IR 05000354/2011005
| ML12040A012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/2012 |
| From: | Arthur Burritt Reactor Projects Branch 3 |
| To: | Joyce T Public Service Enterprise Group |
| BURRITT, AL | |
| References | |
| IR-11-005 | |
| Download: ML12040A012 (32) | |
Text
UNITED STATES
?,Z NUCLEAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION o REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD
""r"W KING OF PRUSSIA. PA 19406.1415 February 9, 2OI2 Mr. Thomas President and Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 SUBJECT: HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 . NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTTON REPORT 05000354/201 1 005
Dear Mr. Joyce:
On December 31 ,2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at the Hope Creek Generating Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results which were discussed on January 12,2012, with Mr. J. Perry 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.
No findings were identified during this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://vrnvw.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely, L. Burritt, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No: 50-354 License No: NPF-57
SUBJECT:
HOPE CREEK GENEMTING STATION UNIT 1 - NRC INTEGRATED TNSPECTTON REPORT 05000354/201 1 005
Dear Mr.
On December 31 ,2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at the Hope Creek Generating Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results which were discussed on January 12,2012, with Mr. J. Perry 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.
No findings were identified during this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.govireading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Arthur L. Burritt. Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Distribution w/encl:
W. Dean, RA P. Wilson. DRS K. McKenzie, DRP, OA R. Montgomery, DRP D. Lew, DRA A. Burritt, DRP L. Chang, Rl, OEDO A. Turilin. DRP J. Tappert, DRP L. Cline. DRP RidsNrrPM HopeCreek Resource J. Clifford, DRP F. Bower, DRP, SRI RidsNrrDorlLll-2 Resource C. Miller. DRS A. Patel, DRP, Rl ROPreports Resource SUNSI Review Complete: LG (Reviewer's Initials) ML12040Al012 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DRP\BRANCH3\Inspection\Reports\lssued\2011 (ROP 12)\HC1105.docx After declaring this document "An OfficialAgency Record" it will be released to the Public.
o receive a coov 0f this document. indicate in the box: "C' = Coov without attachmenuenclosure "E" = 000y with attachmenuenclosure "N'
OFFICE mmt RI/DRP RI/DRP RI/DRP NAME FBower/ALB for LCline/ LC ABurritV ALB DATE 02t08t12 02t08 t12 02t08t12 RECORD COPY
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Docket No:
License NPF.57 Report No: 05000354/201 1 005 Licensee: PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG)
Facility: Hope Creek Generating Station P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 October 1,2011 through December 31, 2011 F. Bower, Senior Resident lnspector A. Patel, Resident Inspector J. Schoppy, Senior Reactor lnspector J. Furia, Senior Health Physicist B. Fuller, Operations Engineer Approved Arthur L. Burritt, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
lR 0500035412011005; 1010112011 - 1213112011; Hope Creek Generating Station; Routine
Integrated Inspection Report.
This report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and announced inspections performed by a Senior Reactor Inspector, a Senior Health Physicist, and an Operations Engineer. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 4, dated December 2006.
No findings were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
Summarv of Plant Status The Hope Creek Generating Station operated at or near full rated thermal power (RTP)for the duration of the inspection period except for brief periods to support planned testing and rod pattern adjustments.
REACTOR SAFEW Gornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
1R01 Adverse Weather Protection
.1 Readiness for Seasonal Extreme Weather Conditions
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed a review of PSEG's readiness for the onset of seasonal low temperatures. The review focused on the service water (SW) system, SW intake building ventilation system, and the emergency diesel generators (EDGs). The inspectors reviewed the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and technical specifications (TS) to determine what temperatures or other seasonal weather conditions could challenge these systems, and to ensure PSEG personnel had adequately prepared for these challenges. The inspectors reviewed station procedures, including PSEG's seasonal weather preparation procedure and applicable operating procedures.
