IR 05000354/1985041

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 50-354/85-41 on 850819-30.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Fuel Handling Procedures,Polar Crane Preoperational Testing,Fuel Handling & Rigging Equipment & Radiation Protection Program
ML20138G276
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 10/08/1985
From: Bailey R, Bissett P, Blough R, Briggs L, Chaudhary S, Clemons P, Eselgroth P, Marilyn Evans, Lyash J, Galen Smith
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138G269 List:
References
50-354-85-41, NUDOCS 8510250445
Download: ML20138G276 (20)


Text

4

/

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-41 Docket N License N CPPR-120 Category B Licensee: Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station _

Inspection At: Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: August 19-30, 1985 Inspectors: p /d 8 L. 8 iggsg/M ad Re ctor Engineer date ,

__

Ym $-24 -S[

R. B le , P s'ical Secfity Inspector date U' k t)

P. Bis tt ~ Reactor Engineer

/0Yf$

/ fate

~

& /tVibf8E Blough, Senior Resident Inspector ~ date allit 5 art-ST Chaudhary, Sedior Resident Inspector alisIec date

" - x) /6 E P. Clemons, Radiation Specialist ' 'date M $vetnen) 9l23l85 M.' van , Re ctor En ineer date

,- !

.49c$ i /df3/05 hr/O.j_y4sh, Reactor Engineer date

'

' soir Smith', Physical Security Inspector n// dWte der

.

8510250445 85 54 PDR ADOCK O PDR ,

G

.

Approved by: /84~

P. Eselgr ', Chief date Test Pr rams Section, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection Conducted August 19-30, 1985, (Report No. 50-354/85-41)

Areas Inspected: Special announced inspection by six region based inspectors (178 hours0.00206 days <br />0.0494 hours <br />2.943122e-4 weeks <br />6.7729e-5 months <br />) and three resident inspectors (92 hours0.00106 days <br />0.0256 hours <br />1.521164e-4 weeks <br />3.5006e-5 months <br />) to determine the licen-see's readiness to receive, inspect and store new fuel in high density fuel storage racks located in the spent fuel pool. Areas inspected were fuel hand-ling procedure review, Polar Crane preoperational testing, fuel handling and rigging equipment, training and qualifications of personnel, high density fuel storage racks, protection of new fuel from ongoing activities, spent fuel pool water chemistry, QA/QC for fuel receipt and inspection, radiation protection program.and training, material control and accounting, physical security pro-gram, fire protection program (NRC Inspection Report 50-354/85-39), preopera-tional test procedure review, preoperational test witnessing, plant tours and independent verificatio Conclusion: The licensee was found ready to safely receive, inspect and store new fuel after several procedure modifications were implemented to satisfy inspector concerns as discussed in this repor Findings: No violations were identifie .- . - - _ . _ . . -

,

-

.

DETAILS 1.0 Introduction and Summary

'

This inspection was primarily conducted to determine the licensee's ,

readiness to receive, inspect and store new (unirradiated) fuel on-site in accordance with the NRC Special Nuclear Material (SNM) License N SNM-1953 issued on August 21, 198 During the period August 5-30, 1985, a multi-discipline inspection of the licensee's facility was conducted to verify their readiness to receive, inspect, and store new fue Licensee activities would involve receipt inspection of crated new fuel, movement of crated new fuel to the refuel-ing floor, uncrating, surveying, inspecting, channeling, and placing in storage racks in the spent fuel pool. This inspection assessed the adequacy of the various licensee programs necessary to safely perform the above activitie The results of this inspection indicated that, as of August 30, 1985, the licensee was adequately prepared to receive, inspect and store new fuel. The licensee also agreed to inform the NRC of any changes, from that reviewed during this inspection, in their method of handling new fuel prior

,

to its implementation. The NRC will continue to verify licensee activi-ties in this area on a routine basis.

2.0 Persons Contacted T. Busch, Technical Engineer J. Carter, Startup Manager J. Cicconi, Startup and Test Manager Hope Creek Operations (HCO)

J. Cox, Principal Startup Engineer R. Donges, Lead QA Engineer W. Goebel, QA Engineer (Bechtel)

R. Griffith, Principal QA Engineer '

!

