IR 05000416/2016004

NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000416/2016004

ML17039B078
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	02/08/2017
From:	Greg Warnick NRC/RGN-IV/DRP/RPB-C
To:	Fallacara V Entergy Operations
GREG WARNICK
References
IR 2016004
Download: ML17039B078 (47)

Text

UNITED STATES ary 8, 2017

SUBJECT:

GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000416/2016004

Dear Mr. Fallacara:

On December 31, 2016, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. On January 13, 2017, the NRC inspectors discussed the results of this inspection with you and other members of your staff. Inspectors documented the results of this inspection in the enclosed inspection report.

NRC inspectors documented two findings of very low safety significance (Green) in this report.

Both of these findings involved violations of NRC requirements. The NRC is treating these violations as non-cited violations (NCVs) consistent with Section 2.3.2.a of the Enforcement Policy.

If you contest the violations or significance of these NCVs, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001; with copies to the Regional Administrator, Region IV; the Director, Office of Enforcement; and the NRC resident inspector at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.

If you disagree with a cross-cutting aspect assignment in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001; with copies to the Regional Administrator, Region IV; and the NRC resident inspector at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. This letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be made available for public inspection and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and at the NRC Public Document Room in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Greg Warnick, Branch Chief Project Branch C Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-416 License No. NPF-29

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 05000416/2016004 w/ Attachments:

1. Supplemental Information 2. O

REGION IV==

Docket: 05000416 License: NPF-29 Report: 05000416/2016004 Licensee: Entergy Operations, Inc.

Facility: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Location: 7003 Baldhill Road Port Gibson, MS 39150 Dates: October 1 through December 31, 2016 Inspectors: M. Young, Senior Resident Inspector W. Sifre, Acting Senior Resident Inspector N. Day, Resident Inspector J. Drake, Senior Reactor Inspector C. Young, Senior Project Engineer L. Carson, Senior Health Physicist N. Greene, Health Physicist P. Elkmann, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector M. Hayes, Operations Engineer Approved By: Greg Warnick Chief, Project Branch C Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure

SUMMARY

IR 05000416/2016004; 10/1/2016 - 12/31/2016; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station; Operability

Determinations and Functionality Assessments, Occupational ALARA Planning and Controls.

The inspection activities described in this report were performed between October 1 and December 31, 2016, by the resident inspectors at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and inspectors from the NRCs Region IV office. Two findings of very low safety significance (Green) are documented in this report. Both of these findings involved violations of NRC requirements.

The significance of inspection findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, or Red),

which is determined using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Significance Determination Process, dated April 29, 2015. Their cross-cutting aspects are determined using Inspection Manual Chapter 0310, Aspects within the Cross-Cutting Areas, dated December 4, 2014.

Violations of NRC requirements are dispositioned in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, dated July 2016.

Cornerstone: Mitigating Systems

Green.

The inspector identified a non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,

Criterion III, Design Control, involving the failure to implement appropriate design control measures associated with a safety-related service water flow calculation. Specifically, several unverified and potentially nonconservative inputs were identified associated with Calculation MC-QIP41-97020, Revision 11, Determination of Minimum Allowable SSW Flows (LOCA Lineup) to Safety Related Heat Exchangers, used to analyze minimum service water flow to the vital switchgear room coolers. The licensee entered this issue into their corrective action program as Condition Report CR-GGN-2016-07597, initiated action to update Calculation MC-QIP41-97020, and initiated actions to analyze the ability of vital switchgear room cooling to meet its specified safety function.

This performance deficiency was more than minor, and therefore a finding, because it was associated with the design control attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone, and it adversely affected the cornerstone objective to ensure availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences.

Specifically, the licensee did not assure that the vital switchgear ventilation system was capable of maintaining the rooms temperature below design requirements under all conditions. The NRC performed an initial screening of the finding in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A, The Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A,

Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, dated July 1, 2012, this finding had very low safety significance (Green) because it: (1) was not a deficiency affecting the design or qualification of a mitigating system; (2) did not represent a loss of system and/or function; (3) did not represent an actual loss of function of a single train for greater than its technical specification allowed outage time; and (4) did not represent an actual loss of function of one or more nontechnical specification trains of equipment designated as high safety-significant in accordance with the licensees maintenance rule program for greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the documentation aspect of the human performance cross-cutting area because the licensee failed to maintain complete, accurate, and up-to-date documentation of the design temperature limits for safety-related equipment. Specifically, the licensee failed to document and evaluate a change to temperature limits related to switchgear cooling to ensure that its use as a design parameter was consistent with original design specifications of the equipment [H.7]. (Section 1R15)

Cornerstone: Occupational Radiation Safety

Green.

The inspectors identified a non-cited violation of 10 CFR 20.1101(b) for the licensees failure to implement radiation exposure reduction procedures and engineering controls to minimize unplanned and unintended radiation dose to workers and to maintain occupational doses as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Several radiological work permits exceeded initial dose estimates with minimal or no actions taken to evaluate the basis for the dose overrides and to develop mitigating strategies. The primary contributor to the unplanned exposures was elevated dose rates from increased cobalt-60 activity associated with a failure to properly plan and execute spent fuel pool and reactor cavity cleanup operations. In addition, the licensee failed to observe radiological work permit hold points, to initiate ALARA Management Committee meetings, and to perform radiological assessments of radiological work permit dose estimates as procedurally required. As immediate corrective actions, the licensee reviewed the work activity, documented lessons learned, and generated Condition Reports CR-GGN-2016-03151 and CR-GGN-2016-08543 to address these programmatic weaknesses for future outages.

The failure to implement procedures and engineering controls to minimize unplanned and unintended radiation dose and to maintain occupational doses as low as is reasonably achievable was a performance deficiency. The performance deficiency was more than minor, and therefore a finding, because it was associated with the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone attribute of program and process (ALARA planning) and adversely affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the adequate protection of worker health and safety from exposure to radiation from radioactive material during routine civilian nuclear reactor operation. Specifically, inadequate ALARA planning and radiological controls resulted in unplanned, unintended dose for a number of work activities in which the actual collective dose exceeded 5 person-rem and exceeded the planned, intended dose by more than 50 percent. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix C, Occupational Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process, the inspectors determined this finding to be of very low safety significance (Green) because the finding involved ALARA planning and controls, and because the licensees latest 3-year rolling average did not exceed 240 person-rem per unit for boiling water reactors. The finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution, associated with operating experience, in that, the licensees organization failed to systematically and effectively collect, evaluate, and implement relevant internal and external operating experience in a timely manner.