The inspectors performed walkdowns of the selected systems to verify that no unidentified issues existed that could challenge the operability of the systems during cold weather conditions. Documents reviewed for each section of this inspection report are listed in the Attachment.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R04 Equipment Alionment
Partial Svstem Walkdowns (71111.04Q - 4 samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed partial walkdowns of the following systems:
o A residual heat removal (RHR) system with B RHR system out-of-service on October 18
.
A, B, and C EDGs with D EDG out-of-service on October 24
.
A, C, and D SW with the B SW pump out-of-service during the week of November 14
.
High pressure coolant injection (HPCI) while reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC)out-of-service on November 23 The inspectors selected these systems based on their risk-significance for the current plant configuration or following realignment. The inspectors reviewed applicable procedures, system diagrams, the UFSAR, TSs, work orders, condition reports, and the impact of ongoing work activities on redundant trains of equipment in order to identify conditions that could have impacted system performance of their intended safety functions. The inspectors also performed field walkdowns of accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and were operable.
b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
1 R05 Fire Protection Resident lnspectot'Quarterlv Walkdowns (71111.05Q - 4 samples)a. lnspection Scope The inspectors conducted tours of the areas listed below to assess the material condition and operational status of fire protection features. The inspectors verified that PSEG controlled combustible materials and ignition sources in accordance with administrative procedures. The inspectors verified that fire protection and suppression equipment was available for use as specified in the area pre-fire plan, and passive fire barriers were maintained in good material condition. The inspectors also verified that station personnel implemented compensatory measures for out of service, degraded, or inoperable fire protection equipment, as applicable, in accordance with procedures.
.
FRH-Il-541, Class 1E Switchgear Rooms
.
FRH-Il-531, Diesel Generator Rooms
.
FRH-Il-471, Refuel Floor
.
FRH-Il-713, Service Water Intake Structure b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R07 Heat Sink Performance
a. lnspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the B RHR heat exchanger's (HX) thermal performance to determine its readiness and availability to perform its safety functions. The inspectors reviewed the design basis for the component. The inspectors assessed the results of previous inspections of the B RHR HX and similar HXs. As applicable, the inspectors discussed the results of the most recent inspection with engineering staff and assessed documentation of the as-found and as-left conditions. The inspectors observed actual performance tests for HXheat sinks or reviewed the data/reports from the performance tests for any obvious problems or errors. The inspectors verified that PSEG initiated appropriate corrective actions for identified deficiencies. The inspectors also verified, if any tubes were plugged, the number of tubes plugged within the HX did not exceed the maximum amount allowed.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R1 1 Licensed Operator Requalification Prooram
.1 Requalification Activities Review bv Resident Staff
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed licensed operator simulator training on November 9,2011, which included two simulator scenarios. The first involved the loss of a reactor protection system bus that was followed by an uncontrolled depressurization and a torus leak that required an emergency depressurization. The second involved a loss of the 250 volt DC bus for the HPCI system and a recirculation pump seal leak that was followed by a loss of offsite power coincident with a loss of coolant accident. The inspectors evaluated operator performance during the simulated event and verified completion of risk significant operator actions, including the use of abnormal and emergency operating procedures. The inspectors assessed the clarity and effectiveness of communications, implementation of actions in response to alarms and degrading plant conditions, and the oversight and direction provided by the control room supervisor. The inspectors verified the accuracy and timeliness of the emergency classification made by the shift manager and the technical specification action statements entered by licensed operations personnel. Additionally, the inspectors assessed the ability of the operations personnel and the training staff to identify and document crew performance problems.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
.2 In-Office Review bv Regional Specialist
a. Inspection Scope
On December 13, 2011, inspectors conducted an in-office review of results of PSEG-administered annual operating tests and comprehensive written exams for 2011. The inspection assessed whether pass rates were consistent with the guidance of NRC Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix l, "Operator Requalification Human Performance Significance Determination Process." The inspectors verified that:
e Crew pass rate was greater than 80 percent. (Pass rate was 100 percent.)
o Individual pass rate on the dynamic simulator test was greater than 80 percent.
(Pass rate was 100 Percent.)
