IR 05000461/2012007: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{{#Wiki_filter:ust 1, 2012


==REGION III==
==SUBJECT:==
2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210 LISLE, IL 60532-4352 August 1, 2012 Mr. Michael Senior Vice-President, Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO), Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville IL 60555 SUBJECT: CLINTON POWER STATIO N EVALUATION S OF CHANGES, TESTS, O R EXPERIMENTS AND PERMANENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS BASELINE INSPECTION REPORT 05000 461/20 1 2007
CLINTON POWER STATION EVALUATIONS OF CHANGES, TESTS, OR EXPERIMENTS AND PERMANENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS BASELINE INSPECTION REPORT 05000461/2012007


==Dear Mr. Pacilio:==
==Dear Mr. Pacilio:==
On July 12, 201 2, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications inspection at your Clinton Power Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results
On July 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications inspection at your Clinton Power Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on July 12, 2012, with you and other members of your staff.
, which were discussed on July 12, 201 2, with you and other members of your staff.


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


Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identifie d. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
 
Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).


Sincerely,
Sincerely,
/RA/ Robert C. Daley, Chie f Engineering Branch 3 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-461 License Nos. NPF-62  
/RA/
Robert C. Daley, Chief Engineering Branch 3 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-461 License Nos. NPF-62


===Enclosure:===
===Enclosure:===
Inspection Report 05000 461/2012007 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
Inspection Report 05000461/2012007 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information


REGION III==
REGION III==
Docket No: 50-461 License No
Docket No: 50-461 License No: NPF-62 Report No: 05000461/2012007 Licensee: Exelon Generation Facility: Clinton Power Station Location: Clinton, IL Dates: June 25 - July 12, 2012 Inspectors: M. Munir, Reactor Inspector (Lead)
: NPF-62 Report No:
J. Gilliam, Reactor Inspector L. Jones, Reactor Inspector Approved by: R. Daley, Chief Engineering Branch 3 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure
05000 461/20 1 2007 Licensee: Exelon Generation Facility: Clinton Power Station Location: Clinton , IL Dates: June 25 - July 12, 201 2 Inspectors:
M. Munir, Reactor Inspector (Lead) J. Gilliam, Reactor Inspector L. Jones, Reactor Inspector Approved by:
R. Daley, Chief Engineering Branch 3 Division of Reactor Safety 1 Enclosure  


=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
IR 05000 461/20 1 2007; 0 6/25/201 2 - 07/12/201 2; Clinton Power Station; Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications.
IR 05000461/2012007; 06/25/2012 - 07/12/2012; Clinton Power Station; Evaluations of
 
This report covers a two-week announced baseline inspection on evaluations of changes, tests, or experiments and permanent plant modifications. The inspection was conducted by Region III based engineering inspectors.


The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG
Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications.
-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 4, dated December 2006.


A. No findings of significance were identified.
This report covers a two-week announced baseline inspection on evaluations of changes, tests, or experiments and permanent plant modifications. The inspection was conducted by Region III based engineering 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.


N RC-Identified and Self-Revealed Findings B. No violations of significance were identified.
===NRC-Identified===
and Self-Revealed Findings No findings of significance were identified.


===Licensee-Identified Violations===
===Licensee-Identified Violations===


1. REACTOR SAFETY
No violations of significance were identified.


=REPORT DETAILS=
=REPORT DETAILS=


===Cornerstone:  Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity 1R17 Evaluation===
==REACTOR SAFETY==


s of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications
===Cornerstone: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity===
{{a|1R17}}
==1R17 Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications==
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.17}}
===.1 Evaluation of Changes, Tests, or Experiments===