Specifically, the licensee failed to implement and incorporate relevant internal operating experience from Refueling Outage 18, which was of similar radiological circumstances, to mitigate the effects of cobalt-60 activity in the reactor cavity and unplanned spent fuel pool cleanup outages [P.5]. (Section 2RS2)

PLANT STATUS

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station remained in an extended outage and in Mode 4 for the duration of this inspection period to address concerns with operator fundamentals.

REPORT DETAILS

REACTOR SAFETY

Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity

1R01 Adverse Weather Protection

Readiness for Seasonal Extreme Weather Conditions

a. Inspection Scope

On December 16, 2016, the inspectors completed an inspection of the stations readiness for seasonal adverse weather conditions. The inspectors reviewed the licensees adverse weather procedures for extreme cold weather and evaluated the licensees implementation of these procedures. The inspectors verified that prior to the onset of cold weather, the licensee had corrected weather-related equipment deficiencies identified during the previous weather season.

The inspectors selected three risk-significant systems that were required to be protected from a cold weather condition:

• Standby service water pump house and valve house, trains A and B

• Firewater system pumphouse

• Emergency diesel generator rooms, Divisions 1, 2, and 3, as well as, the emergency diesel generator corridor which contains service water piping The inspectors reviewed the licensees procedures and design information to ensure the systems and components would remain functional when challenged by cold weather.

The inspectors verified that operator actions described in the licensees procedures were adequate to maintain readiness of these systems. The inspectors walked down portions of these systems to verify the physical condition of cold weather protection features.

These activities constituted one sample of readiness for seasonal adverse weather, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.01.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R04 Equipment Alignment

.1 Partial Walk-Down

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors performed partial system walk-downs of the following risk-significant systems:

• December 15, 2016, standby service water, train B

• December 16, 2016, firewater system

• December 20, 2016, emergency diesel generator, Division 2, lube oil, jacket water, starting air and fuel oil systems The inspectors reviewed the licensees procedures and system design information to determine the correct lineup for the systems. They visually verified that critical portions of the systems or trains were correctly aligned for the existing plant configuration.

These activities constituted three partial system walk-down samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.04.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Complete Walk-Down

a. Inspection Scope

From October 6-7, 2016, the inspectors performed a complete system walk-down inspection of the alternate decay heat removal system. The inspectors reviewed the licensees procedures and system design information to determine the correct system lineup for the existing plant configuration. The inspectors also reviewed outstanding work orders, open condition reports, and other open items tracked by the licensees operations and engineering departments. The inspectors then visually verified that the system was correctly aligned for the existing plant configuration.

These activities constituted one complete system walk-down sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.04.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R05 Fire Protection

.1 Quarterly Inspection

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors evaluated the licensees fire protection program for operational status and material condition. The inspectors focused their inspection on four plant areas important to safety:

• October 24, 2016, emergency diesel generator room, Division 3, Fire Zone 1D304

• December 9, 2016, control room, control panel, suspended ceiling and support areas, Fire Zones OC501, OC502, OC503, OC504, OC516, and OC517

• December 14, 2016, residual heat removal room, train C, and alternate decay heat removal room, Fire Zone 1A118

• December 15, 2016, standby service water pump house and valve house, trains A and B, Fire Zones 2M110, 2M112 and Basin No. 2 For each area, the inspectors evaluated the fire plan against defined hazards and defense-in-depth features in the licensees fire protection program. The inspectors evaluated control of transient combustibles and ignition sources, fire detection and suppression systems, manual firefighting equipment and capability, passive fire protection features, and compensatory measures for degraded conditions.

These activities constituted four quarterly inspection samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.05.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Annual Inspection

a. Inspection Scope

On October 6, 2016, the inspectors completed their annual evaluation of the licensees fire brigade performance. This evaluation included observation of an unannounced fire drill for Area 4, 133 foot turbine switchgear room 1T323. During this drill, the inspectors evaluated the capability of the fire brigade members, the leadership ability of the brigade leader, the brigades use of turnout gear and fire-fighting equipment, and the effectiveness of the fire brigades team operation. The inspectors also reviewed whether the licensees fire brigade met NRC requirements for training, dedicated size and membership, and equipment.

These activities constituted one annual inspection sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.05.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R06 Flood Protection Measures

a. Inspection Scope

On December 28, 2016, the inspectors completed an inspection of the stations ability to mitigate flooding due to internal causes. After reviewing the licensees flooding analysis, the inspectors chose the residual heat removal, train B, pump room which contains risk-significant structures, systems, and components that are susceptible to flooding.

The inspectors reviewed plant design features and licensee procedures for coping with internal flooding. The inspectors walked down the selected areas to inspect the design features, including the material condition of seals, drains, and flood barriers. The inspectors evaluated whether operator actions credited for flood mitigation could be successfully accomplished.

In addition, on December 12, 2016, the inspectors completed an inspection of underground vaults susceptible to flooding. The inspectors selected three underground vaults/manholes that contained risk-significant or multiple-train cables whose failure could disable risk-significant equipment:

• Manhole MH 01, SP45MH01

• Manhole MH 02, SP45MH02

• Manhole MH 03, SP45MH03 The inspectors observed the material condition of the cables and splices contained in the vaults/manholes and looked for evidence of cable degradation due to water intrusion.

The inspectors verified that the cables and vaults met design requirements.

These activities constituted completion of one flood protection measures sample and one vault/manhole sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.06.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program and Licensed Operator Performance

.1 Review of Licensed Operator Requalification

a. Inspection Scope

On December 1 and December 14, 2016, the inspectors observed high intensity simulator training for operating crews. The inspectors assessed the performance of the operators and the evaluators critique of their performance. The inspectors also assessed the modeling and performance of the simulator during the activities.