.
Individual pass rate on the job performance measures of the operating exam was greater than 80 percent. (Pass rate was 98 percent.)
.
Overall pass rate among individuals for all portions of the exam was greater than or equal to 75 percent. (Overall pass rate was 98 percent.)
Comprehensive written exams were administered in the last quarter of 2010.
b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the samples listed below to assess the effectiveness of maintenance activities on structure, system, and component (SSC) performance and reliability. The inspectors reviewed corrective action program (CAP) documents, maintenance work orders, and maintenance rule program documents to ensure that PSEG was identifying and properly evaluating performance problems within the scope of the maintenance rule. As applicable, the inspectors verified that the SSC was properly scoped into the maintenance rule in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65 and verified that the (aX2) performance criteria established by PSEG staff was reasonable; for SSCs classified as (aX1), the inspectors assessed the adequacy of goals and corrective actions to return these SSCs to (a)(2); and, the inspectors independently verified that appropriate work practices were followed for the SSCs reviewed. Additionally, the inspectors ensured that PSEG staff was identifying and addressing common cause failures that occurred within and across maintenance rule system boundaries.
.
SW system reliability and availability (Order 70120713)
.
A EDG engine driven intercooler pump casing failure (Notification 20520292)
.
Safety-related 250 VDC reliability and availability (Notification 20535391)b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emerqent Work Control
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed station evaluation and management of plant risk for the maintenance and emergent work activities listed below to verify that PSEG performed the appropriate risk assessments prior to removing equipment for work. The inspectors selected these activities based on potential risk significance. As applicable for each activity, the inspectors verified that PSEG personnel performed risk assessments as required by 10 CFR 60.65(a)(4) and applicable station procedures, and that the assessments were accurate and complete. When PSEG performed emergent work, the inspectors verified that operations personnel promptly assessed and managed plant risk' The inspectors reviewed the scope of maintenance work to verify plant conditions were consistent with the risk assessment. The inspectors also reviewed the TS requirements and inspected portions of redundant safety systems, when applicable, to verify risk analysis assumptions were valid and applicable requirements were met.
.
Emergent replacement of Bailey logic cabinet (BC 652) fuse on October 5 - 7 ,2012 (Order 60098926)
.
B EDG recirculation fan and B RHR out-of-service on October 19,2011 (Orders 30126184 and 30003568)o Emergent repairs to A torus spray injection valve torque switch on November 1 -
11, 2011 (Order 60099432)o Emergent scope expansion of preventive maintenance on the B safety auxiliary cooling system pump on December 13 - 14, 2011 (Notification 20538495)b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R15 Operabilitv Determinations and Functionalitv Assessments (71111.15 - 4 sarnples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed operability determinations for the following degraded or non-conforming conditions:
Operability Evaluation 11-06, Seismic effects on boiling-water reactor control rod scram at low reactor pressure (Order 70127666-50)
HPCI steam piping snubber, 1-P-FD-002-H011, clamp rotation (Notification
===20523325)
.
Use of demineralized water piping for EDG jacket water (Order 80103518)
.
Technical Evaluation for R safety relief valve (SRV) tailpipe temperature (Order 80105271)
The inspectors selected these issues based on the risk significance of the associated components and systems. The inspectors evaluated the technical adequacy of the operability determinations to assess whether TS operability was properly justified and the subject component or system remained available such that no unrecognized increase in risk occurred. The inspectors compared the operability and design criteria in the appropriate sections of the TSs and UFSAR to PSEG's evaluations to determine whether the components or systems were operable. Where compensatory measures were required to maintain operability, the inspectors determined whether ther measures in place would function as intended and were properly controlled by PSEG. The inspectors determined, where appropriate, compliance with assumptions in the evaluations.
b. Findinos No findings were identified.