C. Jaffee, Startup Engineer P. Kudless, Maintenance Manager S. LaBruna, Assistant General Manager HC0 C. Lambert, Supervisory Engineer, Site Engineering E. Logan, Site Manager, Construction

'

R. Lovell, Radiation Protection / Chemistry Manager j

I. Mermelstein, Licensing M. Metcalf, QA Startup Engineer G. Moulten, Principal QA Engineer (Bechtel)

J.- Nichols, Technical Manager V. Planka, Project Engineer (Bechtel)

R Salvesen, General Manager HC0 1 A. 5chettino, Lead QA Engineer A. Sternberg, Principal QA Engineer i

D. Sullivan, Assistant Project Engineer (Bechtel)

R. Tringale, Assistant Project Field Engineer (Bechtel)

P. VanderVeer, Field Engineer (Bechtel)

j l l l

\

'

\

~ .

-_ -

. - .. . _ .

. - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _

_ - -. - - --_ - - _ _

,

-

.

i

>

2 [

i i

The above personnel were present at the exit meeting held on August 30, 1985.

.

Other NRC Personnel Present i P. Eselgroth, Chief, Test Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety, RI The inspectors also contacted other per;onnel of the licensee's operating,

technical and QA/QC staf .0 Fuel Handling 3.1 Scope

!

The inspector reviewed the licensee's fuel handling program to assess readiness to transport fuel from the new fuel delivery truck, to the high density storage racks in the spent fuel pool. This review

involved examination of procedures governing
1) overall depart-

! mental and program responsibilities, 2) development and control of l the fuel transfer sequence, 3) movement of fuel from the receiving

, bay to the refueling floor laydown area, up-ending stand and new

fuel inspection stand, 4) required inspections and radiation surveys,

5) channeling of the fuel, placement in the high density fuel racks and subsequent protective measures take The procedures examined are listed in Attachment .1.1 Discussion j The inspector's review of procedures covering the above men-

tioned activities indicates that departmental responsibilities, prerequisites and precautions, and step-by-step technical

instructions are prescribed in sufficient detail to conduct the activities in a safe manner. The following minor exceptions  !

were identified by the inspectors and corrected by the licensee: '

1) The inspectors noted that Station Administrative Procedure, SA-AP.ZZ-039(Q), requires Quality Assurance to inspect the

!

wooden shipping crates for damage and to ensure the tamper safe seals are intact. This procedure also requires Radiation Protection to survey the wooden crates for contamination.

'

,

The lower tier procedure MD-FR.KE-008(Q) New Fuel Handling and Storage, which details unloading and inspection of wooden

!

"

shipping crates, did not include steps implementing these requirements. The licensee revised MD-FR.KE-008(Q) to include proper steps, hold points, and sign-offs for Quality Assurance

, inspections and Radiation Protection surveys.

'

2) The licensee plans to use the Reactor Building Polar Crane Auxi-

'llary Hoist to place new fuel into the high density fuel racks J

t

!

._

,s.. , ._-s._ , , -

m.., -

_y-_. ._.,____..m, , ,3 ,, _ ,, m._,,-- . _ - ,__. . ,.- , , , . . , .,

- . . . .. . - - . - .-. . =. . _ -

l .

.

'

in the new fuel pool. The inspectors noted that SA-AP.ZZ-039(Q)

provided only for placement of fuel in the storage racks using the refueling bridg The licensee stated that a revision to SA-AP.ZZ-039(Q) had been initiated, including provision for placement of new fuel in the spent fuel storage racks using the auxiliary hoist. This opera-tion is permitted only when the spent fuel pool is dry and only for initial fuel receipt. The inspectors reviewed the refer- l enced revision and had no further question ) Procedure RE-FR.ZZ-004(Q), New Fuel Inspection, stated that i non-conforming bundles will be transferred to a segregated area of the new fuel storage vault specifically reserved for non-

. conforming fuel. The license application and safety evaluation i

.

report do not allow storage of fuel in the new fuel vaul '

The licensee, in response to the inspector's concern, revised

'

procedure RE-FR.ZZ-004(Q) to provide a separate area in the spent fuel pool for non-conforming fue ) During review of RE-FR.ZZ-008(Q), Verification of Fuel Location, the inspector noted that full . seating of fuel bundles in the i core was checked by lowering the refueling bridge grapple to .

inch above the fuel bundle bail and then moving the refueling '

bridge slowly over the top of each bail. The inspector ques-tiened the licensee about this verification method and why a visual check was not use The licensee stated that a 90 degree angle video camera for sighting across the top of the core was not available on-sit i During subsequent discussion the licensee agreed to evaluate the visual method of verification. This item will be reviewed during a subsequent NRC inspection and does not affect initial fuel receipt and storage in the spent fuel poo .

