the licensee to more fully evaluate several types of issues*the licensee's procedures did not always require independent verification ofengineering products, such as calculations and operability determinations;*the licensee frequently relied upon personnel who did not have demonstratedengineering knowledge, training, or abilities to perform engineering tasks*schedule and budget pressures frequently played a role in engineering decisions

• the licensee did not probe why the operating experience assessments forflooding, or any other issue, failed to identify the issue*the RCE did not explore what deficiencies in the operating experience programresulted in opportunities to identify issues being missed*the RCE did not address why the inaccuracies were repeatedly identified withoutcorrective actions being taken*the RCE failed to address why the 2004 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)still used flawed information 5*the licensee did not review the corrective action program document CAP016375for the 2003 safeguards alley flooding event to determine why the actual flooding event failed to identify the larger problem*any perceived inadequacies in the operating experience program wereovershadowed by the other contributing causes which were not identified by thelicenseeFor the current inspection, the inspectors concluded that RCE-685, Revision 4,adequately addressed the observations identified in IR 05000305/2006007.

Additionally, the new root causes, contributing causes, and the corrective actions identified in RCE-685, Revision 4, appropriately bounded/enveloped the above issues.

The revised RCE identified three root causes (RCs): RC-1 discussed that the site established a low priority to issues that were not regulatory driven or required for continued plant operation; RC-2 discussed that design basis documents were notdefinitive about what was considered protection from flooding events; and RC-3 discussed the lack of knowledge in engineering/licensing/management on the elementsof design basis/design basis events/design basis analysis methodology due to insufficient training. The contributing causes (CCs) identified were: CC-1, inadequateimplementation of the corrective action program, and CC-2, station personnel did not recognize the risk associated with the flooding issue. Other low-level causes considered were the failure to hold people accountable, schedule and budget pressure, management oversight and expectations, staffing, use of operating experience (OE),

and engineering rigor. Section 1.4 of the revised RCE discussed the above low level causes in detail and ruledout some of them with appropriate justifications. Section 2.2.7.5 provided a more detailed discussion regarding the potential correlation of budget issues. The inspectors reviewed selected corrective actions listed in Sections 1.4.1 through 1.4.6, which included effectiveness reviews, and they appeared to be appropriate.

c.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation included consideration ofprior occurrences of the problem and knowledge of prior operating experienceIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory. For the currentinspection, the inspectors reviewed RCE-685, Revision 4, and reached the same conclusion. Section 2.4 of the revised RCE discussed in detail both internal and external operating experience. A prior occurrence of turbine building flooding was discussed under Section 2.5 (extent of condition/cause) regarding flooding due to AFW lube oil cooler discharge where the turbine building sump pump could not keep up with the discharge rate.

d.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation addressed extent ofcondition and extent of cause of the problemIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and:

6*a lack of engineering rigor combined with a schedule pressure to complete thecorrective action assignment for CAP032809 by the prescribed due date led to the issues not being evaluated thoroughly*the licensee's extent of cause failed to look further than previously identifiedproblems to identify new issues resulting from an identified low level of engineering design basis knowledgeFor the current inspection, the inspectors concluded that RCE-685, Revision 4,adequately addressed the observations identified in IR 05000305/2006007.

Section 02.02.b above, discussed these observations.02.03.Corrective Actions a.Determine whether the licensee specified appropriate corrective actions for eachcommon or root cause or that the licensee evaluated why no actions were necessaryIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and:

• several corrective actions to prevent recurrence corrected problems that werenot identified as either a root cause or contributing causes*because the inspectors were unable to conclude that the stated root cause wascorrect, the inspectors were unable to conclude that the stated corrective actions to prevent repetition would actually prevent recurrence of the problemFor the current inspection, the inspectors concluded that RCE-685, Revision 4,adequately addressed the observations identified in IR 05000305/2006007.