These activities constituted completion of one quarterly licensed operator requalification program sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.11.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Review of Licensed Operator Performance

a. Inspection Scope

On December 14, 2016, the inspectors observed the performance of on-shift licensed operators in the plants main control room. At the time of the observations, the plant was in a period of heightened activity and risk due to preparation for a full pressure in-service leakage test and surveillance tests.

In addition, the inspectors assessed the operators adherence to plant procedures, including conduct of operations procedure and other operations department policies.

These activities constituted completion of one quarterly licensed operator performance sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.11.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.3 Annual Review of Requalification Examination Results

a. Inspection Scope

The inspector conducted an in-office review of the annual requalification training program to determine the results of this program.

On November 21, 2016, the licensee informed the inspector of the following Grand Gulf Nuclear Station operating test results:

• 6 of 6 crews passed the simulator portion of the operating test

• 39 of 39 licensed operators passed the simulator portion of the operating test

• 39 of 39 licensed operators passed the job performance measure portion of the operating test There were no remediations performed for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station operating tests.

These activities constituted completion of one annual licensed operator requalification program sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.11.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness

.1 Routine Maintenance Effectiveness

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed six instances of degraded performance or condition of safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs):

• October 12, 2016, plant air compressors, due to excess unavailability

• October 12, 2016, standby liquid control system, train B, due to high vibrations and leak on the pump

• October 26, 2016, standby service water system, train C, due to degraded piping supports in the service water basin

• November 29, 2016, standby gas treatment system, due to excess unavailability

• December 1, 2016, reactor water clean-up system, due to seal leakage

• December 29, 2016, control rod drive system, train A, due to excess unavailability The inspectors reviewed the extent of condition of possible common cause SSC failures and evaluated the adequacy of the licensees corrective actions. The inspectors reviewed the licensees work practices to evaluate whether these may have played a role in the degradation of the SSCs. The inspectors assessed the licensees characterization of the degradation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65 (the Maintenance Rule), and verified that the licensee was appropriately tracking degraded performance and conditions in accordance with the Maintenance Rule.

These activities constituted completion of six maintenance effectiveness samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.12.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Quality Control

a. Inspection Scope

On October 20, 2016, the inspectors reviewed the licensees quality control activities through an inspection of replacement O-rings installed in the residual heat removal pump, train A, which were purchased as commercial-grade parts but were dedicated prior to installation to a quality-grade.

These activities constituted completion of one quality control sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.12.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed three risk assessments performed by the licensee prior to changes in plant configuration and the risk management actions taken by the licensee in response to elevated risk:

• October 19, 2016, electrical power shutdown risk due to Division 3 emergency diesel generator maintenance that caused Division 3 AC and DC power to be unavailable

• November 1, 2016, risk assessment for lifting the standby service water C pump with a crane and the potential impact on the standby service water A pump

• November 3, 2016, risk assessment for lifting the Division 3 emergency diesel generator fuel oil storage tank concrete plug with a crane and the potential impact on the Division 1 and 2 emergency diesel generator fuel oil storage tanks The inspectors verified that these risk assessments were performed timely and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65 (the Maintenance Rule) and plant procedures. The inspectors reviewed the accuracy and completeness of the licensees risk assessments and verified that the licensee implemented appropriate risk management actions based on the result of the assessments.

These activities constituted completion of three maintenance risk assessment inspection samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.13.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R15 Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed two operability determinations that the licensee performed for degraded or nonconforming structures, systems, or components (SSCs):

• December 19, 2016, operability determination for secondary containment and standby gas treatment system during an operation with potential to drain the vessel (OPDRV) when the containment equipment hatch was in the open position

• December 9, 2016, operability determination of the vital switchgear room coolers The inspectors reviewed the timeliness and technical adequacy of the licensees evaluations. Where the licensee determined the degraded SSC to be operable, the inspectors verified that the licensees compensatory measures were appropriate to provide reasonable assurance of operability. The inspectors verified that the licensee had considered the effect of other degraded conditions on the operability of the degraded SSC.

These activities constituted completion of two operability review samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.15.

b. Findings

Introduction.

The inspectors identified a Green, non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, involving the failure to translate applicable design requirements into the specifications for plant systems. Specifically, the inspector identified that the licensee failed to use appropriate design control measures when analyzing the ability of vital switchgear room cooling to ensure operability requirements were satisfied for the associated equipment under all design conditions.

Description.

Calculation MC-QIP41-97020, Revision 11, Determination of Minimum Allowable SSW Flows (LOCA Lineup) to Safety-Related Heat Exchangers, states, that, Revision 11 incorporates the minimum flow rate calculated using the FORTRAN model approved in EC 61493 in response to a degraded flow condition of the 1T46B001B Electrical Switchgear Room Cooler. The cooling water flow rate of 3.4 GPM was calculated while maintaining the room temperature at or below 135 (degrees) F (Fahrenheit). While reviewing the calculation and associated design documents for the vital electrical switch gear room coolers, the inspector noted the following inconsistencies:

• Calculation M3.3.013-0, Revision 300, Safety-Related Electrical Equipment Cooling In Auxiliary Building, states that the maximum allowable indoor temperature for the electrical switchgear rooms is 104 degrees Fahrenheit.

• Design Specification 22A6926, Revision 0, Boiling Water Reactor Equipment Environmental Interface, Section 1.1 states, that, This document specifies the environmental plant design limits in the design of the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) equipment supplied or specified by the General Electric Company. Section 3.1 states, This document specifies the allowable environmental extremes for those portions of the environmental zones containing General Electric supplied and specified equipment. Section 3.4 states, Table 2 defines the allowable environmental extremes and corresponding duration for each environmental zone and plant design condition. Table 2, Environmental Conditions and Limits for Equipment, lists a temperature limit during accident conditions of 104 degrees Fahrenheit and 90 degrees Fahrenheit for normal conditions for Zone AB-1, auxiliary building - electric switchgear and remote shutdown panel rooms.

• Design Specification 22A3093, Revision 2, Boiling Water Reactor Equipment Environmental Interface Data, Section 1.1 states, in part, This document specifies the indoor environmental data, in Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, that is used for design of equipment supplied and specified by General Electric Company. To ensure the integrity of this equipment, the purchasing utility is required to provide and to control the operational and accident environmental conditions so that the limits established in this document, for areas in which General Electric supplied and specified equipment is installed, are not exceeded. Section 5 lists the thermal limits for the Auxiliary Building Electrical Areas as 104 degrees Fahrenheit.

• Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 9.4.5.2.5, ESF (Engineered Safety Feature) Electrical Switchgear Rooms, states, in part, The fan coil units located in switchgear rooms 1A308 and 1A309, El. 139' 0", will maintain the temperature of the rooms at less than 90 F during all modes of normal plant operation and at less than 105 F during all modes of emergency plant operation.

• Technical Requirements Manual Table 6.7.3-1, the temperature limit for the ESF switchgear rooms is 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 6.7.3 C states, One or more areas exceeding the temperature limits shown in Table 6.7.3-1 > 30F. Note: The 30F allowance is for equipment in the room. This does not include the diesel generators. Required action is to immediately provide a record of the amount and the cumulative time the temperature in the affected area exceeded its limit and an analysis to demonstrate the operability of the affected equipment. Declare the equipment within the affected area inoperable within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.

When the inspector questioned the source of the 30 degrees Fahrenheit allowance, the licensee was unable to provide or reference any documentation to support this higher temperature allowance.

The inspectors review of Calculation MC-QIP41-97020, Revision 11, identified that it failed to translate the design basis requirements of switchgear room cooling because it used a nonconservative temperature limit obtained from the Technical Requirements Manual LCO 6.7.3 C utilizing a 30 degree increase that could not be justified by any documentation the licensee referenced. Specifically, the 135 degree Fahrenheit limit used in the calculation exceeded the design temperature limit specified in the design documents by 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Consequently, the inspector determined that the licensees calculated minimum service water flow was inadequate because they failed to analyze the ability of switchgear cooling to maintain room temperature below design limits during all design scenarios. The licensee entered this issue into the corrective action program as CR-GGN-2016-07597 and initiated actions to analyze the ability of vital switchgear room cooling to meet its specified safety function.

Analysis.

The failure to translate applicable design basis into specifications in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, design control for vital switchgear cooling was a performance deficiency. This performance deficiency was more than minor, and therefore a finding, because it was associated with the design control attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone, and it adversely affected the cornerstone objective to ensure availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, the licensee did not assure that the vital switchgear ventilation system was capable of maintaining the rooms temperature below design requirements under all conditions. The inspector performed an initial screening of the finding in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Appendix A, The Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power.

Using IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, dated July 1, 2012, this finding had very low safety significance (Green) because it:

(1) was not a deficiency affecting the design or qualification of a mitigating system;

(2) did not represent a loss of system and/or function;

(3) did not represent an actual loss of function of a single train for greater than its technical specification allowed outage time; and

(4) did not represent an actual loss of function of one or more nontechnical specification trains of equipment designated as high safety-significant in accordance with the licensees maintenance rule program for greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the documentation aspect of the human performance cross-cutting area because the licensee failed to maintain complete, accurate, and up to date documentation of the design temperature limits for safety-related equipment.

Specifically, the licensee failed to document and evaluate a change to temperature limits related to switchgear cooling to ensure that its use as a design parameter was consistent with original design specifications of the equipment [H.7].

Enforcement.

Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis, as defined in §50.2 and as specified in the license application, for those structures, systems, and components to which this appendix applies are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. Contrary to the above, from June 2016 until present, measures established by the licensee did not assure that applicable regulatory requirements and design bases were correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions.

Specifically, measures established by the licensee did not assure that the vital switchgear ventilation system was capable of maintaining the rooms temperature below design requirements under all conditions. This issue does not represent an immediate safety concern because the current service water flow rates measured during the most recent surveillances were sufficient to maintain room temperatures. Because this violation was of very low safety significance and was entered into the licensees corrective action program as Condition Report CR-GGN-2016-07597, it is being treated as a non-cited violation consistent with Section 2.3.2.a of the NRCs Enforcement Policy.

(NCV 05000416/2016004-01, Failure to Incorporate Design Requirements for Switchgear Room Cooling)

1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed eight post-maintenance testing activities that affected risk-significant structures, systems, or components (SSCs):

• October 10, 2016, residual heat removal system room cooler, train B, following pressure relief valve replacement

• October 22, 2016, standby service water pump, train C, following repair of the basin underwater supports

• November 22, 2016, standby service water pump, train C, following repair of the boot seal

• November 28, 2016, diesel fuel oil storage tank transfer pump, Division 3, following replacement of the pump

• December 20, 2016, emergency diesel generator, Division 3, following modification of the engine crankcase pressure relay trip input

• December 20, 2016, emergency diesel generator, Division 3, following maintenance on the Division 3 emergency diesel generator breaker, 152-1701, to the 17AC bus

• December 22, 2016, standby service water to jacket water heat exchanger, Division 2, following draining of the system and pressure relief valve replacement

• December 27, 2016, hydraulic control unit, 36-25 JF, following pencil strainer replacement The inspectors reviewed licensing- and design-basis documents for the SSCs and the maintenance and post-maintenance test procedures. The inspectors observed the performance of the post-maintenance tests to verify that the licensee performed the tests in accordance with approved procedures, satisfied the established acceptance criteria, and restored the operability of the affected SSCs.

These activities constituted completion of eight post-maintenance testing inspection samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.19.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R20 Refueling and Other Outage Activities

a. Inspection Scope

During the stations forced outage, which began on September 8, 2016, the inspectors evaluated the licensees outage activities. The inspectors verified that the licensee considered risk in developing and implementing the outage plan, appropriately managed personnel fatigue, and developed mitigation strategies for losses of key safety functions.

This verification included the following:

• Review of the licensees outage plan prior to the outage

• Review and verification of the licensees fatigue management activities

• Monitoring of shut-down and cool-down activities

• Verification that the licensee maintained defense-in-depth during outage activities

• Review of high intensity training for operations crews

• Review of operations with potential to drain the vessel These activities constituted completion of one partial outage activity sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.20.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1R22 Surveillance Testing

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors observed three risk-significant surveillance tests and reviewed test results to verify that these tests adequately demonstrated that the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) were capable of performing their safety functions:

Reactor coolant system leak detection tests:

• December 13, 2016, reactor coolant system leak detection surveillance test Other surveillance tests:

• October 25, 2016, DC battery, Divisions 1 and 3, weekly surveillance test

• November 2, 2016, reactor coolant system chemistry surveillance The inspectors verified that these tests met technical specification requirements, that the licensee performed the tests in accordance with their procedures, and that the results of the test satisfied appropriate acceptance criteria.