'

,

i

<

'

3.1.2 Findings

No violations were identifie .2 Reactor Building Polar Crane Preoperational Testing

'

3.2.1 Scope

r The inspectors reviewed applicable portions of PTP-KF-1, Cranes

'

& Hoists, Revision The review was conducted to verify that

'

lifting devices necessary to receive, process and store new fuel ,

are tested and that proper review and approval of test results

, was conducted, i

!

i

-n -- - . -,m- , , - - - , ----, y ,, - , , , - - - - -- -r., ,<,w- r, - - - - - , - --,,,,n,, -

,-- , , , - ,-

-

.

3.2.2 Discussion Those portions of the above mentioned procedure pertaining to equipment used for new fuel handling have been completed. Those test exceptions affecting operation of the equipment have been adequately dispositioned. Test results have been reviewed by the Public Service Start-up Group and approved by the Start-up Manage The inspector also rev!ewed Bechtel Work Plan M-2664, Polar Crane Load Test for Turnover. The successful test, at design rated load, of the main hook and auxiliary hook was witnessed by the start-up group. Test results were reviewed by the start-up manager. Administrative controls are in place to ensure that this work plan will be attached to PTP-KF-1 prior to Preopera-tional Review Committee results revie .2.3 Findings No unacceptable conditions were identifie .3 Fuel Handling and Rigging Equipment The inspector reviewed procedures for rigging and handling fuel with the polar crane. The inspector also reviewed preventive maintenance and inspection procedures for the polar crane, fuel handling tools, .

and.the refueling platfor .3.1 Discussion Procedures appeared adequate to support initial receipt and dry storage of new fuel using the polar cran . Although Fuel Handling Tools Inspection, MD-FR.KR-009(Q)

was technically adequate, the inspector pointed out cases where clarification of underwater tools inspection guidance could reduce potential for 1) excessive lubricant introduc-tion into fuel pool water and 2) in-use disassembly of underwater lights and cameras. The licensee took the inspectors comments for evaluatio . Preventive maintenance of the polar crane does not include measurements to verify proper ranges of speed control for hoists and trolleys. The inspector stated that speed control checks appear necessary to ensure continued ability to handle loads safely and gently. The item is unresolved (85-41-01). The inspector noted that proper speed control has recently been verified during preoperational testing;

.

therefore, this item is not a concern for initial fuel receipt, i

l  !

r

-... -

__ _ __ -_ _- - _ ._ _

.

.

,

4 The inspector identified several concerns regarding Refuel-

! ing Platform Operational Check, MD-PM.KE-003(Q). These I

were discussed in detail with the licensee. Most notably, the procedure does not appear to fully satisfy Technical

'

Specification Surveillance 4.9.6 which is referenced in the

, " Remarks," " Purpose," and " Check / Data Sheet" section Also, several of the measurements taken are lacking either acceptance criteria or tolerance limits. This item is t

unresolved (85-41-02).

'

The inspector toured the refuel floor and polar crane area, interviewed maintenance personnel, and reviewed polar crane preventive maintenance (PM) status. As of the end of this inspection, all PM's were complete, except some minor lubri-

cation scheduled for August 31. A deficiency involving a slight  !

! spiralling of the 10-ton auxiliary hoist cable had been noted.

1 A start-up deficiency report (SDR) had been written. The resolution, concurred upon by maintenance, Site Engineering i

Department, and the vendor representative, was to limit load to 2.5 tons pending cable replacement or further dispositio *

After reviewing the SDR, observing the cable, and interviewing maintenance supervisors, the inspector had no further questions.

l 3.3.2 Findings j No unacceptable conditions relating to new fuel handling were

identifie .0 Training and Qualifications of Personnel 4.1 Management Personn'el i The Special Nuclear Materials license incluaed conditions on minimum qualifications of key management personnel, including General Manager Hope Creek Operations, Manager - Nuclear Training, and Start-up j 4 Manager. The inspector interviewed the individuals and reviewed  ;

j their resumes and files. The individuals all appeared well qualified l for their jobs.

i
4.1.1 Findings  !

!

No unacceptable conditions were identified.

. 4.2 Fuel Handling Receipt Inspection The inspector reviewed the licensee's training of personnel involved

,

~

in new fuel receipt. Classroom training and hands-on walkthrough training was provided for Reactor Engineers, QA/QC personnel, station mechanics (crane operators and receipt inspectors) and their super-visors and for corporate Nuclear Fuels Engineers. Each instructor,

.

.

-

,,-v.--- .um -p --,m- --ngw--m,_m y- _ , - y rm m -y m v- - mm -pn

_ _ _ _ _ . _ . __ _ _ _ _ _

a .