===.1 ===
====a. Inspection Scope====
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.17}}
From June 25, 2012 through July12, 2012, the inspectors reviewed 7 safety-evaluations performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if the evaluations were adequate and that prior NRC approval was obtained as appropriate. The inspectors also reviewed 22 screenings where licensee personnel had determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not necessary. The inspectors reviewed these documents to determine if:
a. Evaluation of Changes, Tests, or Experiments From June 2 5, 20 1 2 through July12, 201 2, the inspectors reviewed 7 safety-evaluations performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if the evaluations were adequate and that prior NRC approval was obtained as appropriate. The inspectors also reviewed 2 2 screenings where licensee personnel had determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not necessary. The inspectors reviewed these documents to determine if:
* the changes, tests, or experiments performed were evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and that sufficient documentation existed to confirm that a license amendment was not required;
Inspection Scope the changes, tests, or experiments performed were evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and that sufficient documentation existed to confirm that a license amendment was not required; the safety issue requiring the change, tests or experiment was resolved; the licensee conclusions for evaluations of changes, tests, or experiments were correct and consistent with 10 CFR 50.59; and the design and licensing basis documentation was updated to reflect the change.
* the safety issue requiring the change, tests or experiment was resolved;
* the licensee conclusions for evaluations of changes, tests, or experiments were correct and consistent with 10 CFR 50.59; and
* the design and licensing basis documentation was updated to reflect the change.


The inspectors used, in part, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96
The inspectors used, in part, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96-07, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation, Revision 1, to determine acceptability of the completed evaluations, and screenings. The NEI document was endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.187, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments, dated November 2000. The inspectors also consulted Part 9900 of the NRC Inspection Manual, 10 CFR Guidance for 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments.
-07, "Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation," Revision 1, to determine acceptability of the completed evaluations, and screenings. The NEI document was endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.187, "Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments," dated November 2000. The inspectors also consulted Part 9900 of the NRC Inspection Manual, "10 CFR Guidance for 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments."


This inspection constituted 7 samples of evaluations and 2 2 samples of changes as defined in IP 71111.17-04. b. No findings of significance were identified.
This inspection constituted 7 samples of evaluations and 22 samples of changes as defined in IP 71111.17-04.


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


===.2 a. Permanent Plant Modifications===
===.2 Permanent Plant Modifications===


From June 25, 201 2 through July 12 , 2012 , the inspectors reviewed 12 permanent plant modifications that had been installed in the plant during the last three years. This review Inspection Scope
====a. Inspection Scope====
From June 25, 2012 through July 12, 2012, the inspectors reviewed 12 permanent plant modifications that had been installed in the plant during the last three years. This review included in-plant walkdown for a portion of the installed Division 1, 2 and 3 emergency diesel exhaust system and the newly installed Nuclear Steam Supply Protection System inverters 1C71-S001A & 1C71-3001B. The modifications were selected based upon risk significance, safety significance, and complexity. The inspectors reviewed the modifications selected to determine if:
* the supporting design and licensing basis documentation was updated;
* the changes were in accordance with the specified design requirements;
* the procedures and training plans affected by the modification have been adequately updated;
* the test documentation as required by the applicable test programs has been updated; and
* post-modification testing adequately verified system operability and/or functionality.


3 Enclosure included in
The inspectors also used applicable industry standards to evaluate acceptability of the modifications. The list of modifications and other documents reviewed by the inspectors is included as an Attachment to this report.
-plant walkdown for a portion of the installed Division 1, 2 and 3 emergency diesel exhaust system and the newly installed Nuclear Steam Supply Protection System inverters 1C71
-S001A & 1C71
-3001B. The modifications were selected based upon risk significance, safety significance, and complexity. The inspectors reviewed the modifications selected to determine if:
the supporting design and licensing basis documentation was updated; the changes were in accordance with the specified design requirements; the procedures and training plans affected by the modification have been adequately updated; the test documentation as required by the applicable test programs has been updated; and post-modification testing adequately verified system operability and/or functionalit y. The inspectors also used applicable industry standards to evaluate acceptability of the modifications. The list of modifications and other documents reviewed by the inspectors is included as an Attachment to this report.


This inspection constituted t welve permanent plant modification samples as defined in IP 71111.17-04. b. No findings of significance were identified.
This inspection constituted twelve permanent plant modification samples as defined in IP 71111.17-04.


