ML15341A099
| ML15341A099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/2015 |
| From: | Hironori Peterson Operations Branch III |
| To: | Harkness E FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| IR 2015010 | |
| Download: ML15341A099 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000440/2015010
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
2443 WARRENVILLE RD. SUITE 210
LISLE, IL 60532-4352
December 4, 2015
Mr. Ernest Harkness
Site Vice President
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
Perry Nuclear Power Plant
P. O. Box 97, 10 Center Road, A-PY-A290
Perry, OH 44081-0097
SUBJECT: PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INSPECTION REPORT 05000440/2015010
Dear Mr. Harkness:
On November 23, 2015 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a baseline
inspection at your Perry Nuclear Power Plant. On November 30, 2015, the NRC inspectors
discussed this inspection with you and members of your staff. The inspectors documented the
results of this inspection in the enclosed inspection report.
The NRC inspectors documented one finding of very low safety significance (Green) in this
report. The findings involved violations of NRC requirements. The NRC evaluated this
violation in accordance Section 2.3.2.a of the NRC Enforcement Policy, which appears on
the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html.
We determined that this violation did not meet the criteria to be treated as a Non-Cited Violation
because this issue was not documented in your Corrective Action Program. In addition, during
discussion with personnel at your site, it was communicated that your staff believed that no
violation of your technical specification had taken place.
You are required to respond to this letter within 30 days of the date of this letter, and should
follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In
your response the NRC requests that you address the reason why this violation occurred, the
corrective actions taken and planned to address recurrence, and the date when full compliance
will be or was achieved for this violation. If you have additional information that you believe the
NRC should consider, you may provide it in your response to the Notice. The NRCs review of
your response to the Notice will also determine whether further enforcement action is necessary
to ensure your compliance with regulatory requirements.
If you contest the subject or severity of the violation, 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 III; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the NRC Resident
Inspector at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
E. Harkness -2-
In addition, if you disagree with the cross-cutting aspect assigned to any finding 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 Regional Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident
Inspector at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390, Public
Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding, 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 NRCs Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)
component of the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
(the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Hironori Peterson, Chief
Health Physics and Incident Response Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No. 50-440
License No. NPF-58
Enclosure:
1. Notice of Violation
2. Inspection Report 05000440/2015010
w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
cc: Distribution via LISTSERV
Notice of Violation
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Docket No. 50-440
Perry Nuclear Power Plant License No. NPF-58
During an NRC inspection conducted from August 27, 2015, to November 23, 2015, a violation
of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the
violation is listed below:
Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.1 states: Each member of the Unit staff shall meet or
exceed the minimum qualifications of ANSI N18.1-1971 for comparable positions as
modified by TS 5.2.2.f, except for the Radiation Protection Manager (RPM), who shall
meet or exceed the qualifications of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8, September 1975, and
the licensed Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators, who shall comply with
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. RG 1.8, September 1975 requires at least 5 years
of professional experience in applied radiation protection with at least 3 years of this
professional experience in applied radiation protection work in a nuclear facility dealing
with radiological problems similar to those encountered in nuclear power stations,
preferably in an actual nuclear power station.
Contrary to the above, since April 28, 2015, an individual was designated and performed
the duties of the RPM failed to meet the professional experience as required by the
TS 5.3.1 as specified in RG 1.8.
This violation is associated with a (Green) Significant Determination Process finding.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company is
hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001 with a copy to the
Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation
(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a Reply to a Notice of Violation;
VIO 05000440/2015010-01 and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the
violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective
steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken,
and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or
include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the
required response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice,
an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be
modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be
taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with
the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Enclosure 1
Notice of Violation -2-
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC
Public Document Room or from the NRCs ADAMS, accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, to the extent possible, it should not include any
personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the
public without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide
an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies
the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes
such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the
portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your
claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support
a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards
information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of
protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working
days of receipt.
Dated this 4th day of December, 2015.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Docket No: 50-440
License No: NPF-58
Report No: 05000440/2015010
Licensee: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
Facility: Perry Nuclear Power Plant
Location: North Perry, Ohio
Dates: August 27 through November 23, 2015
Inspectors: T. Go, Health Physicist
J. Cassidy, Senior Health Physicist
Approved by: H. Peterson, Chief
Health Physics and Incident Response Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure 2
SUMMARY
Inspection Report 05000440/2015010, 08/27/2015-11/23/2015, Perry Nuclear Power Plant;
Routine Baseline Inspection.
This report covers an inspection by a regional Health Physics inspector. One findings was
identified by the inspectors that was considered a Green cited violation of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. The significance of inspection findings is indicated
by their color (i.e., greater than Green, or Green, White, Yellow, Red), and determined using
Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Significance Determination Process, dated
April 29, 2015. Cross-cutting aspects are determined using IMC 0310, Aspects Within the
Cross-Cutting Areas, dated December 4, 2014. All violations of NRC requirements are
dispositioned in accordance with the NRCs Enforcement Policy, dated February 4, 2015.
The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors
is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 5.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealed Violations
Cornerstone: Occupational Radiation and Public Radiation Safety
- Green. The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance, and an
associated violation of Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.1 when an unqualified individual
was designated and performed the duties of the Radiation Protection Manager since
early 2015. Specifically, the individual did not have the required experience and
background necessary to provide sound judgement for safe and successful operation
of the plant. This designation occurred after an April 29, 2015 report documented an
internal review by the licensees Fleet Oversight group that concluded that the candidate
did not meet qualifications of TS 5.3.1. The NRC determined that this violation did not
meet the criteria to be treated as a Non-Cited Violation because this issue was not
documented in the licensees Corrective Action Program. In addition, the licensees staff
communicated to the inspector that no violation of TS had taken place.
The inspectors determined that the performance deficiency was more than minor in
accordance with IMC 0612 because it was associated with the human performance
attribute of the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone, and adversely affected the
cornerstone objective of ensuring adequate protection of worker health and safety from
exposure to radiation, in that the lack of experience and background necessary to
provide sound judgement for the Radiation Protection Program affects the licensees
ability to control and limit radiation exposures. The finding was determined to be of
very low safety significance (Green) in accordance with IMC 0609, Appendix C,
Occupational Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process, because it was not
an as-low-as-reasonably-achievable planning issue, there was neither an overexposure
nor a substantial potential for an overexposure, and the licensees ability to assess dose
was not compromised. The inspectors concluded that the cause of the issue involved a
cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance, change management, because
the licensee did not use a systematic process for evaluating and implementing change
so that nuclear safety remains the overriding priority. (Section 4OA2) (H.3)
2
REPORT DETAILS
4. OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems (71152)
Cornerstones: Occupational Radiation Safety and Public Radiation Safety
.1 Selected Issue Follow-Up Inspection: Qualification Review for Recently Designated
Radiation Protection Manager
a. Inspection Scope
During the conduct of routine baseline inspections, the inspectors reviewed the
qualifications of a recently designated Radiation Protection Manager (RPM). As this
individual was new to the position at the station and within the industry, the inspectors
performed a detailed review of the individuals education and experience to assess
compliance with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements.
This review constituted one in-depth problem identification and resolution sample as
defined in Inspection Procedure 71152-05.
b. Finding
Introduction: The inspectors identified a finding and violation of NRC requirements when
an unqualified individual was designated and performed the duties of the
Radiation Protection Manager since early 2015. This designation occurred after an
April 29, 2015, report documented an internal review by the licensees Fleet Oversight
group that concluded that the candidate did not meet qualifications of Technical
Specification (TS) 5.3.1 and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8, dated September 1975.
Description: The inspectors determined that the individual designated and performed
the duties of the Radiation Protection Manager since April 2015 did not meet
qualifications of TS 5.3.1 and RG 1.8, dated September 1975.
The TS 5.3.1 states: Each member of the Unit staff shall meet or exceed the
minimum qualifications of [American National Standards Institute] ANSI N18.1-1971
for comparable positions as modified by Specification 5.2.2.f, except for the radiation
protection manager, who shall meet or exceed the qualifications of RG 1.8,
September 1975, and the licensed Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators,
who shall comply with the requirements of [Title] 10, [Code of Federal Regulations] CFR,
[Part] 55.
The inspectors noted that ANSI 18.1-1971 included a defined standard for the
qualification for the Radiation Protection Professional. The NRC endorsed these
standards for all positions EXCEPT for Radiation Protection Supervisor or Manager.
The NRC determined that more specialized expertise beyond qualifications presented
in ANSI N18.1-1971 was needed. Regulatory Guide 1.8-September 1975 was
developed by the NRC to address these shortcomings and described the experience
and background necessary to provide sound judgement for safe and successful
operation of the plant. Some of these qualities covered in the document included:
3
- an experienced professional in applied radiation protection at nuclear facilities
dealing with radiation protection problems and programs similar to those at
nuclear power stations;
- be familiar with the design features and operations of nuclear power stations that
affect the potential for exposures of personnel to radiation; and
- have the technical competence to establish Radiation Protection Programs and
the supervisory capability to direct the work of professionals and technicians,
required to implement the radiation protection programs.
Additionally, RG 1.8-September 1975 prescribed these experiences to ensure the
qualities were present:
- a bachelor's degree or the equivalent in a science or engineering subject,
including some formal training in radiation protection;
- at least 5 years of professional experience in applied radiation protection; and
- at least 3 years of this professional experience should be in applied radiation
protection work in a nuclear facility dealing with radiological problems similar to
those encountered in nuclear power stations, preferably in an actual nuclear
power station.
The inspectors noted that the topic of professional experience for the Radiation
Protection Manager was previously addressed and documented in NUREG/CR-5569,
Health Physics Positions Data Base. Specifically, HPPOS-018 which concluded that
technician experience was not equivalent to professional experience and HPPOS-020,
which concluded that the attributes of a good RPM are considered to be gained almost
exclusively by specialized on-the-job, practical and supervisory experience rather than
through the broad generalized academic training received by a person with a bachelor's
degree. The inspectors determined that the only radiation protection experience listed
on the resume provided was attributed to radiation protection technician between 2005
and 2007.