Section 02.02.b above, discussed these observations indicating that the root causeswere appropriately identified. The inspectors found that issues identified in RCE-685, Revision 4, including the root and contributing causes, were entered into the licensee'scorrective action program.

b.Determine whether the licensee prioritized the corrective actions with consideration ofthe risk significance and regulatory complianceIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory; therefore, no furtherreview was performed for the current inspection.

c.Determine whether the licensee established a schedule for implementing andcompleting the corrective actionsIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory; therefore, no furtherreview was performed for the current inspection.

d.Determine whether the licensee developed quantitative or qualitative measures ofsuccess for determining effectiveness of corrective actions to prevent recurrenceIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and:

7*the licensee did not develop either quantitative or qualitative measures todetermine the effectiveness of all of the corrective actions to prevent recurrence.For the current inspection, the inspectors determined that the licensee had notdeveloped quantitative or qualitative measures for all corrective actions established, nor were barriers consistently established to ensure that corrective actions were adequately evaluated. The inspectors determined that interim measures to evaluate effectiveness did not exist for long-term corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Additionally, the tools to measure effectiveness, which were often scheduled months or years after the corrective actions were implemented, did not have standards or criteria that would ensure that the corrective actions were effective nor that interim measures to prevent recurrence were evaluated.The licensee agreed with the inspectors' observations and revised General NuclearProcedure (GNP) GNP-11.08.01, "Action Request Process," Revision AA, to include requirements for corrective action monitoring and effectiveness reviews. The inspectors found that this revision included elements necessary to measure success. Additionally, the licensee initiated CAP036027 and CAP036028 to update/revise the related rootcause analysis and corrective actions to include the requirements established by the GNP-11.08.01, Revision AA, and to incorporate any lessons-learned from the current inspection into the RCEs. The licensee completed the majority of these actions prior to the completion of the inspection and the inspectors concluded that barriers were established that should ensure the corrective actions to prevent recurrence are realistic, timely, measurable, incorporate feedback, and have appropriate standards/criteria to measure effectiveness.03EVALUATION OF INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS White Finding: Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) Pumps Susceptible to Damage fromAir Entrainment03.01.Problem Identification a.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation specified who identified theissue and under what conditionsIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that sufficient information was available outside theroot cause evaluation such that no further inspection of this area was necessary. For the current inspection, the inspectors noted that RCE-0677, "AFW Pumps Susceptibleto Damage from Air Entrainment," Revision 7, provided a discussion concerning the identification of the issue in Section 1.1. Additionally, Section 1.3 for contributing causeCC-4 also pointed out that NRC-prompting had resulted in further investigation which ledto the discovery that the pressure switches installed at the discharge of the AFW pumpswere inoperable. The event time-line in the RCE and Section 2.2.3.2 also containedreferences to NRC-prompting as the means by which the condition was discovered.

8 b.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation documented how long theissue existed, and whether there were any prior opportunities for identificationIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that there was no need for further NRC inspection intothis area. For the current inspection, the inspectors verified that Section 2.4 of therevised RCE discussed operating experience applicable to the issue. Section 2.2.4 discussed the causes of the site's failure to recognize the issue at an earlier date. The applicable generic communications were also listed in the "event time line" section.

c.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation documented the plant-specific risk consequences and compliance concerns associated with the issueIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was considered satisfactory; therefore,no further review was performed for the current inspection.03.02.Root Cause and Extent of Condition Evaluation a.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation appli ed systematic methodsin evaluating the issue in order to identify root causes and contributing causes.IR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and that additionalinspection was needed to determine why the licensee failed to us e a systematic rootcause methodology. The RCE did not adequately address related actions issues between January 1994 and January 2005 or a Severity Level III violation issued in 1997related to the pump discharge switch setpoint.For the current inspection, the inspectors verified that Revision 7 of RCE-0677 usedsystematic root cause methodologies. The methods used in the RCE were interviewing,event and causal factors chart, comparative time-line, and barrier analysis. The event and causal factors chart in the revised RCE contained a discussion of the 1997 inspection results and the related violation. The comparative time-line also contained several items related to the 1997 violation.

b.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation was conducted to a level ofdetail commensurate with the significance of the problemIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and:

• the licensee's RCE was not conducted to a level of detail commensurate with thesignificance of the problem*the root causes were narrowly focused on the engineering department

• after questioning by the inspectors, the licensee added a 'why staircase' toaddress the identified performance deficiencies; however, the conclusions of the

'why staircase' were not factored back into the root causes*the licensee did not address whether a poor modification process was indeed aroot cause 9*the licensee did not probe the root cause to a sufficient depth to determine why alack of engineering rigor did contribute to the event when engineering rigor was more likely a symptom of a more fundamental root cause such as a management philosophy that accepted low engineering rigor*the licensee provided no justification why failure to track a commitment in thecorrective action program was a root cause for failing to provide adequate AFW pump protectionFor the current inspection, the revised RCE provided a more detailed description of theAFW pump issue and of the related causal factors. Additionally, RCE-0677, Revision 7, provided a more thorough review of potential low-level causes, a basis for elimination of these causes as root or contributing causes, and listed better defined corrective actions.