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testinq
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the post-maintenance tests for the maintenance activities listed below to verify that procedures and test activities ensured system operability and functional capability. The inspectors reviewed the test procedure to verify that the procedure adequately tested the safety functions that may have been affected by the maintenance activity, that the acceptance criteria in the procedure was consistent with the information in the applicable licensing basis and/or design basis documents, and that the procedure had been properly reviewed and approved. The inspectors also witnessed the test or reviewed test data to verify that the test results adequately demonstrated restoration of the affected safety functions.
.
B RHR after minimum flow check valve (BCV-F0308) open and inspect maintenance October 19,2011 (Order 30126184)
HPCI room coolers after HPCI room cooler setpoint change October 26,2011 (Order 60099133)
A RHR torus spray valve after torus spray valve torque switch replacement on October 1,2011 (Order 60099432)r HPCI pump after HPCI system preventive maintenance during the week of November 28,2011 (Order 50131685)
Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R22 Surveillance Testinq
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed performance of surveillance tests and/or reviewed test data of selected risk-significant SSCs to assess whether test results satisfied TSs, the UFSAR, and PSEG procedure requirements. The inspectors verified that test acceptance criteria were clear, tests demonstrated operational readiness and were consistent with design documentation, test instrumentation had current calibrations and the range and accuracy for the application, tests were performed as written, and applicable test prerequisites were satisfied. Upon test completion, the inspectors considered whether the test results supported that equipment was capable of performing the required safety functions. The inspectors reviewed the following surveillance tests:
.
HC.IC-GP.ZZ-OOO4, SW strainer outlet temperature element test on October 3,2011
.
HC.OP-lS.BE-0001, A and C core spray pumps inservice test on October 11, 2011
.
HC.OP-IS.BC-0001, A RHR surveillance test on November 1, 2011
.
HC.OP-ST.KJ-0002, EDG 1BG4O0 monthly operability test on November 14, 2011
.
HC.OP-DL.ZZ-0026, Dry,well floor drain leakage monitoring during December 1 -
19,2011 b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
RADIATION SAFETY
Radiation Safety - Public and Occupational
2RS1 Radioloqical Hazard Assessment and Exposure Controls
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors examined PSEG's physical and programmatic controls for highly activated or contaminated materials stored within spent fuel and other storage pools.
The inspectors verified that appropriate controls were in place to preclude inadvertent removal of these materials from the pool. The inspectors reviewed PSEG preparations for the processing of irradiated components stored in the spent fuel pool.
b. Findinos No findings were identified.
2RS7 Radiolooical Environmental Monitorinq Proqram (REMP)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the annual radiological environmental operating records, and the results of any PSEG assessments since the last inspection to verify that the REMP was implemented in accordance with the plant TSs and the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM). The inspectors reviewed the report for changes to the ODCM with respect to environmental monitoring, commitments in terms of sampling locations, monitoring and measurement frequencies, land use census, interlaboratory comparison program, and analysis of data.
The inspectors reviewed the ODCM to identify locations of environmental monitoring stations.
The inspectors reviewed the final safety analysis report (FSAR) for information regarding the environmental monitoring program and meteorological monitoring instrumentation.
The inspectors reviewed the annual effluent release report and the 10 CFR Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste," report, to determine if PSEG was sampling, as appropriate, for the predominant and dose-causing radionuclides likely to be released in effluents.
The inspectors walked down air sampling stations and thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) monitoring stations to determine whether they were located as described in the ODCM and to determine the equipment material condition.
For the air samplers and TLDs selected above, the inspectors reviewed the calibration and maintenance records to verify that they demonstrate adequate operability of these components. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the calibration and maintenance records of composite water samplers as available.
The inspectors verified that PSEG had initiated sampling of other appropriate media upon loss of a required sampling station.
The inspectors observed the collection and preparation of environmental samples from different environmental media (e.g., ground and surface water, milk, vegetation, sediment, and soil) as available. The inspectors verified that environmental sampling was representative of the release pathways as specified in the ODCM and that sampling techniques were in accordance with procedures.
Based on direct observation and review of records, the inspectors verified that the meteorological instruments are operable, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with guidance contained in the FSAR, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants," and PSEG procedures. The inspectors verified that the meteorological data readout and recording instruments in the control room and at the tower were operable.
