1. 2006 CMBG Conference BREAKOUT 1: Component Design Basis Inspection Facilitators: Bill Kline/FENOC Sonya Myers/NMC June 11-14, 2006 Richmond, VA

2. 2006 CMBG Conference Topics for Discussion Guiding Principle – “It’s not the bricks, it’s the mortar” Multiple sources that support design basis contain “gaps” in the mortar Reviews to prepare for CDBI Importance of walkdowns Know/understand Operator Actions

3. 2006 CMBG Conference Its not the bricks, it’s the mortar Types of “mortar” w/SSCs being the “bricks” –Design basis calculations –Operating procedures –Surveillance procedures –Modification packages CDBI challenges the “mortar” –Looking for gaps between the bricks –Design values properly translated to operating procedures –Post maintenance testing adequate to demonstrate design basis restored Preparation for CDBI more involved –Requires broader, more comprehensive perspective

4. 2006 CMBG Conference Summary of Findings Surry –One Green Finding – Failure to identify vortexing Salem –Six Green Findings Grand Gulf –Two Green Findings Perry –Four Green Findings Duane Arnold –Nine Green Findings

5. 2006 CMBG Conference Design Review Preparation Are assumptions in design calculations consistent with acceptance criteria in surveillance procedures? Are there any outstanding materiel condition or performance deficiencies that compromise the design basis or reduce margins, as documented in the calculations? Do alarm setpoints afford sufficient time for automatic or manual actions to prevent loss of safety function? Are the credited response times for operator actions consistent with inputs and assumptions in design calculations? CAUTION! The assumptions in calculations may not be explicitly stated, so a careful review should be performed. For instance, instrument tolerances can affect when alarms are received, assumed valve leak rates may not be consistent with test results, or may not be verified at all, etc. Have there been any “stealth” modifications implemented through work orders, such as material substitutions, improper maintenance, etc?

6. 2006 CMBG Conference Plant Engineering Review Preparation Review Plant Health Reports –Have all identified deficiencies and/or recommendations be captured in the Corrective Action program? –Is the schedule for corrective actions/repairs appropriate? Walkdowns –Look for things that you haven’t seen before. Use new eyes, i.e., have System Engineers walk each others’ systems down. –Make sure all deficiencies are captured in the maintenance or corrective action programs. –Make sure previously identified deficiencies have not deteriorated beyond condition originally captured.

7. 2006 CMBG Conference Operations Review Preparation FOR IDENTIFIED OPERATOR ACTIONS Have time sensitive activities been validated, and has the validation been documented? How long ago was the activity validated? If it was several years ago, plant conditions may have changed that affect the validation. Are staged repair parts or tools credited? If so, are they available and accessible? For instance, where are the keys located and is there sufficient time to get them? Are there always sufficient people available to perform the task? Can a plant upset such as the loss of normal power, interfere with or complicate the activity? For instance, if supplies are needed from the warehouse, will the electric access gates operate?

8. 2006 CMBG Conference Take Away Points Areas of “Good Practice” in preparing for CDBI –Perform self-assessment –Perform walkdowns of operator actions –New eyes for assessments Areas of Concern –Station fluid tanks and air/gas accumulators –Tank vortexing –Battery charging procedures and maintenance Overall Impressions of Effectiveness –Finding issues with consistency of information –Meeting initial goals for inspection expectations