This RCE also included a more detailed description of extent of condition and cause.

The causes no longer focused solely on engineering. The following are the root causes and contributing causes identified in the revised RCE: *RC-1, management had inadequate expectations and standards for modificationand supporting engineering documentation quality*CC-1, weak procedural guidance related to modifications

• CC-2, lack of knowledge by personnel concerning the level of detail requiredwhen working in knowledge-based mode in developing testing, analysis, and effects analysis and second level reviews*CC-3, inadequate administrative procedural requirements existed to ensure thatspecial test procedures contained acceptance criteria and to provide sufficient technical guidance for content development and review*CC-4, the Operability Review (OPR) process and implementation was inadequate*CC-5, a lack of design basis information availability made it difficult to find andreview design basis information. Other low-level causes considered were accountability of personnel, inadequate training and qualifications, schedule andbudget pressure, staffing and use of operating experience (OE)In the revised RCE, a lack of engineering rigor was deleted as a cause. Section 2.2.3.1of the RCE provided a summary of human error failure modes seen when the AFW issue was discovered by NRC. Section 2.2.3.2 provided a summary of programmatic failuremodes and Section 2.2.3.3 provided a summary of the organizational failure modes seen during this time frame. These evaluations considered deficiencies over a long period of time, including the related 2005 inadequate operability determination and the factors thatcontributed to the 2005 deficiency. Additionally, the revised RCE explored past and current modification deficiencies including those noted during the May 2006 inspection.This revision of the RCE deleted the "failure to track a commitment in the correctiveaction program," as a cause. Similarly, the current revision of the RCE eliminated the 10'why staircase' as a root cause evaluation tool and used only methodologies consistentwith the Dominion RCE Handbook. A poor modification process was not considered as a cause in the previous revision of the RCE; however, Revision 7 of the RCE identified weak procedural guidance related to modifications as a contributing cause.

c.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation included consideration ofprior occurrences of the problem and knowledge of prior operating experienceIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that no further inspection of this area was necessary. For the current inspection, the inspectors identified that Section 1.4 of Revision 7 of theRCE identified the lack of use of OE as a potential cause, Section 2.4 reviewed OE anddiscussed how the OE was dispositioned and why it did not facilitate identification of theAFW issue, and Section 2.2.4 discussed the causes related to the failure of the licenseeto recognize the issue at an earlier date. The applicable generic communications were also listed in the event time-line section.

d.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation addressed extent of conditionand extent of cause of the problemInspection Report 05000305/2006007 concluded that no further inspection of this areawas necessary; therefore, no further review was performed for the current inspection.03.03Corrective Actions a.Determine whether the licensee specified appropriate corrective actions for eachcommon or root cause or that the licensee evaluated why no actions were necessaryIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and:

• the licensee's root cause process took credit for processes implemented prior tothe AFW issue being identified as corrective actions for preventing recurrence*the licensee's RCE credited commitments not being tracked in the correctiveaction program*the inspectors were unable to assess whether the designated corrective actionswould prevent recurrence of this issue because the RCE lacked the depth necessary to identify the actual root causeFor the current inspection, the inspectors concluded that RCE-0677, Revision 7,adequately addressed the observations identified in IR 05000305/2006007.