.

I including GE instructors who provided receipt inspection training, was certified by the Nuclear Training Department prior to conducting

courses. The inspector interviewed training supervisors and some instructors, and reviewed the following:

d l

(1) training procedures, (2) lesson plans,

'

(3) exams, exam answer keys, and graded exams (sampling),

(4) course attendance sheets and exam grades (sampling),

(5) Training Department Program Completion Status letters, (6) Qualification cards, (7) Instructor certification folder (for one instructor selected at random by the inspector), and (8) Photos taken during hands-on training with dummy fuel bundle ,

The inspector also viewed a video cassette used in classroom sessions and observed portions of the receipt inspection hands-on trainin The scope and technical content of training appeared appropriate.

'

. The inspector asked how the licensee would ensure that personnel are assigned only to jobs for which they are qualified. The licensee stated that first-line supervisors are responsible to check quali-

[ fication status when assigning jobs. The maintenance department has a full-time training coordinator who tracks qualification status of

'

each worker. The inspector asked how workers, once trained, are updated regarding procedure change The licensee stated that the i supervisor must ensure during pre-job briefings that workers are i

familiar with the procedure. The inspector verified that appropriate procedures contain " Supervisor Hold Points" for. pre-job briefings.

i 4.2.1 Findings j No unacceptable conditions were noted.

5.0 Fuel Storage i

5.1 High Density Fuel Storage Racks 5.1.1 Discussion i

The new fuel.will be stored dry in high density fuel storage

, racks in the spent fuel pool. The storage racks are designed i

and manufactured with a neutron absorber material (Boral) in

,

specified storage rack cell plates to absorb neutrons and pre-vent inadvertent criticality of fuel that is stored in a high j density array.

! The inspector reviewed documentation and held discussions with licensee personnel to determine the conformance of the racks to the procurement specifications and fabrication requirement ,

_ e ,- , . . - -, - - - , ,n.--, ,. , ,.. ,,,,,.,,.,,_,,,,,-n,. , . , , , . , - , . , . , , , , . , w e-- ~ +

.- -. _- - - - . _ . . - _-- . -. . .= _-. - .

p .

-

J The inspectors reviewed the following documents:

--

Bechtel Specification 10855-M-178-Q, Revisions 1, 2, and 3, " Spent Fuel Storage Racks";

--

Bechtel Procurement Form G-3210 " Engineering and Quality i Verification Document Requirements"; and,

--

Bechtel Procurement Package 10855-M-178- Based on the above review and discussion the inspector deter-mined that the racks as received on-site and installed met the design and technical requirements of the purchase specificatio In response to two concerns regarding the drag test on fuel ,

storage cells and the seismic analysis of racks, the licensee provided documentation of the drag tests in the fabrication shop, and a commitment by the A-E to complete the review of seismic analysis by the middle of September,198 The completion of the seismic analysis by mid-September is acceptable because the analysis in question pertains to the

} worst case, i.e. , the fuel storage racks under water with the

water temperature at 212 F; whereas the new fuel will be stored dry at ambient temperatur The inspector also verified during the above review that vendor QA documentation regarding placement of the neutron absorbing Boral plates was complet .1.2 Findings -

No unacceptable conditions were noted, i 5.2 Protection of New Fuel from On-Going Construction and Test Activities 5.2.1 Discussion

'

The inspector reviewed the licensee's measures to preclude damage to new fuel from unrelated construction and test activi-ties. The licensee has had a fuel receipt task force in place for several months to coordinate preparations. Based on task force evaluations, work that could interfere with, or create a i hazard to, new fuel activities _was expedited to ensure comple-tion before fuel receipt. The inspector reviewed lists of remaining fuel floor work and interviewed start-up group and operations supervisor None of the remaining work appeared to present an undue hazard if properly controlled.

Jurisdictional control of the refuel floor was turned over from construction to operations on August 28. The inspector reviewed

'

the turnover package with special attention to the Turnover Exceptions List. None of the open exceptions appeared to be an '

i l

-

I

!

L___ _

._ _ _ _

_ . _ - - - _ -

. - _ .- - - . . - . - . . - - . _ _ . .-.

.

'

-

.

l 8 l undue hazard to new fuel activities. One exception, removal of

, floor drain plugs, was dispositioned by the licensee as accept-

able for facility turnover but not for start of fuel receip The inspector verified that the associated SDR was being tracked and was in fact completed on August 3 By licensee procedures for turned over areas, administrative

,

approval and control of work on the refuel floor is provided by the Shift Supervisor. The licensee has also initiated the following additional control for the refuel floor:

i) Written concurrence from a Refueling Floor Activities Coordinator is required for all work unrelated to new fuel '

.

receipt and storage; and

11) All workers on the floor will be required to read and sign a summary of the administrative controls on the refuel floo .2.2 Findings No unacceptable conditions were identifie .0 Spent Fuel Pool Water Chemistry 6.1 Discussion I The licensee plans to initially store the new fuel assemblies in the

. spent fuel pool dry. Since the licensee will eventually fill the spent fuel pool with water, the inspector reviewed the licensee's water chemistry specifications to verify that they agree with '

specification The chemistry procedure for sampling of water after the completion '

of preoperational testing (CH-TI.ZZ-012(Q)) has not been issue Therefore, the inspector reviewed Chemistry Department Directive, CH-DD.ZZ-004(Z), Revision 1, " Sample Schedule," to verify the li-censee's spent fuel pool water chemistry requirements. This direc-tive contains the chemistry specifications for flushing, preopera-tional testing and post preoperational testing activities. The

,

inspector compared the spent fuel pool post preoperational testing chemistry specifications listed in this directive, to GE Specifi-

.

cation 22A2707, Revision 5, Water Quality Specification-BWR Plant

! Requirements. The licensee's chemistry specifications were within  ;

the limits specified by General Electri The licensee's approved chemistry procedure (CH-TI.ZZ-012(Q) will be reviewed during a routine inspection prior to filling the spent fuel pool.

I

!

, - -. -_ .- _ _ -

_ _- -- _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ ._. ._ . __ . _ _ .___ . _ _ _ .. _

-

.

i 9  :

i s

6.1.1 Findings i

!

No unacceptable conditions were identifie .0 Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) for Fuel Receipt and Inspection I 7.1 Discussion -

PSE&G station QC and maintenance personnel have the responsibility for inspecting all new fuel received on-site. QC personnel perform '

i

'

the receipt inspection of the fuel bundle outer containers as they are received on-site and maintenance personnel subsequently perform the i inspection of the metal shipping containers (inner container) and the ,'

fuel bundles. QA personnel are responsible for performing surveil- 3 lances of new fuel receipt and fuel inspection activities. The  !

] inspectors reviewed the following areas of the licensee's new fuel ,

i

'

receipt, inspection and storage program to verify that a program  !

including QA/QC involvement was in place and that the responsibi- '

-

lities of QA/QC and maintenance personnel had been clearly define The procedures listed in Attachment A were inspected for adequacy, consistency and proper administration revie ,

--

The QA, QC and maintenance department responsibilities were:

identified through a review of procedures, listed in Attachment j A, and discussions with the QA, QC and maintenance supervisor ,

t

--

Training of all personnel involved was reviewed for adequacy and j completion thereof. Training consists of approximately one week

!

of classroom training covering all aspects of fuel receipt /

inspection. Also several hours of hands-on training was given, i dealing with the proper usage of fuel handling equipment and new fuel inspection techniques. This training was provided to .

i maintenance and QA personnel, in part, by General Electric (GE)  !

[ rep esentatives.

>

l

--

The inspectors witnessed various segments of the fuel inspec-

tion training provided by GE representatives to verify the adequacy of the fuel inspection procedures.

!

--

The inspectors monitored a fuel receipt' coordination meeting to l

ensure that all areas of concern were being addressed.

--

The inspectors discussed in detail with QA supervisory personnel

their planned involvement during fuel receipt / inspection activi-

ties. The inspectors also reviewed station memo; HQA 85-0079 -

' which commits QA personnel to perform a 100 percent surveillance i on the first four fuel bundles received and/or inspected on each '

shift until a level of sonfidence has been attained. There-l l \

.

-w--e,---,-e,t---rwww, .m--wm---y ----.-m. -,r- - - ----,-.-e.,--w+- , y e .-----,.,--.r-w , - , - - -.-- - -- -

- . - . . . --..-...- -...- - - -

.

. .- - . - - _-...--. - - .-.-_-

,

-

.

10 i

l after, random surveillances shall be performed until fuel receipt / inspection is complete l

--

The inspectors witnessed, in part, the certification of the i General Purpose Grapple Support Sling that is to be used during i

'

the movement of the bundle from the MCA to the fuel inspection  !

stand and then to the. spent fuel pool. The load test was

designated, by procedure, as an inspection hold point and QA
was present, as require i

! --

New Fuel Inspection procedure, RE-FR.ZZ-004 Revision 2, was i

! unavailable for review, as it was undergoing a final station i

, approval. However, the Technical Engineer informed the inspec-  !

' tors that the major change involved the inclusion of those controls necessary to document the identification of tools and ,

instruments used during any particular fuel bundle inspectio l q He also stated that a requirement of rechecking all torque wrenches periodically will also be part of the procedure. This

, will provide added assurance that the torque wrenches remain j within calibration limits throughout the duration of the fuel j receipt inspectio '

\

--

Other documents / areas reviewed included: l l

I i *

Monitoring of a pre-fuel receipt health physics briefing

,

Contract (between G.E. and P.S.E.& G.) No. 83-11-NF-707, Contract for Fuel Bundle Fabrication and Related Services

,

for Hope Creek Generating Station

New Fuel Handling and Storage Training Program Completion '

i memo for five QA Engineers i

i

  • GE Training Representative Certification memo i
*

Receiving Inspection Checklist for QC inspectors i

*

Refueling Platfurs training program I

7.1.1 Findings

.

No unacceptable conditions were identified.

,.

8.0 New Fuel Receipt Trainirg - Radiation Protection Training j 8.1 Discussion -

i On August 27-28, the licensees training program for Radiation

~

Protection personnel with respect to the following criteria was reviewed:

>

.

. t

- . . . . . _.. _ ._._ _ . - . _ . _ _ _ __-_ . _ _ _ - . _ . , _ _ .

_ _. . _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ __ . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ .. . . . _ _ _ _ _

-

.

,

4

.

--

Materials License Condition No. 14.a. states

"The following training shall be conducted prior to receipt of fuel onsite:

i All radiation safety personnel shall be trained in radiation

safety and PSE&G radiation protection procedures related to

, fuel assembly handling." ,

I The licensees performance relative to this criteria was determined >

by interviewing the Radiation Supervisor / Effluents and Shipping, Radiation Protection Technicians, and by reviewing records.

, 8.1.1 Findings

i

! Within the scope of this review, the following was identified:

!

On August 27-28, 1985, the inspector determined that nine i

,

Senior Radiation Protection Technicians were sufficiently

trained in radiation safety to perform receipt inspection requirements. Documents reviewed. indicated that the

{

j

'

technicians were successfully trained in the following areas:

I i

--

Radiation Protection Fundamentals;

! <

--

Biological Effect; '

4 --

Radiation Detection / Instrumentation;

--

-Surveys / Job Coverage;

'

l --

Contamination / Decontamination;

,

--

ALARA; and.

i -

--

Regulation The documents indicated that the technicians were trained

in other areas as well, i~

The documents reviewed also indicated that all radiation protection personnel had not been trained in the radiation

protection procedures related to fuel assembly handling.

i Specifically all of the Radiation Protection Technicians

!

!

!

!

I l

!

l l

i

- -- -. - .- - - . _ - - . _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - -- _

. _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ . ~ _ _ - -

. - . _ . __ _ _ . - _- _ . - -

-

.

l l 12 l

had not been trained in the following procedures:

--

SA-AP.ZZ039(Q), " Receipt of New Fuel."

--

RP-AP.ZZ-029(Q), " Radioactive Material Control."

--

RE-FR.ZZ-004(Q), "New Fuel Inspection."

Each procedure requires significant radiation protection involvemen i The fact that all radiation protection personnel were not trained in the procedures as required by License Condition

No. 14.a. was discussed with the Manager, Radiation Protec-tion / Chemistry on August 28, 1985. He stated that all radiation protection personnel would be trained prior to the receipt of the fuel onsite, and if they had not been
trained they would not participate in the radiation protec-j tion activities associated with the receipt of new fuel.

{ Verification that only trained personnel are used for fuel receipt / inspection activities will be verified during j routine NRC inspection.

,

9.0 Materials Control and Accounting i

J 9.1 Discussion 9.1.1 Facility Organization and Operation i

Discussions with licensee management and review of the licen-see's nuclear material control procedures indicated that pro-cedures contained adequate guidance for control, accounting and l reporting of special nuclear material (SNM).

I 9.1.2 Shipping and Receiving

.

Receipt of new fuel is scheduled to begin early in September, i 1985. The licensee has established procedures to assure all

SNM received will be accurately accounted fo .1.3 Storage and Internal Control

'

The licensee had established a system of written material con-trol and accounting procedures which provide for knowledge of

-the quantity, identity, and location of SNM within the

facility.

!

i Storage areas were established ani include the reactor core,

[ fuel pool, new fuel storage vault, and other areas that were l appropriate for the storage of SNM contained in instrumentation.

I l

!

-

. . . . . __ ._ _ . . . __ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . .

.

,

.,

.,

Transfers of material will be controlled by the reactor engineer and documented on Fuel Location History Records.

9.1.4 Physical Inventory The licensee has established procedures that will be used in conjunction with NRC Form 742 (material balance report) to i verify the fuel inventor '

r 9.1.5 Records And Reports

! r The licensee had established procedures for the preparation of ,

the NRC required records and report S.1.6 Findings

! No violations were identified.

I 10.0 Physical Security

.

i 10.1 Discussion j The inspector reviewed the Hope Creek Physical Security Plan (PSP)

l'

for the protection of Special Nuclear Materials of Low Strategic  !

'

Significance and the internal procedures developed to implement the l

'

PSP for Controlled Access Areas (Equipment airlock and new fuel  ;

floor). The procedures for new fuel storage appear adequate to implement the requirements of the PSP. Security personnel have

'

been trained to implement the procedure .

i

' .1.1 Findings

.

li No unacceptable conditions were identifie '

! >

- 11.0 Fire Protection

!

11.1 Discussion i

'

The fire protection / prevention program developed to protect the new fuel and its implementation including the training of personnel was  !

inspected and documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-354/85-39, 5 i

11.1.1 Findings ,

The licensee's fire protection / prevention program was determined to "

be acceptable for fuel receipt, inspection and storage.

i  !

i

!

!

i e

n

!  !

, , , , . . , . ~ , _ . -

. _ . - - . . _ - - _ . _ _ . .-- .. ___ - _ _ . -

. -

12.0 Preoperational Test Procedure Review  ;

12.1 Scope The PTPs listed below were reviewed in preparation for test witnes-

sing, for technical and administrative adequacy and for verification that testing is planned to adequately satisfy regulatory guidance and license commitments. They were also reviewed to verify licensee review and approval, proper format, test objectives, prerequisites, initial conditions, test data recording requirements and system

return to norma BF-1 Control Rod Drive Hydraulic, Revision 0, August 9, 1985,

--

KL-1 Primary Containment Instrument Gas, Revision 0, August 13, 1985, and

a --

BD-1 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC), Revision 0, August 2, 198 .1.1 Discussion

'

--

PTP-BF-1

During the review of PTP-BF-1, Control Rod Drive Hydraulic, the inspector compared the test's acceptance criteria to the acceptance criteria of G. E. Preoperational Test Speci-fication 22A2271 AZ, Revision 3, Section B10 and HCGS FSAR,

Chapter 14, Section 14.2.12.1.8, Control Rod Drive -

! Hydraulic. At the completion of the review the inspector

! noted that the setpoint for the level switch on the instru-ment volume was 4 2 gallons. Section B10.5.9 of the G. Specification states that the setpoint is 3 2 gallon After discussion with the licensee, it was determined that the G. E. Specification was being revised by SDR #BF-0159 to change the allowable setpoint to 4 2 gallons.

4 --

PTP-BD-1 During review of PTP-BD-1 the inspector had several questions that were generally administrative concerning correct identification of an appendix to the procedure

and the acceptable level of the torus. These items were corrected by issuance of on-the-spot (OTS) change No. One question related to remote operation of the RCIC ,

system from the D channel of the Remote Shutdown Pane l The licensee informed the inspector that Channel D opera-tion was performed in PTP-SV-1. In addition, OTS-9 was !

issued to clari fy PTP-BD- l t

-. - . - - - . - - -- - - - - .. - _ - -.- ~.- - - . - .

,.

l

.

-

l l

)

I 15 l

,

! l l 12.1.2 Findings

,

No unacceptable conditions were identifie j j 13.0 Preoperational Test Witnessing l 13.1 Scope Testing witnessed by the inspector included the observations of over-all crew performance stated in Paragraph 3.0 of Inspection Report

! No. 50-354/85-18.

)

13.1.1 Discussion Only limited preoperational test activities were observed by the inspector during several tours of the control room during this i inspection. The inspector reviewed all completed portions of the Reactor Protection System, PTP-SB-1 including test excep- i j tions (19) and procedure changes (4). The inspector noted one

out of specification reading and discussed it with the System t

! Test Engineer (STE). The STE took immediate action and issued t j' Test Exception No. 20 to identify and track this item. The  ;

inspector also noted three QA witness points for component -

restoration that were not signed off. The inspector discussed i this item with the Startup QA Engineer and reviewed QAI 2-11, QA Program for Phase 1 and Phase-2 Startup, Revision The j inspector determined that the QA inspector may verify that

,

restoration was correct at a later date. The Startup QA Engi-neer stated that the preferred means of verification was at the

. time of restoration; however, other QA activities may preclude l actual observation due to manpower limitations.