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


==OTHER ACTIVITIES==
==OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)==
(OA)
{{a|4OA2}}
{{a|4OA2}}
==4OA2 ==
==4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems==
===.1 Identification and Resolution of Problems===


a. Routine Review of Condition Reports From June 2 5, 201 2 through July 12 201 2, the inspectors reviewed 21 corrective action process documents that identified or were related to 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and permanent plant modifications. The inspectors reviewed these documents to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions related to permanent pant modifications and evaluations for changes, tests, or experiments issues. In addition, corrective action documents written on issues identified during the inspection were reviewed to verify adequate problem identification and incorporation of the problems into the corrective action system. The specific corrective action documents that were sampled and reviewed by the inspectors are listed in the attachment to this report.
===.1 Routine Review of Condition Reports===


Inspection Scope b. No findings of significance were identified.
====a. Inspection Scope====
From June 25, 2012 through July 12 2012, the inspectors reviewed 21 corrective action process documents that identified or were related to 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and permanent plant modifications. The inspectors reviewed these documents to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions related to permanent pant modifications and evaluations for changes, tests, or experiments issues. In addition, corrective action documents written on issues identified during the inspection were reviewed to verify adequate problem identification and incorporation of the problems into the corrective action system. The specific corrective action documents that were sampled and reviewed by the inspectors are listed in the attachment to this report.
 
====b. Findings====
No findings of significance were identified.


Findings 4 Enclosure
{{a|4OA6}}
{{a|4OA6}}
==4OA6 ==
==4OA6 Meetings==
===.1 Meetings O n July 12, 201 2 , the inspector===
 
===.1 Exit Meeting Summary===
 
On July 12, 2012, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Noll and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee personnel acknowledged the inspection results presented and did not identify any proprietary content. The inspectors confirmed that all proprietary material reviewed during the inspection was returned to the licensee staff.


s presented the inspection results to Mr. Noll and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee personnel acknowledged the inspection results presented and did not identify any proprietary content. The inspectors confirmed that all proprietary material reviewed during the inspection was returned to the licensee staff. Exit Meeting Summary  ATTACHMENT:
ATTACHMENT:  


=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION=


==KEY POINTS OF CONTACT==
==KEY POINTS OF CONTACT==
: [[contact::W. Noll ]], Site Vice President
 
Licensee
Licensee
: [[contact::B. Taber ]], Plant Manager
: [[contact::W. Noll]], Site Vice President
: [[contact::D. Kemper ]], Site Engineering Director
: [[contact::B. Taber]], Plant Manager
: [[contact::S. Kowalski ]], Sr. Manager Design Engineering Manager  
: [[contact::D. Kemper]], Site Engineering Director
: [[contact::J. Smith ]], Sr. Manager Plant Engineering
: [[contact::S. Kowalski]], Sr. Manager Design Engineering Manager
: [[contact::K. Baker]], Regulatory Assurance Manager  
: [[contact::J. Smith]], Sr. Manager Plant Engineering
: [[contact::K. Baker]], Regulatory Assurance Manager
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
: [[contact::R. Daley]], Chief, DRS
: [[contact::R. Daley]], Chief, DRS
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
: [[contact::B. Kemker]], Senior Resident Inspector
: [[contact::B. Kemker]], Senior Resident Inspector


==LIST OF ITEMS==
==LIST OF ITEMS==
OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSS
ED Non eOpened, Closed, and
===Discussed===


Attachment
===OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED===
 
===Opened, Closed, and Discussed===
 
None Attachment


==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
==LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED==
The following
 
}}
}}

Revision as of 00:20, 12 November 2019

IR 05000461-12-007, 06/25/2012 - 07/12/2012, Clinton Power Station; Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications
ML12214A348
Person / Time
Site: Clinton Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 08/01/2012
From: Robert Daley
Engineering Branch 3
To: Pacilio M
Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
Mohammad Munir
References
IR-12-007
Download: ML12214A348 (16)


Text

ust 1, 2012

SUBJECT:

CLINTON POWER STATION EVALUATIONS OF CHANGES, TESTS, OR EXPERIMENTS AND PERMANENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS BASELINE INSPECTION REPORT 05000461/2012007

Dear Mr. Pacilio:

On July 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications inspection at your Clinton Power Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on July 12, 2012, with you and other members of your staff.

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

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

Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.