Section 03.02.b above, discussed these observations indicating that the root causeswere appropriately identified. The inspectors found that issues identified in RCE-0677, Revision 7, including the root and contributing causes, were entered into the licensee'scorrective action program.

b.Determine whether the licensee prioritized the corrective actions with consideration of therisk significance and regulatory compliance 11IR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory; therefore, no furtherreview was performed for the current inspection.

c.Determine whether the licensee established a schedule for implementing and completingthe corrective actionsIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory; therefore, no furtherreview was performed for the current inspection.

d.Determine whether the licensee developed quantitative or qualitative measures ofsuccess for determining effectiveness of corrective actions to prevent recurrenceIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and:

• the licensee developed qualitative measures for determining the effectiveness ofthe corrective actions to prevent recurrence. However, none of the effectiveness reviews have been completed, even though several of the corrective actions were implemented prior to the issue being identified*the three qualitative measures, listed below, were not adequate to ensure that thecorrective actions taken were effective:-no repeat findings from the industry-audit organization in engineering orconfiguration control-the 2007 engineering effectiveness assessment did not find issues withcurrent products related to inadequate level of rigor-implementation of quality grading scale/criteria for engineering productsindicated improved engineering quality and rigorFor the current inspection, the inspectors found that the licensee had not developedquantitative or qualitative measures for all corrective actions established, nor were barriers consistently established to ensure that corrective actions were adequately evaluated. The inspectors found that interim measures to evaluate effectiveness did not exist for long-term corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Additionally, the tools to measure effectiveness, which were often scheduled months or years after the corrective actions were implemented, did not have standards or criteria that would ensure that thecorrective actions were effective nor that interim measures to prevent recurrence were evaluated.The licensee agreed with the inspectors' observations and revised GNP-11.08.01,"Action Request Process," Revision AA, to include requirements for corrective action monitoring and effectiveness reviews. The inspectors concluded that this revision included elements necessary to measure success. Additionally, the licensee initiated CAP036027 and CAP036028 to update/revise the related root cause analysis andcorrective actions to include the requirements established by the GNP-11.08.01, Revision AA, and to incorporate any lessons-learned from the current inspection into the RCEs. The licensee completed the majority of these actions prior to the completion of 12the inspection and the inspectors concluded that barriers were established that shouldensure the corrective actions to prevent recurrence are realistic, timely, measurable, incorporate feedback, and have appropriate standards/criteria to measure effectiveness.04EVALUATION OF INSPECTION REQUIREMENTSCommon Cause Evaluation for Degraded CornerstoneFor the purposes of identifying possible common issues, causes, and corrective actions,the licensee performed common cause evaluation, RCE K-2005-0701, "Common Cause Evaluation," Revision 2. Collective significance analysis was the method the licenseeused to determine common elements within the root and common causes. 04.01Problem Identification a.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation specified who identified theissue and under what conditionsThis objective was not applicable to the common cause evaluation. The evaluation ofwho, and under what condition each assessed issue was identified, was discussed in the individual RCEs and is addressed in the above report sections. This area was satisfactory.

b.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation documented how long theissue existed, and whether there were any prior opportunities for identificationThis objective was not applicable to the common cause evaluation. The evaluation ofhow long the issues existed, and any prior opportunities for identification, was discussedin the individual RCEs and is addressed in the above report sections. This area was satisfactory.

c.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation documented theplant-specific risk consequences and compliance concerns associated with the issueIR 05000305/2006007 determined that no additional inspection of this area wasnecessary to support NRC decision-making regarding the findings; therefore, no furtherreview was performed for the current inspection.04.02Root Cause and Extent of Condition Evaluation a.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation appli ed systematic methodsin evaluating the issue in order to identify root causes and contributing causesThe licensee used a collective significance analysis to determine the common causesidentified in the individual RCEs. However, the inspectors noted that the licensee's rootcause guidance document identified a collective significance analysis as one designed to identify a trend from lower-level issues/events to preclude the occurrence of a higher-level event. The analysis did not address why this method was acceptable for use when the initiating issues were high level and the reason for doing the evaluation was to 13determine common themes across the events. During discussions, the licensee statedthat the collective significance analysis was believed to be the most appropriate method within the root cause guidance document because it enabled the evaluators to look at behaviors common to each issue, regardless of the significance of the issue.

