Number range CHAPTER**ATTACHMENT 71111.07**

INSPECTABLE AREA: Heat Sink Performance

CORNERSTONES: Initiating Events

Mitigating Systems

Barrier Integrity

INSPECTION BASES: Heat exchangers and heat sinks are required to remove
decay heat, and provide cooling water for risk significant or safety
related equipment. Degradation in performance can result in failure to
meet system success criteria, and lead to increased risk primarily due
to common cause failures. This inspectable area verifies aspects of the
associated cornerstones for which there are no indicators to measure
performance.

LEVEL OF EFFORT: The effort of this procedure consists of the review of
a sample of one or two heat exchangers/sinks, on an annual basis, in
accordance with the requirements specified in Section 02.01. On a
triennial basis, review a sample of two or three heat exchangers/sinks
in accordance with the requirements in Section 02.02.

71111.07-01 INSPECTION OBJECTIVES

01.01 To verify that any potential heat exchanger deficiencies which
could mask degraded performance are identified. Applies to all risk
significant or safety related heat exchangers directly or indirectly
connected to service water systems or the ultimate heat sink (UHS).

01.02 To verify that any potential common cause heat sink performance
problems that have the potential to increase risk are identified, i.e.,
icing at circulating and service water intake structures.

01.03 To verify that the licensee has adequately identified and resolved
heat sink performance problems that could result in initiating events or
affect multiple heat exchangers in mitigating systems and thereby
increase risk, i.e., component cooling water heat exchanger performance
affected by corrosion, fouling, or silting.

71111.07-02 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

When scheduling this inspection, inspectors should consider refueling
outage and at-power maintenance schedules. The review should be to
identify opportunities to observe infrequent activities associated with
risk significant heat exchangers or service water inspections/testing
(heat exchanger inspections and testing, internal service water pipe
inspections).

02.01 [Annual Review]{.underline}. Verify the readiness and availability
of a sample of one or two heat exchangers/sinks by monitoring licensee
programs, or invoking industry standards, and also, if necessary,
checking critical operating parameters, and/or maintenance records. The
readiness and availability of the sample of heat

exchangers/heat sinks may be verified by one of the items a. through d.
below. Items e. and f. may be performed as additional assurance of the
heat exchanger(s) operability.

a.  Observe actual performance tests for heat exchanger/sinks or review
    the data/reports for those tests for any obvious problems or errors.

b.  Verify the licensee utilizes the periodic maintenance method
    outlined in EPRI NP-7552.

c.  Observe licensee\'s execution of biofouling controls.

d.  Observe the licensee's heat exchanger inspections and the state of
    cleanliness of their tubes.

e.  Check, by either a walkdown or the review of operations data, any or
    all of the following:

    1.  The heat exchanger's inlet and/or outlet temperatures.

    2.  Primary or secondary side fluid flow.

    3.  If there are any evident leaks.

    4.  Verify whether the heat exchanger can perform its safety related
        or risk significant function by assessing documentation or
        results of licensee inspections.

    5.  Compare end bell orientation of one heat exchanger to the
        orientation of a similar redundant train heat exchanger, to
        confirm proper orientation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
f.  Determine if heat exchanger is correctly categorized under the
    Maintenance Rule and verify if it is receiving the required
    maintenance.

    02.02 [Triennial Review]{.underline}

    a\. Select a sample of 2-3 heat exchangers and/or heat sinks for
    systems that are ranked high in the plant specific risk assessment.
    This includes all risk significant or safety related heat exchangers
    or UHS.

    b\. For the selected heat exchangers [that are directly cooled
    by]{.underline} the service water system, verify that testing,
    inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of biotic fouling and
    macrofouling programs are singularly or in combination adequate to
    ensure proper heat transfer.

    1\. Review the method and results of heat exchanger performance
    testing or equivalent methods to verify performance. Verify the
    following items, as applicable:

    \(a\) The selected test methodology is consistent with accepted
    industry practices, or equivalent.

    \(b\) Test conditions (e.g., differential temperatures, differential
    pressures, and flows) are consistent with the selected methodology.

    \(c\) Test acceptance criteria (e.g., fouling factors, heat transfer
    coefficients) are consistent with the design basis values.

    \(d\) Test results have appropriately considered differences between
    testing conditions and design conditions (functional testing at
    design heat removal rate may not be practical).

    \(e\) Frequency of testing based on trending of test results is
    sufficient (based on trending data) to detect degradation prior to
    loss of heat removal capabilities below design basis values.

    \(f\) Test results have considered test instrument inaccuracies and
    differences.

\(g\) Tube and shell side heat loads are equal if adequate information
is available in test results to calculate these two values.

2\. For inspection/cleaning, review the methods and results of heat
exchanger performance inspections or observe the actual inspection/
cleaning. Verify the following first three steps ((a)-(c)) if conducting
the review and the last step (d) only if actually observing the
inspection/cleaning:

\(a\) Methods used to inspect and clean heat exchangers are consistent
with as-found conditions identified and expected degradation trends and
industry standards.

\(b\) Inspection and cleaning activities have established acceptance
criteria, and are consistent with industry standards.

\(c\) As found results are recorded, evaluated, and appropriately
dispositioned such that the as-left condition is acceptable.

(d) If observing the inspection/cleaning then perform the following:

    \(1\) Prior to cleaning, inspect the extent of fouling and blockage
    of tubes.

    \(2\) Inspect the condition of the cleaned surfaces.

    \(3\) Verify that the actual number of installed tube plugs agree
    with the recorded tube plug data, as documented in controlled
    drawings and heat transfer calculations.

    \(4\) Verify that both ends of the same tube are plugged.

    \(5\) Look for indications of macrofouling, including live or dead
    mussels and clams, plant material, or silt.

    \(6\) Verify end bell and flange gaskets are properly installed.

    \(7\) Verify end bell orientation is correct after final
    installation.

    3\. Verify condition and operation are consistent with design
    assumptions in heat transfer calculations, and as described in the
    final safety analysis report.

    4\. Verify licensee has evaluated the potential for water hammer in
    susceptible heat exchangers and undertaken appropriate measures to
    address it.

    5\. Verify adequate controls and operational limits are in-place to
    prevent heat exchanger degradation due to excessive flow induced
    vibration during operation.

    6\. Review, if available, periodic flow testing at or near maximum
    design flow for redundant and infrequently used heat exchangers.

    7\. Verify that the number of plugged tubes are within
    pre-established limits, based on heat transfer capacity and design
    heat transfer assumptions, and are appropriately accounted for in
    heat exchanger performance calculations.

    8\. Review, if available, eddy current test reports and visual
    inspection records, to determine the structural integrity of the
    heat exchanger.

    c\. For the selected heat exchangers that are directly cooled by a
    closed loop cooling water system (e.g., RHR heat exchanger), verify
    the following items:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Condition and operation are consistent with design assumptions in
    heat

> transfer calculations.

2.  Licensee has evaluated the potential for water hammer in susceptible
    heat

> exchangers and undertaken appropriate measures to address it.
>
> 3\. Verify adequate controls and operational limits are in-place to
> prevent heat exchanger degradation due to excessive flow induced
> vibration during operation.

4\. Verify chemical treatment programs for corrosion control were
consistent with industry norms, and are controlled, tested, and
evaluated.

5\. Review, if available, periodic flow testing at or near maximum
design flow for redundant and infrequently used heat exchangers.

6\. Verify that the number of plugged tubes are within pre-established
limits, based on heat transfer capacity and design heat transfer
assumptions, and are appropriately accounted for in heat exchanger
performance calculations.

7\. Review, if available, eddy current test reports and visual
inspection records, to determine the structural integrity of the heat
exchanger.

d\. Verify the performance of ultimate heat sinks (UHS) and their
subcomponents like piping, intake screens, pumps, valves, etc. by tests
or other equivalent methods. For heat sinks, the issue is their
availability and accessibility to the in-plant cooling water systems.

The inspector should check at least two of the following for heat sinks
and their subcomponents as applicable. (For plants that have dams or
other containment devices for the UHS, items 1 or 2 below must be
checked every other triennial assessment.)

1\. For an above-ground UHS encapsulated by embankments, weirs or
excavated side slopes:

\(a\) The toe of the weir or embankment should be checked for seepage of
water and the crest of the dam should be checked for settlement.

\(b\) The rip rap protection placed on excavated side slopes should be
in place. Ensure that if vegetation is present along the slopes that it
is trimmed, maintained and is not, or has not, adversely impacted the
embankment.

\(c\) If available, review the licensee or third party dam inspections
that monitor the integrity of the heat sink.

\(d\) Verify sufficient reservoir capacity.

2\. For underwater UHS weirs or excavations, perform or verify visual or
other inspections have been performed to check for:

\(a\) Any possible settlement or movement indicating loss of structural
integrity and/or capacity.

\(b\) Sediment intrusion that may reduce capacity.

3\. For an UHS such as a forced draft cooling tower or spray pond,
perform a system walkdown. Verify the following items, as applicable:

\(a\) Sufficient reservoir capacity.

\(b\) Periodic monitoring and trending of sediment build-up.

\(c\) Adjacent non-seismic or non-safety related structures cannot
degrade or block safety-related flow paths, during a severe weather or
seismic event.

\(d\) Periodic performance monitoring of heat transfer capability.

\(e\) Periodic performance monitoring of the UHS structural integrity.

4\. Number range CHAPTERReview operation of service water system and
UHS.

> \(a\) Review design changes to the service water system and the UHS.
>
> \(b\) Review licensee procedures for a loss of the service water
> system or UHS. Verify that instrumentation, which is relied upon for
> decision making, is available and functional.
>
> \(c\) Review licensee controls to prevent clogging due to
> macrofouling. Verify that macrofouling is adequately monitored,
> trended, and controlled, consistent with maintenance program
> frequencies and assumptions.
>
> \(d\) If applicable, verify biocide treatments, for biotic control,
> were conducted as scheduled, controlled, and the results monitored,
> trended, and evaluated.
>
> \(e\) For fixed volume UHS (i.e., not a river, lake, or ocean), verify
> adequate chemistry monitoring to ensure adequate pH, calcium hardness,
> etc. are maintained.

\(f\) Strong pump-weak pump interaction.

5\. Review performance testing of service water system and UHS.

\(a\) Review performance tests, such as ASME inservice tests, for pumps,
tower fans, and valves in service water system.

\(b\) Review service water flow balance test results for adverse
effects. Compare flow balance results to system configuration and flow
assumptions during design basis accident conditions.

\(c\) Interface valves between safety-related service water and
non-safety related (i.e., non-ASME Class 3) or non-seismic piping
systems, should be periodically tested, inspected, or monitored to
verify adequate isolation during a design basis event. Verify that the
licensee\'s methodology is adequate for the leakage rate assumptions in
their design basis (i.e., flow divergence or UHS total volume).

\(d\) Verify performance of risk significant non-safety related
functions, such as back-up cooling to turbine building or reactor
building closed cooling water systems, air compressors, or turbine
driven auxiliary feedwater systems.

6\. Perform a system walkdown on service water and/or closed cooling
water systems. Verify the following items, as applicable:

\(a\) For buried or inaccessible piping, review the licensee\'s pipe
testing, inspection, or monitoring program to verify structural
integrity, and ensure that any leakage or degradation has been
appropriately identified and dispositioned.

\(b\) Review, if available, ultrasonic test results and/or visual
inspections to determine the structural integrity of the piping.

\(c\) Review licensee\'s disposition of any active thru wall pipe leaks,
including completed or planned corrective actions and structural
evaluations.

\(d\) Review history of thru wall pipe leakage to identify any adverse
trends since the last NRC inspection (i.e., about two to three years).

\(e\) For closed cooling water systems, the walkdown should include the
head or surge tank. Review operating logs or interview operators or
system engineer, to identify adverse make-up trends that could be
indicative of excessive leakage out of the closed system

7\. Perform a walkdown of the service water intake structure. Verify the
following items, as applicable:

\(a\) Proper functioning of traveling screens (typically non-safety
related) and strainers (typically safety related), including strainer
backwash function.

\(b\) Structural integrity of component mounts has not degraded (i.e.,
due to excessive corrosion).

\(c\) Service water pump bay silt accumulation is monitored, trended,
and maintained at an acceptable level.

\(d\) Service water pump bay water level instruments are functional and
routinely monitored.

\(e\) Assess functionality during adverse weather conditions (e.g.
icing, frazil ice formation, high temperatures, etc.). If the facility
is located in an area that is susceptible to frazil ice, then assess
licensee\'s ability to identify or mitigate frazil ice conditions.

02.03 [Identification and Resolution of Problems]{.underline}. Verify
that the licensee has entered significant heat exchanger/sink
performance problems in the corrective action program. Significant
problems include degraded heat exchanger/sink performance, silting,
water hammers, voiding, corrosion, fouling, and heat exchanger testing.
Verify that the licensee's corrective actions are appropriate. See
Inspection Procedure 71152, "Identification and Resolution of Problems,"
for additional guidance.

![](media/image1.wmf)

71111.07-03 INSPECTION GUIDANCE

[General Guidance]{.underline}

Refer to the table below for selecting inspection activities to achieve
each cornerstone objective and to those activities that have a risk
priority (i.e., those common-cause failures with a reasonable
probability of occurring should be targeted by inspection to determine
impact on cornerstones).

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Cornerstone**   **Inspection          **Risk Priority**     **Example**
                    Objective**                                 
  ----------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------
  Initiating Events Evaluate events,      Common-cause issues   Icing of a
                    issues, or conditions affecting heat        circulating
                    involving the         removal capabilities. water and
                    degradation or loss                         service water
                    of both the normal                          intake
                    and ultimate heat                           structure.
                    sinks.                                      

  Mitigating        Evaluate any          Heat exchanger        Degraded
  Systems/ Barrier  potential degraded    selection should      containment
  Integrity         performance of heat   focus on the          cooling or
                    exchangers/           potential for         component
                    containment fan       common-cause failures cooling water
                    coolers               or on potentially     heat exchanger
                                          high risk heat        performance due
                                          exchangers with a low to corrosion,
                                          margin to their       fouling,
                                          design point or the   silting, etc.
                                          high potential for    
                                          fouling.              
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Specific Guidance]{.underline}

03.01 [Annual Review]{.underline}

This inspection should encourage the timely identification of heat
exchanger/sink performance problems so the licensee may take prompt
corrective actions.

-   The heat exchangers/sinks should be ranked high in the plant
    specific risk assessment. This includes all risk significant or
    safety related heat exchangers/sinks.

-   The inspection activities in some cases may be the same as those in
    Section 02.02 but the inspection should not be conducted at the same
    level of detail or depth.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Inspection results are appropriately categorized against
    pre-established engineered acceptance criteria, and are acceptable.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Frequency of testing or inspection is sufficient (given the
    potential for fouling) to detect degradation prior to loss of heat
    removal capabilities below design basis values.

    a\. These tests should be those typically sanctioned by industry.
    Test acceptance criteria and results have appropriately considered
    differences between testing conditions and design conditions
    (functional testing at design heat removal rate may not be
    practical); and the test results have appropriately considered test
    instrument inaccuracies and differences.

    b\. No specific guidance

    c\. The licensee should have an acceptance criteria for its
    bio-fouling controls that is based on an industry standard,
    supportive program results, or the recommendation of the appropriate
    vendors.

    d\. Primarily focus on whether the number of tubes plugged affects
    the heat exchanger\'s operability and not the biofilm on the inside
    of tubes which should be covered in the triennial inspection by a
    specialist. The licensee should have an acceptance criteria that
    indicates the maximum number of tubes that may be clogged for a
    specific heat exchanger and a basis for that acceptance criteria.

    e\. (1- 4) No specific guidance.

    5\. Improper end bell orientation can significantly reduce or
    isolate flow to an otherwise functional heat exchanger.

    03.02 [Triennial Review]{.underline}

a\. There is no limitation on the type and size of heat exchangers that
can be selected as long as they are risk significant or safety related.
The selection of the heat exchanger/sink also should consider results
from previous annual inspections and heat exchangers with a history of
problems/extensive corrective actions.

b\. This inspection requirement should target those risk significant or
safety related heat exchanges that are directly cooled by the service
water system (e.g., those cooled directly by raw water).

1\. No specific guidance.

(a-c) No specific guidance.

\(d\) Test results need to be extrapolated to the heat exchanger design

conditions.

\(e\) Trending of the results of heat exchanger performance tests

should not have abrupt step changes without the licensee providing some
valid justification as to the reason for the deviation.

\(f\) Test instruments should be calibrated and set on appropriate range

for the parameters to be measured, otherwise small measurement

errors could affect the test results. The required accuracy of the

instruments depends on the margins available between the

calculated parameter based on the test results and the limiting

design condition.

\(g\) No specific guidance.

2\. The inspector can refer to either design assumptions in calculations
or parameters on design data sheets that can be evaluated by
observation, review of licensee inspection records, or review of
procedural operation limits.

\(a\) Methods are adequate, based on identified degradation trends, if
they ensure no loss of capability between scheduled inspections or
cleanings. Methods should be consistent with the guidance in EPRI
NP-7552.

\(b\) Acceptance criteria considers fouling factor and heat transfer
coefficient, consistent with design assumptions and as-found conditions.
The inspection and cleaning frequency is consistent with as-found
conditions and identified trends. Based on the inspection and/or
cleaning frequency, and the identified trends, the acceptance criteria
is adequate to ensure no loss of capability during scheduled in-service
period.

\(c\) Changes in trends are identified and evaluated. The as-left
condition is acceptable, based on frequency and trend.

\(d\) No specific guidance

(1-4) No specific guidance.

\(5\) Indications of macrofouling include accumulation of silt or

sediment, live or dead mussels or clams, aquatic material

(e.g., fish, algae, grass, kelp, etc.), and foreign material from

maintenance or construction activities (i.e., gasket material or

other debris).

\(6\) No specific guidance.

\(7\) Improper end bell orientation can significantly reduce or isolate
flow to an otherwise functional heat exchanger.

3\. The inspector can refer to either design assumptions in calculations
or parameters on design data sheets that can be evaluated by
observation, review of licensee inspection records, or review of
procedural operating limits.

4\. Heat exchangers susceptible to water hammer include:

-   Heat exchangers kept isolated in standby or dry lay-up.

-   Heat exchangers that can partially drain during design basis events
    (i.e., LOOP or LOCA), such as containment air coolers.

-   Containment HXs following station blackout or other event where flow
    is temporarily stopped.

    5\. Heat exchangers that exhibit excessive flow induced vibration
    may be susceptible to potential damage to their tubes or tube
    sheets. Such heat exchangers may be identified based on:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Direct observation during high flow conditions (i.e., tube rattle).

-   Issues identified in corrective-action documents (e.g., vibration
    during operation, unexpected or excessive tube damage).

-   Issues identified during interviews of licensee staff.

-   Administrative limits procedurally established to limit flow
    according to manufacturer\'s recommendations or engineering
    calculations.

    Additionally, review system flow balance results and individual heat
    exchanger flow data. Verify the licensee is maintaining the
    calculated flow through each heat exchanger.

    6 - 8. No specific guidance.

c\. This inspection requirement should target those risk significant or
safety related heat exchanges that are cooled by closed cooling water
systems (e.g., RHR heat exchanger).

1\. The inspector can refer to either design assumptions in calculations
or also parameters on design data sheets that can be evaluated by
observation, review of licensee inspection records, or review of
procedural operating limits.

2\. Heat exchangers susceptible to water hammer include:

-   Heat exchangers kept isolated in standby or dry lay-up.

-   Heat exchangers that can partially drain during design basis events
    (i.e., LOOP or LOCA), such as containment air coolers.

    3\. Heat exchangers that exhibit excessive flow induced vibration
    may be susceptible to potential damage to their tubes or tube
    sheets.

    4\. Chemical treatment programs should be consistent with industry
    norms. Treatment results should be evaluated for adverse effects on
    heat exchangers or other system components, should consider stress
    corrosion cracking, and should conform to licensee established
    acceptance criteria.

    5\. Review system flow balance results and individual heat exchanger
    flow data. Verify the licensee is maintaining the calculated flow
    through each heat exchanger.

    6 - 7. No specific guidance.

d\. For this requirement focus on the credited water source as defined
in 03.02a. above. The inspector should assess whether the ultimate heat
sink and its subcomponents are capable of performing their intended risk
significant or safety functions. Only two of the listed parameters which
are applicable for the respective plant should be reviewed on a
triennial basis. For plants that have dams or other containments for the
UHS, the inspection frequency is no longer always optional. This is
based on findings concerning capacity and structural integrity on a
facility with an UHS dam. Consideration for more frequent inspection
should be made if there is known or suspected degradation. If the UHS is
not licensee owned, ensure advance notice is provided to allow
preparations for visual inspection if desired.

1\. Inspection of above ground UHS embankments, where they exist, should
identify:

\(a\) Erosion which could lead to loss of structural integrity.

\(b\) Loss of shoreline protection can lead to a changing shoreline
resulting in UHS capacity that is less than the design. Large
vegetation, such as tree roots or burrowing animals can weaken the
integrity of the embankments. Similarly, decayed tree roots can allow
formation of a water channel in the embankment that weakens the
integrity.

\(c\) If available, review licensee or third party dam inspections for
integrity of heat sink.

\(d\) Changing shore lines or sediment intrusion can reduce UHS
capacity. Lessons learned from plant inspections include: degradation of
the shoreline by vegetation growth can cause compacted clay to degrade
and slump into the heat sink reducing capacity, also an insufficient
number of measurements taken of the depth of water may not identify
significant debris or sediment build-up in the UHS.

2\. Inspection of underwater UHS structures should identify settlement
or movement indicating loss of structural integrity and/or capacity. The
height of water over the crest of the weir should be constant in cases
where the licensee takes these measurements to verify capacity.

3\. No specific guidance.

4\. No specific guidance.

\(a\) Review of changes or modifications should ensure that key design
basis requirements were considered as inputs and maintained.
Consideration may be given to reviewing planned modifications as well as
age-related changes that have the potential to adversely impact the UHS
design basis including intake structures, reservoir and dam material
conditions.

\(b\) Procedures should include specific guidance for a loss of intake
structure, loss of all service water pumps, or pipe rupture, as
applicable. Intake bay water level instrumentation may be used by
emergency operating procedures (EOPs) and Emergency Plan emergency
action levels (EAL), during abnormal or emergency conditions.

\(c\) This requirement can be satisfied by test results, observation, or
other equivalent methods that verify ultimate heat sink and
sub-components can accommodate maximum system flow. During 2004 to 2006,
industry operating experience showed a number of events involving
foreign material intrusion into the systems. These events included
clogging of system piping, heat exchangers, strainers, and trash racks
due to intrusion of aquatic life (e.g., fish, algae, grass, kelp, etc.),
floating or submerged river debris, or entrained silt and sediment.
Additional considerations include:

∙ Over-population of small fish that could be pulled into the system.

∙ Live or dead zebra mussels or asiatic clams.

∙ Other foreign material from maintenance or construction activities
(i.e., gasket material, or other debris).

Generic Letter 89-13 recommended that once per refueling outage, a
visual inspection for macroscopic biological fouling, sediment, and
corrosion, and for removal of any accumulation. Some licensees have made
commitments pursuant to Generic Letter 89-13 to minimize the potential
for clogging equipment.

Susceptible components may include:

∙ Heat exchangers with small diameter tubes, or small passages

in flat plate style heat exchangers.

∙ Valves or heat exchangers with low velocity flow rates.

∙ Valves or heat exchangers in low elevation locations.

∙ Valves that are typically closed in dead legs.

\(d\) The biocide treatment program should be consistent with industry
norms. Treatment results should be evaluated to ensure satisfactory
biotic control, and should conform to licensee established acceptance
criteria. In addition, microbiological induced corrosion (MIC) should be
monitored, trended, and controlled.

\(e\) Inadequate chemistry monitoring or control can result in calcium
plate-out on hot heat exchanger tubes during a design basis event.
Langeliers Index is a common water quality chemistry analysis which can
be used to reduce the likelihood of degrading the heat transfer
coefficient due to calcium deposits.

\(f\) Strong-pump weak-pump interaction guidance

5\. No specific guidance.

\(a\) Refer to IP 71111.22, Surveillance Testing, for additional
guidance.

(b-d) No specific guidance.

6\. No specific guidance.

7\. No specific guidance.

(a - d) No specific guidance

\(e\) This inspection requirement should determine whether licensee has
procedures to deal with adverse weather conditions. Coordinate the
performance of this step with the inspection requirements of IP
71111.01, "Adverse Weather Protection." This inspection should also
verify the UHS water temperature is monitored and has not exceeded
licensing or design basis limiting values.

Conditions which may allow frazil ice formation include:

Water temperature near freezing.

Intake water level low.

Windy conditions.

No ice cap on river or lake.

03.03 [Identification and Resolution of Problems]{.underline}

The inspector should focus on events or conditions that could cause the
loss of a heat exchanger/sink due to events such as heat transfer
problems, improper cleaning, ice buildup, grass intrusion, or blockage
of pipes and components. The inspector should determine whether the
licensee has appropriately considered common-cause failures. If any loss
of heat exchanger/sink events have occurred, these should receive the
priority for review. Review the corrective actions to determine if
actions were sufficient to prevent recurrence of the problem. Refer to
IP 71152, "Identification and Resolution of Problems," for further
guidance in this area.

71111.07-04 RESOURCE ESTIMATES

This inspection procedure is estimated to take, on average, 5 to 7 hours
for an annual review and 34 to 46 hours for a triennial review at a site
regardless of the number of units at that site. These estimates depend
on the number of heat exchangers/sinks tested by the licensee during the
inspection period.

71111.07-05 PROCEDURE COMPLETION

Inspection of the minimum sample size will constitute completion of this
procedure in the Reactor Programs Systems (RPS). That minimum sample
size will consist of one sample, on an annual basis, to verify the
readiness/availability of one heat exchanger/sink per Section 02.01, and
two samples, on a triennial basis, to verify the heat exchanger/sink
performance in accordance with Section 02.02.

71111.07-06 REFERENCES

EPRI NP-7552 Heat Exchanger Performance Monitoring Guidelines (Call the
NRC Technical Library to get a copy of this if needed.)

ASME OM-S/G Part 21 Inservice Performance Testing of Heat Exchangers in
Light-Water Reactor Power Plants

NUREG 1275 Vol. 3 Operating Experience Feedback Report- Service Water
System Failures and Degradations

NUREG/CR-5865 Generic Service Water System Risk-Based Inspection Guide

NUREG/CR-0548 Ice Blockage of Water Intakes

Generic Letter 89-13 Service Water System Problems Affecting
Safety-Related Equipment

IN 2004-07 Information Notice: Plugging of Safety Injection Pump

Lubrication Oil Coolers with Lakeweed

RG 1.127 Inspection of Water-Control Structures Associated with Nuclear
Power Plants

See the following web links for reference documents:

<http://www.internal.nrc.gov/IRM/LIBRARY/standards/ihs.htm>

<http://www.internal.nrc.gov/IRM/LIBRARY/library.htm>

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/>

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/>

<http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/>

[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/2004/](http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/)

[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/active/]{.underline}

END

ATTACHMENT 1

[Revision History for IP 71111.07]{.underline}

+--------+-------+-----------------------------+-----+------+--------+
| Comm   | Issue | Description of Change       | Tr  | Trai | C      |
| itment | Date  |                             | ain | ning | omment |
| Tr     |       |                             | ing | Co   | Reso   |
| acking |       |                             | Re  | mple | lution |
| Number |       |                             | qui | tion | Acc    |
|        |       |                             | red | Date | ession |
|        |       |                             |     |      | Number |
+--------+-------+-----------------------------+-----+------+--------+
|        | 05/   | Researched commitments back | N   | N/A  | N/A    |
|        | 25/06 | four years - none found.    | one |      |        |
+--------+-------+-----------------------------+-----+------+--------+
|        | 05/   | Revised to incorporate      | N   | N/A  | ML061  |
|        | 25/06 | lessons learned from ANO    | one |      | 290102 |
|        |       | inspection regarding UHS    |     |      |        |
|        |       | dam integrity (report       |     |      |        |
|        |       | number 2005008); FB-937.    |     |      |        |
|        |       | Inspections of the UHS      |     |      |        |
|        |       | water reservoir is required |     |      |        |
|        |       | every other biennial        |     |      |        |
|        |       | inspection.                 |     |      |        |
|        |       |                             |     |      |        |
|        |       | Also, addressed FB-996      |     |      |        |
|        |       | regarding inspections to    |     |      |        |
|        |       | prevent clogging of UHS     |     |      |        |
|        |       | equipment with sediment.    |     |      |        |
|        |       |                             |     |      |        |
|        |       | Other minor editorial       |     |      |        |
|        |       | comments also included.     |     |      |        |
+--------+-------+-----------------------------+-----+------+--------+
|        | 01    | Revised to change biennial  | N   | N/A  | ML080  |
|        | 31/08 | portion of this inspection  | one |      | 290277 |
|        |       | procedure to triennial      |     |      |        |
|        | CN    | inspection periodicity      |     |      |        |
|        | 0     | based on 2007 ROP           |     |      |        |
|        | 8-005 | realignment results.        |     |      |        |
|        |       |                             |     |      |        |
|        |       | Revise to provide more      |     |      |        |
|        |       | specific inspection         |     |      |        |
|        |       | guidance, and to make it    |     |      |        |
|        |       | more effective and          |     |      |        |
|        |       | efficient.                  |     |      |        |
|        |       |                             |     |      |        |
|        |       | Other minor editorial       |     |      |        |
|        |       | comments also included.     |     |      |        |
+--------+-------+-----------------------------+-----+------+--------+