These activities constituted completion of three surveillance testing inspection samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.22.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

1EP6 Drill Evaluation

Training Evolution Observation

a. Inspection Scope

On October 5, 2016, the inspectors observed a simulator-based emergency drill that included implementation of the licensees emergency plan. The inspectors verified that the licensees emergency classifications, off-site notifications, and protective action recommendations were appropriate and timely. The inspectors verified that any emergency preparedness weaknesses were appropriately identified by the evaluators and entered into the corrective action program for resolution.

These activities constituted completion of one training observation sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71114.06.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

RADIATION SAFETY

Cornerstones: Public Radiation Safety and Occupational Radiation Safety

2RS2 Occupational ALARA Planning and Controls

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors assessed licensee performance with respect to maintaining individual and collective radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). The inspectors performed this portion of the attachment as a post-outage review. During the inspection the inspectors interviewed licensee personnel, reviewed licensee documents, and evaluated licensee performance in the following areas:

• Radiological work planning, including work activities of exposure significance, radiological work planning ALARA evaluations, initial and revised exposure estimates, and exposure mitigation requirements. The inspectors also verified that the licensees planning identified appropriate dose reduction techniques, reviewed any inconsistencies between intended and actual work activity doses, and determined if post-job (work activity) reviews were conducted to identify lessons learned.

• Verification of dose estimates and exposure tracking systems, including the basis for exposure estimates and measures to track, trend, and if necessary to reduce occupational doses for ongoing work activities. The inspectors evaluated the licensees method for adjusting exposure estimates and reviewed the licensees evaluations of inconsistent or incongruent results from the licensees intended radiological outcomes.

• Problem identification and resolution for ALARA planning. The inspectors reviewed audits, self-assessments, and corrective action program documents to verify problems were being identified and properly addressed for resolution.

These activities constituted completion of three of the five required samples of the occupational ALARA planning and controls program, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71124.02, and completes the inspection.

b. Findings

Introduction.

The inspectors identified a Green, non-cited violation of 10 CFR 20.1101(b)for the licensees failure to implement radiation exposure reduction procedures and engineering controls necessary to minimize unplanned and unintended radiation dose to workers and to maintain occupational doses as low as is reasonably achievable. During Refueling Outage 20 (RF 20), several work activities exceeded their initial dose estimates. There were minimal or no actions taken to evaluate the basis for the dose overrides and to develop mitigating strategies to reduce workers exposures.

Description.

During the inspectors review of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS)post-outage (RF 20) ALARA performance, the inspectors identified several examples of work activities in which the licensee failed to follow procedural requirements and standards necessary to ensure that personnel doses were maintained consistent with their planned, intended doses. A number of these work activities lacked the use of suitable engineering controls necessary to maintain radiation exposures ALARA. The use of these engineering controls would have directly contributed to maintaining workers occupational doses ALARA and within the bounds of the planned and intended exposures.

During discussions with the licensee, staff stated that the major issue throughout RF 20 was elevated dose rates due to the higher concentration of cobalt-60 (Co-60) during the expanded crud burst. The inspectors noted the higher concentrations of Co-60 and the associated increased dose rates in the reactor cavity area. However, the inspectors determined the resultant increases in collective radiation exposures for work activities in the reactor cavity area were primarily due to inadequate planning, administration, and execution of radiological engineering controls associated with reactor cavity cleanup and spent fuel pool cleanup (SFPCU) operations. The licensee also identified that resource issues, such as limited staff availability, poor decontamination efforts due to unfunded equipment, and an overwhelmed outage staff, likely contributed to increased worker dose. The licensee also concluded that the extensive use of new-to-nuclear workers, without appropriate compensatory actions (e.g. enhanced worker training or mock-ups),likely contributed to their unplanned dose and weakness of documentation.

The inspectors reviewed Procedure EN-CY-112, BWR Shutdown and Startup Chemistry, Revision 2, and the GGNS Chemistry Management Plan, which were used to control reactor vessel and cavity Co-60 radioactivity. The inspectors determined that the licensees dose reduction strategy during reactor cavity operations required that reactor water cleanup and SFPCU remained operable to maintain Co-60 radioactivity levels low and occupational radiation exposures ALARA. Specifically, Procedure EN-CY-112, Section 5.2.[9], required, in part, that:

• Fuel pool cooling filter/demineralizer system operate at maximum capacity after flood-up and during fuel off-load.

• Removal efficiency of the filter/demineralizer for Co-60 be monitored during shutdown operation through fuel off-loads or fuel shuffles.

However, during two periods of reactor cavity operations (between February and March 9, 2016), SFPCU filter/demineralizer, train B, was inoperable for at least 16 days.

The SFPCU filter/demineralizer, train A, was operable but with degraded conditions for controlling Co-60 effectively. The licensee stated the station could not regenerate the train A SFPCU filter/demineralizer due to resource restraints. By March 9, 2016, (19 days into the refueling outage), the Co-60 concentration in the reactor cavity and spent fuel pool area had peaked, with general area radiation levels on the reactor cavity floor increasing from 0.5 millirem/hour to 6.0 millirem/hour. The misadministration of radiological engineering controls directly contributed to the increased collective radiation exposures at the station during the refueling outage.

The inspectors found that as early as calendar year 2010, the GGNS operating experience and corrective action programs had documented the effects of Co-60 activity in the reactor cavity and unplanned SFPCU outages. The licensee knew from past experience that workers being unaware of these circumstances on the refueling floor had resulted in unplanned and unintended doses.