The inspectors verified that missed and or anomalous environmental samples were identified and reported in the annual environmental monitoring report. The inspectors reviewed PSEG's assessment of any positive sample results. The inspectors reviewed the associated radioactive effluent release data that was the source of the released material.
The inspectors selected SSCs that involved or could reasonably involve licensed material for which there is a credible mechanism for licensed material to reach ground water, and verified that PSEG had implemented a sampling and monitoring program sufficient to detect leakage of these SSCs to ground water.
The inspectors verified that records, as required by 10 CFR 50.75(9), of leaks, spills, and remediation since the previous inspection were retained in a retrievable manner.
The inspectors reviewed any significant changes made by PSEG to the ODCM as the result of changes to the land census, long-term meteorological conditions (three-year average), or modifications to the sampler stations since the last inspection. The inspeCtors reviewed technicaljustifications for any changed sampling locations. The inspectors verified that PSEG performed the reviews required to ensure that the changes did not affect its ability to monitor the impacts of radioactive effluent releases on the environment.
The inspectors verified that the appropriate detection sensitivities with respect to TS/ODCM were used for counting samples. The inspectors reviewed quality control charts for maintaining radiation measurement instrument status and actions taken for degrading detector performance. The inspectors reviewed the results of PSEGs' interlaboratory comparison program to verify the adequacy of environmental sample analyses performed by PSEG. The inspectors verified that the interlaboratory comparison test included the media/nuclide mix appropriate for the facility.
The inspectors verified that problems associated with the REMP are being identified by pSEG at an appropriate threshold and were properly addressed for resolution in their CAP. The inspectors verified the appropriateness of the corrective actions for a selected sample of problems documented by PSEG that involved the REMP.
b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
2RS8 Radioactive Solid Waste Processinq and Radioactive Material Handlinq. Storaqe. and
Transportation (7 1 124.08 - 1 sample)a. lnspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the solid radioactive waste system description in the FSAR, the Process Control Program (PCP), and the recent radiological effluent release report for information on the types, amounts, and processing of radioactive waste disposed.
The inspectors reviewed the scope of any quality assurance (QA) audits in this area since the last inspection to gain insights into PSEG's performance and inform the "smart sampling" inspection planning.
The inspectors selected areas where containers of radioactive waste were stored and verified that the containers were labeled in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1904, "Labeling Containers," or controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1905, "Exemptions to Labeling Req uirements," as appropriate.
The inspectors verified that the radioactive materials storage areas were controlled and posted in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation." For materials stored or used in the controlled or unrestricted areas, the inspectors verified that they were secured against unauthorized removal and controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1801, "Security of Stored Material," and 10 CFR 20.1802, "Control of Material Not in Storage," as appropriate.
The inspectors verified that PSEG had established a process for monitoring the impact of long-term storage (e.g., buildup of any gases produced by waste decomposition, chemical reactions, container deformation, loss of container integrity, or re-release of free-flowing water) sufficient to identify potential unmonitored, unplanned releases or non-conformance with waste disposal requirements. The inspectors selected containers of stored radioactive materials and verified that there were no signs of swelling, leakage, and deformation.
The inspectors selected liquid and solid radioactive waste processing systems, and walked down accessible portions of systems to verify and assess that the current system configuration and operation agreed with the descriptions in the FSAR, the ODCM, and the PCP.
The inspectors selected radioactive waste processing equipment that was not operational and/or was abandoned in place and verified that PSEG had established administrative and/or physical controls to ensure that the equipment would not contribute to an unmonitored release path and/or affect operating systems or be a source of unnecessary personnelexposure. The inspectors verified that PSEG had reviewed the safety significance of systems and equipment abandoned in place in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, "Changes, Tests, and Experiments."
The inspectors reviewed the adequacy of any changes made to the radioactive waste processing systems since the last inspection. The inspectors verified that changes from what is described in the FSAR were reviewed and documented in accordance with 10 CFR 50,59, as appropriate.
