IR 05000354/2012004: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
No findings were identified. | No findings were identified. | ||
{{a|1R04}} | {{a|1R04}} | ||
==1R04 Equipment Alignment | ==1R04 Equipment Alignment | ||
===.1 Partial System Walkdowns=== | ===.1 Partial System Walkdowns=== | ||
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.04Q|count=3}} | {{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.04Q|count=3}}== | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
No findings were identified. | No findings were identified. | ||
{{a|1R05}} | {{a|1R05}} | ||
==1R05 Fire Protection | ==1R05 Fire Protection | ||
===.1 Resident Inspector Quarterly Walkdowns=== | ===.1 Resident Inspector Quarterly Walkdowns=== | ||
{{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.05Q|count=5}} | {{IP sample|IP=IP 71111.05Q|count== | ||
=5}} | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
| Line 128: | Line 129: | ||
No findings were identified. | No findings were identified. | ||
{{a|1R07}} | {{a|1R07}} | ||
==1R07 Heat Sink Performance (711111.07A - 2 samples) | ==1R07 Heat Sink Performance (711111.07A - 2 samples) | ||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
== | |||
The inspectors reviewed the B1 and B2 safety auxiliary cooling system (SACS) HXs to determine their readiness and availability to perform their safety functions. The inspectors reviewed the design basis for the components and verified PSEGs commitments to NRC Generic Letter (GL) 89-13. The inspectors reviewed the results of tests performed to validate flow through the two SACS HXs. The inspectors discussed the GL 89-13 program with PSEG engineering staff and reviewed the reports of the reported results of the as-found conditions for the most recent inspections of these two SACS HXs. The inspectors verified that PSEG initiated appropriate corrective actions for identified deficiencies. The inspectors also verified that the number of tubes plugged within the HX did not exceed the maximum amount allowed. | The inspectors reviewed the B1 and B2 safety auxiliary cooling system (SACS) HXs to determine their readiness and availability to perform their safety functions. The inspectors reviewed the design basis for the components and verified PSEGs commitments to NRC Generic Letter (GL) 89-13. The inspectors reviewed the results of tests performed to validate flow through the two SACS HXs. The inspectors discussed the GL 89-13 program with PSEG engineering staff and reviewed the reports of the reported results of the as-found conditions for the most recent inspections of these two SACS HXs. The inspectors verified that PSEG initiated appropriate corrective actions for identified deficiencies. The inspectors also verified that the number of tubes plugged within the HX did not exceed the maximum amount allowed. | ||
Revision as of 15:45, 17 November 2019
| ML12319A247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/2012 |
| From: | Darrell Roberts Reactor Projects Branch 3 |
| To: | Joyce T Public Service Enterprise Group |
| BURRITT, AL | |
| References | |
| EA-12-123 IR-12-004 | |
| Download: ML12319A247 (48) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ber 14, 2012
SUBJECT:
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION 05000354/2012004
Dear Mr. Joyce:
On September 30, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your Hope Creek Generating Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on October 11, 2012, with Mr. J. Perry, Site Vice President of Hope Creek, and other members of your staff.
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions 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.
A violation involving a failure to set secondary containment during an operation with the potential to drain the reactor vessel (OPDRV) was identified. Specifically, on October 4, 2011, Hope Creek replaced eight local power range monitor strings without setting secondary containment, which is a violation of technical specification (TS) 3/4.6.5.1. NRC issued EGM 11-003, Enforcement Guidance Memorandum on Dispositioning Boiling Water Reactor Licensee Noncompliance with Technical Specification Containment Requirements During Operations with a Potential for Draining the Reactor Vessel, on October 4, 2011, allowing for the exercise of enforcement discretion for such OPDRV-related TS violations, when certain criteria are met.
The NRC concluded that Hope Creek met these criteria. Therefore, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Regional Administrator, to exercise enforcement discretion and refrain from issuing enforcement for the violation.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs 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 the NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely, /RA/ Darrell J. Roberts, Director Division of Reactor Projects Region I Docket No.: 50-354 License No.: NPF-57
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 05000354/2012004 w/Attachment: Supplementary Information
REGION I== Docket No: 50-354 License No: NPF-57 Report No.: 05000354/2012004 Licensee: PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) Facility: Hope Creek Generating Station Location: P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Dates: July 1, 2012 through September 30, 2012 Inspectors: F. Bower, Senior Resident Inspector C. Williams, Resident Inspector R. Montgomery, Acting Resident Inspector E. H. Gray, Senior Reactor Inspector R. L. Nimitz, Senior Health Physicist J. Brand, Reactor Inspector Approved by: Arthur Burritt, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000354/2012004; 07/01/2012 - 09/30/2012; 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 regional inspectors. The NRCs 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
Summary of Plant Status
The Hope Creek Generating Station began the inspection period at or near full rated thermal power (RTP) where it generally remained until the end of the inspection period with the following exceptions: On September 8, power was reduced to approximately 16 percent RTP to support planned maintenance on the main generator voltage regulator. Additional planned and contingency corrective maintenance activities were performed and the unit was returned to full power on September 9, 2012.
On September 30, power was reduced to approximately 74 percent RTP following a trip of the A reactor feed pump and an associated reactor recirculation pump runback. The unit was at 80 percent RTP at the end of the inspection period.
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
1R01 Adverse Weather Protection
Readiness for Impending Adverse Weather Conditions
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed PSEGs preparations for the onset of a severe thunderstorm warning for Salem County, New Jersey on September 18, 2012. The inspectors reviewed the abnormal procedure, HC.OP-AB.MISC-0001, Acts of Nature, for responding to adverse weather conditions. The inspectors walked down the service water intake structure on September 18, 2012, to ensure system availability. The inspectors also verified that operator actions defined in PSEGs adverse weather procedure maintained the readiness of essential systems. Documents reviewed for each section of this inspection report are listed in the Attachment.
b. Findings
No findings were identified. ==1R04 Equipment Alignment
.1 Partial System Walkdowns
==
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed partial walkdowns of the following systems: A, B, C emergency diesel generators (EDGs) with D EDG out-of-service on July 26, 2012 A loop core spray (CS) system with B CS loop out-of-service on August 20, 2012 A loop standby liquid control (SLC) system with B SLC loop out-of-service on September 11 - 12, 2012 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 updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR),technical specifications (TSs), work orders, notifications, 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. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Full System Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
On August 2 and 6, 2012, the inspectors performed a complete system walkdown of accessible portions of the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system to verify the equipment lineup was correct. The inspectors reviewed operating procedures, surveillance tests, drawings, equipment lineup procedures, and the UFSAR to verify the system was aligned to perform its required safety functions. The inspectors also reviewed electrical power availability, component lubrication and equipment cooling, hangar and support functionality, and operability of support systems. The inspectors performed field walkdowns of accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and operable. The inspectors examined the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of equipment to verify that there were no deficiencies. The inspectors also reviewed whether PSEG staff had properly identified equipment issues and entered them into the corrective action program for resolution with the appropriate significance characterization. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed a sample of related notifications and work orders to ensure PSEG appropriately evaluated and resolved any deficiencies.
b. Findings
No findings were identified. ==1R05 Fire Protection