!

i 13.1.2 Findings i

No violations were identifie .0 Plant Tours

14.1 Discussion

'

The inspector made several tours of various arecs of the facility to observe work in progress, housekeeping, cleanliness controls and i

'

status of construction and preoperational test activitie Parti-cular emphasis was placed on licensee refueling floor activities and

{ cleanliness in preparation for new fuel receipt / inspection and

storag .1.1 Findings _

t

! No unacceptable cenditions were identified.

.

.

<

w ,,yyvm-y-----A.r,4-M- y -w-- -

y r-r-wy-w- r- yyww -V-w, y- y- * - g-,- y, wewy-~g y y.---y ,, , , .-, gy, 7,-,-p,we-w+e w,--- -yq mge+yr,-

.

.

15.0 Independent Verification l 15.1 Discussion The inspectors independently verified that acceptance criteria established by the licensee in the preoperational test procedures reviewed (Paragraph 12.0) fully met the criteria established in GE Preoperational Test Specification 22A2271 A .1.1 Findings No violations were identifie .0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance or a deviation. Unresolved items are identified in paragraph 3. .0 Exit Interview A management meeting was held at the conclusion of the inspection on August 30, 1985, to discuss the scope and findings as detailed in this report (see Paragraph 2 for attendees). No written information was pro-vided to the licensee at any time during the inspection. The licensee indicated that no proprietary information was contained in the scope of this inspection.

t I -

_________ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ___-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

ATTACHMENT A Documents Reviewed GM9-QAP 4-1, Receiving Inspection, Revision 4 GM9-QAP 5-1, Monitoring Program, Revision 2 GM9-QAP 8-1, NQA Record Control Program, Revision 0 RE-FR.ZZ-008(Q), Verification of Fuel Location, Revision 0 M35-SQP-5-1, Surveillance of Station Activities, Revision 1 RE-TI.ZZ-003(Q), Fuel Isotopic Inventory Records-NRC 742 Reports, Revision 0 RE-FM.ZZ-003(Q), Fuel Location History Records, Revision 0 RE-TI.ZZ-002(Q), Fuel Isotopic Inventory Records - Receipt and Shipping, Revision MD-PM.KF-002(Q), Revision 0, Lubrication of Polar Crane Hoists MD-PM.KF-003(Q), Revision 0, Polar Crane Lubrication (six month)

MD-PM.KF-004(Q), Revision 0, Polar Crane PM and Check-out MD-PM-KF-005(Q), Revision 0, General Rigging Inspection and Testing MD-PM.KE-003(Q), Revision 0, Refueling Platform Operational Check MD-PM.KE-009(Q), Revision 0, Fuel Handling Tools Inspection MD-CM.KF-001 (Q), Revision 0, General Load Handling MD-PQ.ZZ-014(Q), Revision 0, Polar Crane Operator Qualification MD-PQ.ZZ-015(Q), Revision 0, Fuel Handler Qualification Training Procedure 907HC, Revision 0, Reactor Engineer and Technical Staff Lesson Plan 907HC-000-SPCLFH, Revision 0, New Fuel Handling and Storage Training Procedure 706HC, Revision 2, Station Mechanic Continuing Training Lesson Plan 706HC-7.1.1.2, Revision 0, New Fuel Receipt

!

w

-_ - __ __ _ ..

.

I

Lesson Plan 706HC-7.1.3, Revision 0, Polar Crane and Refuel Floor Rigging Qualification Qualification Card TP-908HC, Revision 0, New Fuel and Channel Inspector RE-FR.ZZ-001(Q), Revision 0, Fuel Handling Controls RE-FR.ZZ-004(Q), Revision 1, New Fuel Inspection RE-FR ZZ-005(Q), Revision 0, Fuel Channel and Channel Fastener Cleaning and Inspection RE-FR.ZZ-006(Q), Revision 0, Fuel Channeling and De-Channeling RE-FR.KE-008(Q), Revision 1, New Fuel Handling and Storage SA-AP.ZZ-039(Q), Revision 1, Receipt of New Fuel PTP-KF-1, Revision 0, Cranes and Hoists Bechtel Work Plan M-2664, Polar Crane Load Test for Turnover C-

.