The inspectors selected processes for transferring radioactive waste resin and/or sludge discharges into shipping/disposal containers. The inspectors verified that the waste stream mixing, sampling procedures, and methodology for waste concentration averaging were consistent with the PCP, and provided representative samples of the waste product for the purposes of waste classification as described in 10 CFR 61
.55 ,
"Waste Classification. "
For those systems that provide tank recirculation, the inspectors verified that the tank recirculation procedu re provides sufficient m ixin g.
The inspectors verified that PSEG's PCP correctly described the current methods and procedures for dewatering and waste.
The inspectors selected radioactive waste streams, and verified that PSEG's radiochemical sample analysis results were sufficient to support radioactive waste characterization as required by 10 CFR Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste." The inspectors verified that PSEG's use of scaling factors and calculations, to account for difficult-to-measure radionuclides, was technically sound and based on current 10 CFR Part 61 analyses.
For the waste streams selected above, the inspectors verified that changes to plant operational parameters were taken into account to
- (1) maintain the validity of the waste stream composition data between the annual or biennial sample analysis update, and
- (2) verify that waste shipments continued to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 61.
The inspectors verified that PSEG had established and maintained an adequate QA program to ensure compliance with the waste classification and characterization requirements of 10 CFR 61.55 and 10 CFR 61.56, "Waste Characteristics."
The inspectors observed shipment packaging, surveying, labeling, marking, placarding, vehicle checks, emergency instructions, disposal manifest, shipping papers provided to the driver, and PSEG verification of shipment readiness. The inspectors verified that the requirements of any applicable transport cask certificate of compliance had been met.
The inspectors verified that the receiving licensee was authorized to receive the shipment packages. The inspectors observed the shipment of a Type B quantity of irradiated hardware on December 8,2011.
The inspectors observed radiation workers during the conduct of radioactive waste processing and radioactive material shipment preparation and receipt activities. The inspectors determined that the shippers were knowledgeable of the shipping regulations and that shipping personnel demonstrated adequate skills to accomplish the package preparation requirements for public transport with respect to PSEG's response to NRC Bulletin 79-19, "Packaging of Low-Level Radioactive Waste for Transport and Burial,"
dated August 10, 1979, and 49 CFR Part 172,"Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communication, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, and Security Plans," Subpart H, "Training." The inspectors verified that PSEG's training program provided training to personnel responsible for the conduct of radioactive waste processing and radioactive material shipment preparation activities.
The inspectors selected non-excepted package shipment records and verified that the shipping documents indicated the proper shipper name; emergency response information and a 24-hour contact telephone number; accurate curie content and volume of material; and appropriate waste classification, transport index, and UN number. The inspectors verified that the shipment placarding was consistent with the information in the shipping documentation.
The inspectors verified that problems associated with radioactive waste processing, handling, storage, and transportation were being identified by PSEG at an appropriate threshold, were properly characterized, and were properly addressed for resolution in their CAP. The inspectors verified the appropriateness of the corrective actions for a selected sample of problems documented by PSEG that involved radioactive waste processing, hand lin g, storage, and transportation.
The inspectors reviewed the results of selected audits performed since the last inspection of this program and evaluated the adequacy of PSEG's corrective actions for issues identified during those audits.
b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA1 Performance Indicator (Pl) Verification
.1 Mitiqatino Svstems Performance Index (5 samples)
a. Insoection Scope The inspectors reviewed PSEG submittal of the Mitigating Systems Performance lndex (MSPI) for the following systems for the period of October 1,2010 through September 3Q,2Q11:
.
Emergency AC Power System
.
High Pressure Injection System
.
Heat Removal System
.
Residual Heat Removal System o Support Cooling Water SYstem To determine the accuracy of the Pl data reported during those periods, the inspectors used definitions and guidance contained in Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline," Revision 6. The inspectors also reviewed PSEG's operator narrative logs, CAP records, mitigating systems performance index reports, key Pl summary records, operating data reports and the MSPI basis document, event reports, and NRC integrated inspection reports to validate the accuracv of the submittals.
b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
Occupational Radiation Safetv Cornerstone ===
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed a listing of PSEG action reports for issues related to the occupational radiation safety Pl, which measures non-conformances with high radiation areas greater than 1 Roentgen/hour (R/hr) and unplanned personnel exposures greater than 100 millirem (mrem) total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), 5 rem skin dose equivalent (SDE), 1.5 rem lens dose equivalent (LDE), or 100 mrem to the unborn child.
The inspector determined if any of these Pl events involved dose rates >25 FJhr at 30 centimeters or >500 R/hr at one meter. lf so, the inspectors determined what barriers had failed and if there were any barriers left to prevent personnel access. For unintended exposures >100 mrem TEDE (or >5 rem SDE or >1.5 rem LDE), the inspectors determined if there were any overexposures or substantial potential for overexposure. The inspectors determined that no Pl events for occupational radiation safety had occurred during the assessment period.
Findinos No findings were identified.
Public Radiation Safetv Cornerstone (1 sample)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed a listing of PSEG action reports for issues related to the public radiation safety Pl, which measures radiological effluent release occurrences per site that exceed 1.5 mrem/quarter (qtr) whole body or 5 mrem/qtr organ dose for liquid effluents; or 5 millirads (mrads)/qtr gamma air dose, 10 mrads/qtr beta air dose; or 7.5 mrems/qtr organ doses from lodine-131, lodine-133, Hydrogen-3, and particulates for gaseous effluents. The inspectors determined that no Pl events for public radiation safety had occurred during the assessment period.
b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
4c.A2 Problem ldentification and Resolution (71152 - 2 samples)
.1 Routine Review of Problem ldentification and Resolution Activities
a. Inspection Scope
As required by lnspection Procedure71l52, "Problem ldentification and Resolution," the inspectors routinely reviewed issues during baseline inspection activities and plant status reviews to verify that PSEG entered issues into the CAP at an appropriate threshold, gave adequate attention to timely corrective actions, and identified and addressed adverse trends. In order to assist with the identification of repetitive equipment failures and specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed regular screening of items entered into the CAP and periodically attended management review committee meetings.
b. Findinos No findings were identified.
Semi-Annual Trend Review Inspection Scope The inspectors performed a semi-annual review of site issues, as required by Inspection Procedure 71152, "Problem ldentification and Resolution," to identify trends that might indicate the existence of more significant safety issues. ln this review, the inspectors included repetitive or closely-related issues that may have been documented by PSEG outside of the CAP, such as trend reports, Pls, major equipment problem lists, system health reports, maintenance rule assessments, and maintenance or CAP backlogs. The inspectors also reviewed PSEG's CAP database for the period from June to November 2011to assess the notifications written as well as individual issues identified during the NRCs daily condition report review (Section 4OA2.1). The inspectors reviewed the Hope Creek station roll-up meeting report for the second cycle of 2011, conducted under procedure LS-AA-125-1006, "DepartmenUstation Roll-up Meeting," to verify that PSEG personnelwere appropriately evaluating and trending adverse conditions in accordance with applicable procedures.
b. Findinqs and Observations No findings were identified.
The inspectors reviewed the results of the 2011 zna cycle Hope Creek Station Roll-up Meeting and noted that PSEG identified the following station focus areas: work management process implementation; effective leadership development; and effective use of learning programs to prevent events and achieve industry best performance.
These etforts were identified for focused station effort to enhance future performance.
Based on the overall review of the selected sample, the inspectors concluded that PSEG was: appropriately identifying and entering issues into the CAP, adequately evaluating the identified issues, and acceptably identifying adverse trends before they became more safety significant problems.