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

Sincerely,

/RA/

Robert C. Daley, Chief Engineering Branch 3 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-461 License Nos. NPF-62

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 05000461/2012007 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information

REGION III==

Docket No: 50-461 License No: NPF-62 Report No: 05000461/2012007 Licensee: Exelon Generation Facility: Clinton Power Station Location: Clinton, IL Dates: June 25 - July 12, 2012 Inspectors: M. Munir, Reactor Inspector (Lead)

J. Gilliam, Reactor Inspector L. Jones, Reactor Inspector Approved by: R. Daley, Chief Engineering Branch 3 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000461/2012007; 06/25/2012 - 07/12/2012; Clinton Power Station; Evaluations of

Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications.

This report covers a two-week announced baseline inspection on evaluations of changes, tests, or experiments and permanent plant modifications. The inspection was conducted by Region III based engineering 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.

NRC-Identified

and Self-Revealed Findings No findings of significance were identified.

Licensee-Identified Violations

No violations of significance were identified.

REPORT DETAILS

REACTOR SAFETY

Cornerstone: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity

1R17 Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications

.1 Evaluation of Changes, Tests, or Experiments

a. Inspection Scope

From June 25, 2012 through July12, 2012, the inspectors reviewed 7 safety-evaluations performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if the evaluations were adequate and that prior NRC approval was obtained as appropriate. The inspectors also reviewed 22 screenings where licensee personnel had determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not necessary. The inspectors reviewed these documents to determine if:

  • the changes, tests, or experiments performed were evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and that sufficient documentation existed to confirm that a license amendment was not required;
  • the safety issue requiring the change, tests or experiment was resolved;
  • the licensee conclusions for evaluations of changes, tests, or experiments were correct and consistent with 10 CFR 50.59; and
  • the design and licensing basis documentation was updated to reflect the change.

The inspectors used, in part, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96-07, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation, Revision 1, to determine acceptability of the completed evaluations, and screenings. The NEI document was endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.187, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments, dated November 2000. The inspectors also consulted Part 9900 of the NRC Inspection Manual, 10 CFR Guidance for 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments.

This inspection constituted 7 samples of evaluations and 22 samples of changes as defined in IP 71111.17-04.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Permanent Plant Modifications

a. Inspection Scope

From June 25, 2012 through July 12, 2012, the inspectors reviewed 12 permanent plant modifications that had been installed in the plant during the last three years. This review included in-plant walkdown for a portion of the installed Division 1, 2 and 3 emergency diesel exhaust system and the newly installed Nuclear Steam Supply Protection System inverters 1C71-S001A & 1C71-3001B. The modifications were selected based upon risk significance, safety significance, and complexity. The inspectors reviewed the modifications selected to determine if:

  • the supporting design and licensing basis documentation was updated;
  • the changes were in accordance with the specified design requirements;
  • the procedures and training plans affected by the modification have been adequately updated;
  • the test documentation as required by the applicable test programs has been updated; and
  • post-modification testing adequately verified system operability and/or functionality.

The inspectors also used applicable industry standards to evaluate acceptability of the modifications. The list of modifications and other documents reviewed by the inspectors is included as an Attachment to this report.

This inspection constituted twelve permanent plant modification samples as defined in IP 71111.17-04.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)

4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems

.1 Routine Review of Condition Reports

a. Inspection Scope

From June 25, 2012 through July 12 2012, the inspectors reviewed 21 corrective action process documents that identified or were related to 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and permanent plant modifications. The inspectors reviewed these documents to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions related to permanent pant modifications and evaluations for changes, tests, or experiments issues. In addition, corrective action documents written on issues identified during the inspection were reviewed to verify adequate problem identification and incorporation of the problems into the corrective action system. The specific corrective action documents that were sampled and reviewed by the inspectors are listed in the attachment to this report.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA6 Meetings

.1 Exit Meeting Summary

On July 12, 2012, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Noll and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee personnel acknowledged the inspection results presented and did not identify any proprietary content. The inspectors confirmed that all proprietary material reviewed during the inspection was returned to the licensee staff.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

W. Noll, Site Vice President
B. Taber, Plant Manager
D. Kemper, Site Engineering Director
S. Kowalski, Sr. Manager Design Engineering Manager
J. Smith, Sr. Manager Plant Engineering
K. Baker, Regulatory Assurance Manager

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

R. Daley, Chief, DRS
B. Kemker, Senior Resident Inspector

LIST OF ITEMS

OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED

Opened, Closed, and Discussed

None Attachment

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED