IR 05000461/2006010
| ML063550210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/2006 |
| From: | Dave Hills NRC/RGN-III/DRS/EB1 |
| To: | Crane C Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
| References | |
| IR-06-010 | |
| Download: ML063550210 (14) | |
Text
December 21, 2006Mr. Christopher M. CranePresident and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear Exelon Generation Company, LLC 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555SUBJECT:CLINTON POWER STATION NRC EVALUATION OF CHANGES, TESTS, OR EXPERIMENTS AND PERMANENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS BASELINE INSPECTION REPORT 05000461/2006010(DRS)
Dear Mr. Crane:
On November 30, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed acombined baseline inspection of the Evaluation of Changes, Tests, or Experiments and Permanent Plant Modifications at the Clinton Power Station. The enclosed report documents the results of the inspection, which were discussed with Mr. B. Hanson, and others of your staffat the completion of the inspection on November 30, 2006.The inspectors examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, and with the conditions of your license. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. Based on the results of the inspection, no findings of significance were identified.In accordance with 10 CFR Part 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letterand its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC PublicDocument Room, or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's C. Crane-2-document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/David E. Hills, ChiefEngineering Branch 1 Division of Reactor SafetyDocket No. 50-461License No. NPF-62Enclosure:Inspection Report 05000461/2006010(DRS) w/attachment: Supplemental Informationcc w/encl:Site Vice President - Clinton Power StationPlant Manager - Clinton Power Station Regulatory Assurance Manager - Clinton Power Station Chief Operating Officer Senior Vice President - Nuclear Services Vice President - Operations Support Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Manager Licensing - Clinton Power Station Senior Counsel, Nuclear, Mid-West Regional Operating Group Document Control Desk - Licensing Assistant Attorney General Illinois Emergency Management Agency State Liaison Officer, State of Illinois Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000461/2006010(DRS); 11/13/2006 through 11/30/2006; Clinton Power Station. Routineengineering baseline inspection.The inspection covered a 2-week announced baseline inspection on evaluations of changes,tests, or experiments and permanent plant modifications. The inspection was conducted by two regional based engineering inspectors. No violations were identified. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 3; dated July 2000.A.Inspector-Identified and Self-Revealed Findings
Cornerstone: Mitigating SystemsNo findings of significance were identified.
B.Licensee-Identified Violations
No findings of significance were identified.
2
REPORT DETAILS
1.REACTOR SAFETYCornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity1R02Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments (71111.02).1Review of 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations and Screenings
a. Inspection Scope
From November 13 through November 30, 2006, the inspectors reviewed fourevaluations performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The inspectors reviewed the evaluations to confirm that they were thorough and that prior NRC approval was obtained as appropriate. The inspector could not review the minimum sample size of five evaluations because the licensee only performed four evaluations during the biennial sample period. The inspectors also reviewed sixteen screenings where licensee personnel had determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not necessary.
In addition, three procedure changes were reviewed to verify they did not meet the applicability requirements for a screening. The evaluations and screenings were chosen based on risk significance, safety significance, and complexity. The list of documents reviewed by the inspectors are included as an attachment to this report.The inspectors used, in part, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96-07, "Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation," and 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."
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
1R17 Permanent Plant Modifications (71111.17B).1Review of Permanent Plant Modifications
a. Inspection Scope
From November 13 through November 30, 2006, the inspectors reviewed sevenpermanent plant modifications that had been installed in the plant during the last two years. In addition, the inspectors reviewed three equivalency evaluations and one commercial grade dedication. The modifications were chosen based upon risk significance, safety significance, and complexity. As per inspection procedure 71111.17B, one modification was chosen that affected the barrier integrity cornerstone.
The inspectors reviewed the modifications to verify that the completed design changes 3were in accordance with the specified design requirements, and the licensing bases,and to confirm that the changes did not adversely affect any systems' safety function.
Design and post-modification testing aspects were verified to ensure the functionality of the modification, its associated system, and any support systems. The inspectors also verified that the modifications performed did not place the plant in an increased risk configuration.The inspectors also used applicable industry standards to evaluate acceptability of themodifications. The list of modifications and other documents reviewed by the inspectors is included as an attachment to this report.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.4.OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)4OA2Identification and Resolution of Problems.1Routine Review of Condition Reports
a. Inspection Scope
From November 13 through November 30, 2006, the inspectors reviewed ten CorrectiveAction 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 plant 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.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA6Meetings.1Exit MeetingThe inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. B. Hanson and others of thelicensee's staff, on November 30, 2006. Licensee personnel acknowledged the inspection results presented. Licensee personnel were asked to identify any documents, materials, or information provided during the inspection that were considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
1ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee
- B. Hanson, Site Vice President
- M. McDowell, Plant Manager
- J. Cunningham, Work Management Director
- R. Frantz, Regulatory Assurance Representative
- P. Marcum, Electrical/I&C Design Manager
- P. Simpson, Regulatory Assurance Director (Acting)
- R. Peak, Site Engineering Director
- O. Villireal, Nuclear Oversight
- R. Weber, Senior Manager Design EngineeringNuclear Regulatory Commission
- C. Pederson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety
- B. Dickson, Senior Resident Inspector
- D. Tharp, Resident Inspector
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened, Closed, and
Discussed
None
2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following is a list of licensee documents reviewed during the inspection, includingdocuments prepared by others for the licensee.
- Inclusion on this list does not imply that NRC