.2 Annual Sample: Oil Level Control and Monitorinq
lnspection Scope During a plant walkdown on December 22,2009, the inspectors observed that the HPCI system booster pump outboard bearing oil level in the sight glass was lelow lhe minimum level mark, and that there was an active minor leak (NCV 05000354/2010002' 02). During a plant walkdown on May 21,2010, the inspectors observed that the maximum and minimum level marks for the new operator aid on the RCIC system turbine oil level sight glass were incorrect and non-conservative (FlN 05000354/2010004-02). During a plant walkdown on December 15, 2010, the inspectors observed that the RCIC turbine oil level in the sight glass was above the maximum level mark (NCV 05000354/2010005-03). The inspectors performed a focused review of PSEG's technical evaluations and corrective actions associated with these NRC-identified findings to ensure that PSEG implemented timely corrective actions, effectively addressed the underlying casual factors, and appropriately considered the extent-of-condition. The inspectors compared the actions taken to the requirements of PSEG's CAP and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVl.
The inspectors reviewed PSEG's associated apparent cause evaluations, common cause evaluations, technical evaluations, extent-of-condition reviews, and short and long-term corrective actions. The inspectors also reviewed a sample of equipment operator rounds, completed surveillance tests, system health and walkdown reports, the HPCI and RCIC vendor manuals, operator training material, work orders, and operating procedures to assess the adequacy of PSEG's corrective actions and to ensure alignment with vendor recommendations. The inspectors performed several walkdowns of the four RHR pump motors, the four core Spray pump motors, the HPCI pump and turbine, and the RCIC pump and turbine. The inspectors also observed an equipment operator perform their daily rounds in the HPCI room, RCIC room, and several RHR and core spray rooms. The inspectors performed these walkdowns to independently assess the oil level, the operator aids, the material condition, the operating environment, potential operator challenges, and configuration control. The inspectors also discussed oil level monitoring and control with the system engineer, senior reactor operators, and equipment operators to assess their awareness and knowledge level, to assess the training effectiveness relative to the previous issues, and to obtain historical performance and trend data.
The inspectors reviewed a sample of emergency core cooling system and RCIC oil-related issues that PSEG entered into the CAP since April 2009. The inspectors reviewed these issues to verify an appropriate threshold for identifying issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions. In addition, the inspectors reviewed corrective action notifications written on issues identified during the inspection to verify adequate problem identification and incorporation of the problem into the CAP.
b. Findinqs and Observations No findings were identified.
The inspectors noted that PSEG's corrective actions included an extent-of-condition review of other oil level markings to determine adequacy, developing and maintaining appropriate oil level operator aids in the field, improving operator logs and procedures, direct operations management observations of operator rounds, and additional training for nuclear equipment operators.
The inspectors concluded that PSEG had taken timely and appropriate action in accordance with vendor recommendations, surveillance and operating procedures, operating logs, and PSEG's CAP. The inspectors determined that PSEG's associated technical evaluations were sufficiently thorough and based on focused plant walkdowns, vendor guidance, sound engineering judgment, and relevant operating experience.
PSEG's assigned corrective actions were aligned with the identified casualfactors, adequately tracked, appropriately documented, and completed as scheduled. Based on the documents reviewed, plant walkdowns (including operator rounds observations), and operator interviews, the inspectors noted that PSEG personnel identified problems and entered them into the CAP at a low threshold.
4C.A6 Meetinqs. includinq Exit On January 12, 2012, the inspectors presented inspection results to with Mr. J. Perry and other members of his staff. The inspectors asked PSEG whether any materials examined during the inspection were proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
PSEG Personnel
- J. Perry, Hope Creek Site Vice President
- D. Lewis, Hope Creek Plant Manager
- E. Carr, Operations Director
- K. Knaide, Work Management Director
- W. Kopchick, Engineering Director
- F. Mooney, Maintenance Director
- M. Gaffney, Regulatory Assurance Manager
- H. Trimble, Radiation Protection Manager
- D. Boyle, Operations Support Manager
- P. Duca, Senior Engineer, Regulatory Assurance
- J. Shelton, Environmental Affairs, Nuclear
LIST OF ITEMS
OPENED, GLOSED, AND DISCUSSED