Section 5 of Procedure EN-CY-112 and Section 3.4.1 of the GGNS Chemistry Management Plan also have a post-reactor-cavity-filled quality hold point to maintain Co-60 activity less than 5.0 E-4 mircrocuries/milliliter (uCi/ml). Data reviewed by the inspectors showed that from February 20, 2016, through March 15, 2016, the Co-60 activity in the reactor cavity ranged from 5.0 E-4 uCi/ml to 90 E-4 uCi/ml, exceeding the hold point threshold. Procedure EN-CY-112 states, in part, that the limits (hold point)can be changed on a case-by-case basis with a detailed ALARA assessment and the approval of the site chemistry manager, radiation protection manager, and executive approval (site or senior vice-president). The procedure further requires that the ALARA assessment documents the justification for changing the hold point, addressing outage length impact for present and proposed limits, expected dose consequences for present and proposed limits, re-sequencing work activities as an alternative, and action to be taken to mitigate the effects of the proposed limits. Section 3.0 of the GGNS Chemistry Management Plan states that an ALARA Management Committee (AMC) meeting, or equivalent, shall be convened to challenge when Co-60 values are approached, before continuing with outage activities.

The inspectors reviewed AMC meeting records for RF 20. There were no specific entries or actionable items in the records identified as addressing managements concern and their oversight of Co-60 activity in the reactor cavity increasing collective radiation doses on the refueling deck, especially during periods when the SFPCU (demineralizers) were out of service. When the inspectors inquired about the apparent lack of mitigating actions by station management in the AMC meeting minutes, licensee staff stated that they had equivalent discussions during RF 20 shift turnover meetings.

However, these equivalent AMC meeting discussions and/or ALARA assessments were not documented by the licensee, as required by Procedure EN-CY-112. More importantly, the inspectors could not identify any actionable items taken by the station to reduce or manage workers radiological exposures as an outcome of these equivalent meetings. Thus, the inspectors identified no evidence that the licensee evaluated the consequences of the degraded engineering controls or obtained approval for changing the Co-60 activity hold point to allow outage activities to continue.

The inspectors also reviewed licensee Procedure EN-RP-110, ALARA Program, Revision 13. Procedure EN-RP-110, Section 4.0[6], defines the responsibilities of the AMC to be:

• Evaluate and approve revisions when the radiation work permit (RWP) dose estimate, after revision, is equal to or greater than 1 person-rem AND is 25 percent over the initial dose estimate;

• The revised exposure estimate must clearly identify any unexpected changes in scope or any failures to control the work that resulted in dose greater than planned;

• The RWPs shall be removed from service until the AMC approves a revised exposure estimate that clearly identifies and documents unexpected changes in scope or corrective actions related to any failures to control the work.

As defined by the procedure, the AMC is tasked with conducting an ALARA assessment of the cause(s) of the dose being greater than planned, establishing corrective actions to address the identified causes and/or mitigate the causes, and ensuring execution of the corrective actions when work on the RWP is resumed. The inspectors noted that stop work requirements, in the form of removing the RWP from service, were to be implemented during performance of this ALARA assessment. The inspectors found no evidence of these actions occurring. However, the licensee suggested that there was a reluctance by management to stop work during critical path activities.

The inspectors reviewed five RWPs exceeding 5 rem collective dose that accrued significantly more dose than their initial dose estimate. The accrued dose on three of the five RWPs nearly exceeded 50 percent of the dose estimates (RWP 2016-1400, RWP 2016-1508, and RWP 2016-1512). Two RWPs accrued dose that exceeded 50 percent of the dose estimates. In each case, the licensee failed to effectively use the AMC as required by Procedure EN-RP-110 to ensure doses were being appropriately controlled. Work activities in which workers received unplanned dose exceeding 50 percent of the initial collective dose estimate included:

• RWP 2016-1402, Refuel Floor High Water Activities. The collective dose and hours for refuel floor work activities was 13.17 person-rem. In contrast, the planned estimate was 7.970 person-rem. The post-ALARA review package indicated there were five changes to the RWP dose estimate. However, when revising the exposure estimate, the licensee did not clearly document any unexpected changes in work scope or any failures to control the work that resulted in dose greater than planned. In addition, the licensee did not evaluate strategies and implement effective radiation exposure controls in RWP 2016-1402 to address the effects of Co-60 in the reactor cavity.

Additionally, corrective actions related to any failures to control the work were not identified.

• RWP 2016-1403, Reactor Vessel Disassembly and Re-Assembly. The collective dose for reactor vessel activities was 20.247 person-rem. In contrast, the planned estimate was 10.700 person-rem. The inspectors could not determine if all procedurally required AMC meetings were held, as only one AMC meeting was documented. The weakness was documented in the post-job ALARA review package for RWP 2016-1403, which stated, Inadequate ALARA plans at times and in-progress reviews did not consistently capture poor dose performance. The post-job review further stated that, Three in-progress reviews were performed, but no radiological concerns were noted. These statements validated the inspectors observation that the licensee did not consistently evaluate and approve revisions to dose estimates and did not clearly identify changes in scope or any failures to control the work which resulted in dose greater than planned. Additionally, there was no indication that RWP 2016-1403 was removed from service until the AMC clearly identified unexpected changes in work scope or failures to control the work, evaluated and, as appropriate, implemented radiation exposure reduction strategies, and approved a revised exposure.

The inspectors concluded that the licensee missed several opportunities during RF 20 to conduct ALARA assessments, understand the basis for unexpected changes in work scope and changed radiological conditions, approve revised exposure estimates, and assess and implement appropriate exposure mitigation actions. The failure of the licensee to ensure effective ALARA assessments were performed, as required by procedures, contributed to the unplanned and unintended collective dose. Because the licensee failed to develop plans to control Co-60 activity or implement mitigating strategies to address the elevated dose rates, collective dose was significantly greater (near 50 percent for three RWPs, greater than 50 percent for two RWPs) than the dose estimate for several work activities.

The licensee initiated Condition Report CR-GGN-2016-08543 to address issues with AMC performance. The licensee also initiated CR-GGN-2016-03151 to address issues such as limited staff availability, use of new-to-nuclear workers, and inadequate water management resource planning. The licensees immediate corrective actions included generating these condition reports and documenting lessons learned to prevent these issues from reoccurring during future work activities.

Analysis.