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's approach and concluded that the individual RCE provided sufficient detail to ensure that the use of a collective significance determinationwould be effective in addressing the common aspects. Additionally, the licensee revised the collective significance analysis to include appropriate justification for the use of a common cause evaluation for this event. This area was satisfactory.

b.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation was conducted to a level ofdetail commensurate with the significance of the problemInspection Report 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was consideredsatisfactory. However, because the licensee's revision to the common cause analysis resulted in identification of new common causes, the inspectors elected, for the current inspection, to review the common causes. The licensee identified the following common causes:

• design basis information quality and availability did not support station personnelarriving at the right conclusion*standards issues were identified for modification quality and engineeringdocumentation in the AFW root cause, and in the Flooding root cause, standardsfor operating philosophy and inadequate management safety culture*programs were not implemented as intended. The OPR program, a subset of thecorrective action program (AFW and Flooding), indicated program implementation

gaps*lack of knowledge in engineering, licensing, and management of design basisdocument information was identified for the Flooding issue. Lack of knowledge in developing testing, analysis and design change documentation items existed for the AFW issueThe inspectors reviewed Revision 2 to the common cause analysis and came to thesame conclusion in IR 05000305/2006007 that the common cause evaluation appeared to effectively probe the behavioral and cultural issues discussed in the individual in-scope RCEs. The common cause evaluation was shown to be a relatively detailed method to summarize the behaviors within each individual in-scope RCE, and the associated common causes were then logically drawn from this information.

c.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation included consideration ofprior occurrences of the problem and knowledge of prior operating experienceIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory. For the currentinspection, the inspectors noted that Revision 2 to the licensee's common cause evaluation identified that, "numerous opportunities existed for the station to recognize 14and act on internal and external OE," and that "the lack of understanding of design basisinformation and design basis event analysis allowed personnel to arrive at inappropriate conclusions. The inspectors concluded that the licensee's evaluation of use of OE was satisfactory.

d.Determination whether the licensee's root cause evaluation addressed extent of conditionand extent of cause of the problemInspection Report 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was consideredsatisfactory and that the extent of condition section in the common cause evaluationreport essentially summarized the extent of condition and extent of cause results from the individual in-scope RCEs. For the current inspection, the inspectors found that Revision 2 to the common cause analysis similarly summarized assessments in the individual RCEs. This area was satisfactory.04.03Corrective Actions a.Determine whether the licensee specified appropriate corrective actions for eachcommon or root cause or that the licensee evaluated why no actions were necessaryIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory because the licenseerevised the common cause evaluations as a result of inspector identified issues and the NRC team was unable to review the newly established corrective actions with the timeallotted for the inspection.For the current inspection, the inspectors found that Revision 2 to the common causeanalysis established corrective actions for each cause or provided a discussion and justification for no corrective actions required. This area was satisfactory.

b.Determine whether the licensee prioritized the corrective actions with consideration of therisk significance and regulatory complianceIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory; therefore, no furtherreview was performed. For the current inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective actions and found that they were entered into the corrective action program and the prioritization was established and monitored by this process.

c.Determine whether the licensee established a schedule for implementing and completingthe corrective actionsIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was satisfactory, therefore no furtherreview was performed. For the current inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective actions and found that they were entered into the corrective action program and the schedule was established and monitored by this process.

d.Determine whether the licensee developed quantitative or qualitative measures ofsuccess for determining effectiveness of corrective actions to prevent recurrenceIR 05000305/2006007 concluded that this area was unsatisfactory and:

15*six of ten corrective actions to prevent recurrence for the last common root causedid not yet have effectiveness review plans in place or scheduled*effectiveness reviews were not yet created; therefore, the inspectors could notreview whether the measures of success would be appropriately quantitative or qualitative in scopeDuring that inspection, the inspectors found that the licensee had not developedquantitative or qualitative measures for all corrective actions established, nor were barriers consistently established to ensure that corrective actions were adequately evaluated. The inspectors found that interim measures to evaluate effectiveness did not exist for long-term corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Additionally, the tools to measure effectiveness, which were often scheduled months or years after the corrective actions were implemented, did not have standards or criteria that would ensure that thecorrective actions were effective nor that interim measures to prevent recurrence were evaluated.The licensee agreed with the inspectors' observations and revised GNP-11.08.01,"Action Request Process," Revision AA, to include requirements for corrective action monitoring and effectiveness reviews. The inspectors concluded that this revision included elements necessary to measure success. Additionally, the licensee initiated CAP036027 and CAP036028 to update/revise the related root cause analysis andcorrective actions to include the requirements established by the GNP-11.08.01, Revision AA, and to incorporate any lessons-learned from the current inspection into the RCEs. The licensee completed the majority of these actions prior to the completion of the inspection and the inspectors concluded that barriers were established that shouldensure the corrective actions to prevent recurrence are realistic, timely, measurable, incorporate feedback, and have appropriate standards/criteria to measure effectiveness.05INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF LICENSEE ROOT CAUSE Independent Root Cause EvaluationThe inspectors did not perform an independent root cause evaluation during thisinspection due to the limited nature of this inspection. Instead, the inspectors reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee in response to the initial findings identified during independent root cause evaluation in May 2006. The inspectors verified that the subject corrective actions captured the deficiencies identified by the inspection findings accurately and appropriately, the analyses performed within the corrective action program documents were appropriate, and the corrective actions taken or proposed were appropriate. No findings were identified as a result of this inspection. 06INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF LICENSEE EXTENT OF CONDITION AND EXTENTOF CAUSE Independent Extent of Condition/Cause EvaluationThe inspectors did not perform an independent extent of condition/cause evaluation forthe Yellow flooding performance deficiency and the White AFW pump protection 16performance deficiency. Instead, the inspectors verified that the concerns and findingsidentified in May 2006 (IR 05000305/2006007) which related to the extent of condition and extent of cause were adequately addressed by the licensee in its revised RCEs for the Turbine Building flooding issue and the AFW pump protection issue. Also, the inspectors verified that the licensee's corrective actions for these issues were adequate and appropriate. The inspectors also reviewed a recently completed RCE for the cross-cutting issues identified by the NRC related to problem identification and resolution(RCE-0717, "NRC Identified Cross-Cutting Issue - Problem Identification andResolution," Revision 1) to verify the quality, completeness, level of detail, and the appropriateness of the extent of condition/extent of cause evaluation. No findings wereidentified as a result of this inspection07INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF SAFETY CULTURE CONSIDERATIONSThe inspectors reviewed the licensee's root and common cause analyses to determinethat the evaluations appropriately considered whether any safety culture component caused or significantly contributed to any risk significant performance issue. The licensee's Flooding RCE and the common cause analysis both indicated that elements ofsafety culture were contributors to these issues. The licensee had performed an independent assessment of safety culture and the Flooding RCE incorporated all elements from this survey into their corrective action program. The inspectors verified that multiple corrective actions to prevent recurrence related to all of the identified safety culture elements were included in the corrective action program. Additionally, corrective action to prevent recurrence Number 1 from RCE-0685, "Flooding," established a corrective action to assess safety culture every year for three years through 2009. 08Exit MeetingThe inspectors presented the inspection results to Ms. L. Hartz, Site Vice-President, andother members of licensee management on August 18, 2006. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

L. Hartz, Site Vice-President

K. Hoops, Nuclear Specialist

L. Armstrong, Site Engineering Director

T. Breene, Regulatory Affairs ManagerNuclear Regulatory Commission

J. Lara, Chief, Engineering Branch 3

S. Burton, Senior Resident Inspector

P. Higgins, Resident InspectorNRC Exit Meeting Attendance Roster

A. Boland, RIII/DRS, Deputy Director

J. Lara, RIII/DRS, Chief, Engineering Branch

P. Louden, RIII/DRP, Branch Chief

B. Jose, RIII/DRS,

S. Burton, Senior Resident Inspector

L. Hartz, Kewaunee Site Vice-President

M. Hicks, Organizational Effectiveness Manager

J. Owens, Organizational Effectiveness Human Performance Supervisor

W. Henry, Maintenance Manager

R. Repshas, Licensing Engineer

K. Hoops, Nuclear Specialist

L. Armstrong, Engineering Director

G. Duffy, Organizational Effectiveness

T. Webb, Site Safety and Licensing Director

T. Breene, Licensing Manager

K. Peckham, Nuclear Oversight Manager

P. Phelps, Design Engineering Manager

B. Koehler, Engineering, Design Manager

K. Davison, Operations and Maintenance Director

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Closed05000305/2004009-03VIOPotential Flooding in the Turbine Building Basement(Yellow)05000305/2005002-05VIOPotential Common Mode Failure of Auxiliary Feedwater(White)

2

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

The following is a list of documents reviewed during the inspection.

Inclusion on this list does notimply that the NRC inspectors reviewed the documents in their entirety but rather that selected