The failure to implement procedures and engineering controls to minimize unplanned and unintended radiation dose and to maintain occupational doses ALARA is a performance deficiency. The performance deficiency was more than minor, and therefore a finding, because it was associated with the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone attribute of program and process (ALARA planning) and adversely affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the adequate protection of the worker health and safety from exposure to radiation from radioactive material during routine civilian nuclear reactor operation. Specifically, inadequate ALARA planning and radiological controls resulted in unplanned, unintended dose for a number of work activities in which the actual collective dose exceeded 5 person-rem and exceeded the planned, intended dose by more than 50 percent. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix C, Occupational Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process, the inspectors determined this finding to be of very low safety significance (Green) because the finding involved ALARA planning and controls and because the licensees latest rolling 3-year rolling average did not exceed 240 person rem per unit for boiling water reactors. The finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution, associated with operating experience, in that, the licensees organization failed to systematically and effectively collect, evaluate, and implement relevant internal and external operating experience in a timely manner. Specifically, the licensee failed to implement and incorporate relevant internal operating experience from Refueling Outage 18, which was of similar radiological circumstances, to mitigate the effects of Co-60 activity in the reactor cavity and unplanned SFPCU outages [P.5].

Enforcement.

Title 10 CFR 20.1101(b) states, in part, that the licensee shall use, to the extent practical, procedures and engineering controls based upon sound radiation protection principles to achieve occupational doses that are ALARA. Contrary to the above, from February 19, 2016, through March 23, 2016, the licensee failed to use, to the extent practical, procedures and engineering controls based upon sound radiation protection principles to achieve occupational doses that are ALARA. Specifically, the licensee routinely failed to implement procedural requirements and engineering controls intended to ensure exposures were maintained ALARA, including maintaining SFPCU operable, observing radiological hold points, assessing unexpected changes in scope and failures to radiologically control work, and implementing mitigating strategies prior to approving dose estimate revisions. The licensees immediate corrective actions included generating two condition reports and documenting lessons learned to prevent these issues from reoccurring during future work activities. Because this violation is of very low safety significance (Green) and the licensee has entered the issue into their corrective action program, this violation is being treated as a non-cited violation, consistent with Section 2.3.2.a of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

(NCV 05000416/2016004-02, Failure to Use Procedures and Engineering Controls to Maintain Occupational Doses ALARA)

2RS4 Occupational Dose Assessment

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors evaluated the accuracy and operability of the licensees personnel monitoring equipment, verified the accuracy and effectiveness of the licensees methods for determining total effective dose equivalent, and verified that the licensee was appropriately monitoring occupational dose. The inspectors interviewed licensee personnel, walked down various portions of the plant, and reviewed licensee performance in the following areas:

• Source term characterization, including characterization of radiation types and energies, hard-to-detect isotopes, and scaling factors;

• External dosimetry including National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accreditation, storage, issue, use, and processing of active and passive dosimeters;

• Internal dosimetry, including the licensees use of whole body counting, use of in vitro bioassay methods, dose assessments based on airborne monitoring, and the adequacy of internal dose assessments;

• Special dosimetric situations, including declared pregnant workers, dosimeter placement and assessment of effective dose equivalent for external exposures (EDEX), shallow dose equivalent, and neutron dose assessment;

• Problem identification and resolution for occupational dose assessment. The inspectors reviewed audits, self-assessments, and corrective action program documents to verify problems were being identified and properly addressed for resolution.

These activities constituted completion of the five required samples of the occupational dose assessment program, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71124.04.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity, Emergency Preparedness, Public Radiation Safety, Occupational Radiation Safety, and Security

4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification

.1 Reactor Coolant System Specific Activity (BI01)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the licensees reactor coolant system chemistry sample analyses for the period of October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, to verify the accuracy and completeness of the reported data. The inspectors observed a chemistry technician obtain and analyze a reactor coolant system sample on November 2, 2016.

The inspectors used definitions and guidance contained in Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported data.

These activities constituted verification of the reactor coolant system specific activity performance indicator, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Reactor Coolant System Total Leakage (BI02)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the licensees records of reactor coolant system total leakage for the period of October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, to verify the accuracy and completeness of the reported data. The inspectors observed the performance of the reactor coolant leak detection surveillance procedure on December 13, 2016. The inspectors used definitions and guidance contained in Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported data.

These activities constituted verification of the reactor coolant system leakage performance indicator, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.3 Drill/Exercise Performance (EP01)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspector reviewed the licensees evaluated exercises and selected drill and training evolutions that occurred between August 2015 and September 2016 to verify the accuracy of the licensees data for classification, notification, and protective action recommendation (PAR) opportunities. The inspector reviewed a sample of the licensees completed classifications, notifications, and PARs to verify their timeliness and accuracy. The inspector used Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported data. The specific documents reviewed are described in the attachment to this report.

These activities constituted verification of the drill/exercise performance indicator, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.4 Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation (EP02)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspector reviewed the licensees records for participation in drill and training evolutions between August 2015 and September 2016 to verify the accuracy of the licensees data for drill participation opportunities. The inspector verified that all members of the licensees emergency response organization (ERO) in the identified key positions had been counted in the reported performance indicator data. The inspector reviewed the licensees basis for reporting the percentage of ERO members who participated in a drill. The inspector reviewed drill attendance records and verified a sample of those reported as participating. The inspector used Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported data. The specific documents reviewed are described in the attachment to this report.

These activities constituted verification of the emergency response organization drill participation performance indicator, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.5 Alert and Notification System Reliability (EP03)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspector reviewed the licensees records of alert and notification system tests conducted between August 2015 and September 2016 to verify the accuracy of the licensees data for siren system testing opportunities. The inspector reviewed procedural guidance on assessing alert and notification system opportunities and the results of periodic alert and notification system operability tests. The inspector used Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported data. The specific documents reviewed are described in the attachment to this report.

These activities constituted verification of the alert and notification system reliability performance indicator, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

4OA2 Problem Identification and Resolution

.1 Routine Review

a. Inspection Scope

Throughout the inspection period, the inspectors performed daily reviews of items entered into the licensees corrective action program and periodically attended the licensees condition report screening meetings. The inspectors verified that licensee personnel were identifying problems at an appropriate threshold and entering these problems into the corrective action program for resolution. The inspectors verified that the licensee developed and implemented corrective actions commensurate with the significance of the problems identified. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees problem identification and resolution activities during the performance of the other inspection activities documented in this report.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Semiannual Trend Review

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the licensees corrective action program, performance indicators, plan of the day documentation, and other documentation to identify trends that might indicate the existence of a more significant safety issue. The inspectors also attended control room shift turnovers/briefings and outage control center shift briefings.

The inspectors identified a weakness in the consistency and accuracy of the communications and coordination between the control room, the outage control center and the plan of the day packages. The inspectors verified that the licensee has entered this identified weakness into their corrective action program as Condition Report CR-GGN-1-2016-09760 and are initiating corrective actions to address identified adverse trends.

These activities constituted completion of one semiannual trend review sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71152.

b. Observations and Assessments The inspectors identified a weakness in the consistency and accuracy of the communications and coordination between the control room, the outage control center and the plan of the day packages. The communication and coordination weakness resulted in ineffectively communicating station priorities and risk to work crews and other stakeholders. This had revealed a weakness in creating and maintaining an accurate work schedule. The licensee had also identified gaps in communication in many condition reports. Additional examples have been identified by the NRC resident inspectors and are listed below:

• On December 13 and December 20, 2016, two activities that elevated risk were performed onsite and not communicated to the site appropriately. The control room and outage control center briefings incorporated discussion of this risk; however, the plan of the day package that communicates the risk to the entire site did not include these activities.

• On December 14, 2016, the plan of the day package and the outage control center had a surveillance scheduled that the control room did not want to perform. The control room supervisor told the outage control center that they did not want this surveillance to occur because the control room operators were involved in preparing for the in-service leakage test and control rod scram time testing. While the NRC resident inspectors were in the control room, an unexpected control room annunciator came in, which caused the control room to respond. It was identified quickly by the operators that this alarm was not an actual plant condition. The alarm was identified to be a part of the surveillance that was not supposed to be completed. The outage control center did not communicate to the instrumentation and controls personnel that this surveillance was delayed, and the crew performed the surveillance as scheduled.

• On December 19, 2016, the outage control center manager briefed the NRC resident inspectors that the hydraulic control unit pencil strainers would be replaced during that shift. However, when the resident inspectors discussed this activity later with the control room, they stated that the pencil strainers were replaced the day before. The outage control center was not in alignment with the control room and plant activities.

c. Findings

No findings were identified.

4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit

Exit Meeting Summary

On November 21, 2016, the inspectors presented the radiation safety inspection results to Mr. M. Giacini, General Manager, Plant Operations, and other members of the licensee staff.

The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The licensee confirmed that any proprietary information reviewed by the inspectors had been returned or destroyed.

On December 13, 2016, the inspector presented the results of the onsite inspection of the licensees emergency preparedness performance indicator performance to Mr. V. Fallacara, Acting Site Vice President, and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The licensee confirmed that any proprietary information reviewed by the inspectors had been returned or destroyed.

On January 13, 2017, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. V. Fallacara, Acting Site Vice President, and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The licensee confirmed that any proprietary information reviewed by the inspectors had been returned or destroyed.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee Personnel

P. Belsterling, Reactor Fuels Engineer

R. Benson, Superintendent, Radiation Protection

A. Black, General Manager

K. Boudreaux, Manager, System Engineering

K. Brinson, Superintendent, Maintenance Services and Projects

O. Brooks, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator

D. Brown, Manager, System Engineering

G. Burton, Principal Health Physicist, Radiation Protection

S. Clizbe, Manager, Emergency Preparedness

T. Coles, Engineer, Regulatory Assurance

S. Cooper, Plant Fire Marshal

M. Davis, Manager, Chemistry/Radiation Safety

J. Dorsey, Manager, Security

R. Eichenberger, Manager, Operating Experience/Fleet Corrective Action

V. Fallacara, Acting Site Vice President

M. Giacini, General Manager Plant Operations

D. Gregoire, Manager, Regulatory Affairs and Performance Improvement

J. Hallenback, Manager, Design Engineering

G. Hettel, Vice President, Operations

R. Hicks, Dosimetry Technician, Radiation Protection

G. Higgs, Manager, Maintenance

M. Hummer, Licensing Engineer

A. Javorik, Vice President, Engineering

J. Keir, Manager, Nuclear Independent Oversight

M. Kellett, Assistant to the Vice President, Operations

M. Kinmark, Health Physics Staff Advisor, Radiation Protection

D. Kovacs, Chief Information Officer

E. Kuhn, Auditor, Quality

M. Larson, Supervisor, Radiation Protection

M. Laudisio, Manager, Radiation Protection

K. McGee, Engineer, Reactor Engineering

R. Meister, Senior Specialist, Regulatory Assurance

R. Miller, Manager, Radiation Protection

C. Moon, Manager, Quality

C. Moore, ISFSI Supervisor

Y. Moore, Dosimetry Specialist, Radiation Protection

J. Nadeau, Manager, Regulatory Assurance

T. Parmalee, Compliance Engineer, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

B. Pease, Manager, Emergency Services

G. Pierce, Manager, Training

R. Prewett, Operations Manager

S. Purdon, Superintendent, Training

G. Rheaume, System Engineering Supervisor, NSSS

T. Roark, Senior Project Manager, Reactor Services

F. Rosser, Specialist, Radiation Protection

P. Salgado, Manager, Performance Improvement

R. Sanker, Supervisor, Radiation Protection

B. Schuetz, Plant General Manager

J. Seiter, Manager, Emergency Planning

D. Stevens, Assistant Manager, Operations

D. Suarez, Regulatory Compliance Engineer

S. Sweet, Engineer, Regulatory Assurance

K. Sykes, Program Manager, Cyber Security Program

K. Van Speybroek, EFIN Supervisor

L. Williams, Licensing Supervisor

D. Wolfgramm, Compliance Supervisor, Regulatory Affairs

E.G. Wright, Supervisor, Radiation Protection

G. Wyatt, Supervisor, Simulator and Examination Group

J. Zielinski, Cable Condition Monitoring Program Manager

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened and Closed

Failure to Incorporate Design Requirements for Switchgear

05000416/2016004-01 NCV Room Cooling (Section 1R15)

Failure to Use Procedures and Engineering Controls to Maintain

05000416/2016004-02 NCV Occupational Doses ALARA (Section 2RS2)