The inspectors noted that an internal review was conducted by the licensees Fleet
Oversight group that concluded that the candidate did not meet qualifications of TS 5.3.1
and RG 1.8, dated September 1975. This report was dated April 29, 2015.
The inspectors reviewed a letter to file that acknowledged the RPM selection was made
after the Director, Site Operations considered the concerns identified by Fleet Oversight.
The letter indicated the candidate met all of the minimum qualification requirements as
required by the Quality Assurance Program Manual and ANSI N18.1-1971. The letter
stated that some concerns with the minimum time of professional experience had been
raised and identified actions to address any potential vulnerabilities with selecting an
RPM with non-traditional experience. These actions were:
- Completion of National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists
Certification Exam within 1 year.
- Consult with another individual on the staff with prior RPM experience or a Fleet
RPM and the Director Site Operations for any of the following issues:
- issues or actions requiring internal dosimetry assessment that does not
include a Certified Health Physicist;
4
- issues or actions involving Very-High Radiation Area; and
- issues or actions involving an anticipated accumulated dose greater than
1000 mrem during a single entry for an individual radiation worker.
The inspectors noted that this letter referred to qualifications listed in ANSI 18.1-1971
were not germane to NRC req uirements for the reason stated above. Additionally, the
actions prescribed in the letter to file did not restore compliance to NRC requirements.
There have been multiple communications between the NRC and First Energy Nuclear
Operating Company (FENOC) regarding the regulatory requirements of the RPM.
Specifically, on or about August 21, 2015, FENOC contacted Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation (NRR)-Project Manager for the Perry Station to request for specific examples
from NRR-Radiation Protection and Consequences Branch. The NRR Project Manager
provided FENOC with the plant name, Comanche Peak, and text from the TS that
authorized this separation of roles and responsibilities that FENOC wanted to emulate.
The licensee indicated that they were looking for background information to assess an
appropriate path and were not ready for any formal communications such as a TS
pre-application conference.
Additionally, during the week of August 28, 2015, NRC inspectors notified the Site Vice
President that the designated RPM did not satisfy the qualification requirements for the
position. The licensee did not provide any additional information regarding the
individuals qualifications and the issue was not entered into the Corrective Action
Process. Also, on or about September 18, 2015, NRC - RIII/Division of Reactor Safety
(DRS) Division Director called the Site Vice President to determine the status of the
RPM at the site. The Site Vice President was aware of the NRCs concerns regarding
the RPM qualifications for the position and questioned the enforceability of the RPM
experience standards in the TSs for the plant. The Site Vice President indicated that
Perry management put measures into place to ensure that qualified individuals are
signing off on required radiation protection issues prior to the RPMs. NRC - RIII/DRS
Division Director determined that there was no immediate risk to the health and safety of
Perry staff or the public and the discussion did not provide any new information
regarding the professional experience that should be considered as the NRC evaluated
the qualifications of the current RPM or qualification requirements for the position.
Analysis: The inspectors identified a performance deficiency in that, an unqualified
individual was designated and performed the duties of the RPM. Specifically, the
individual did not have the required experience and background to necessarily provide
sound judgement for safe and successful operation of the plant.
This activity was within the licensees ability to foresee and should have been prevented
as the concerns were initially raised by the Fleet Nuclear Oversight group before the
selection was made. The finding was not subject to traditional enforcement since the
incident did not impact the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function and was not
willful.
The inspectors reviewed the guidance in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0612,
Appendix E, Examples of Minor Issues, and did not find any similar examples. The
performance deficiency was determined to be of more than minor safety significance in
accordance with IMC 0612, Appendix B, Issue Screening, because it was associated
with the human performance attribute of the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone,
5
and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring adequate protection of
worker health and safety from exposure to radiation, in that the lack of experience and
background necessary to provide sound judgement for the Radiation Protection Program
affects the licensees ability to control and limit radiation exposures.
Since the finding involved occupational radiation safety, the inspectors utilized
IMC 0609, Appendix C, Occupational Radiation Safety Significant Determination
Process, to assess its significance. Specifically, the inspectors determined that the
finding did not involve: (1) as low as is reasonably achievable planning and controls;
(2) a radiological overexposure; (3) a substantial potential for an overexposure; and
(4) a compromised ability to assess dose. Consequently, the NRC determined that the
finding was GREEN or very low safety significance.
The finding has a cross cutting aspect in the area of human performance, change
management, because the licensee did not use a systematic process for evaluating and
implementing change so that nuclear safety remains the overriding priority. (H.3)
Enforcement: The TS 5.3.1 states: Each member of the Unit staff shall meet or exceed
the minimum qualifications of ANSI N18.1-1971 for comparable positions as modified by
TS 5.2.2.f, except for the RPM, who shall meet or exceed the qualifications of RG 1.8,
September 1975, and the licensed Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators,
who shall comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. RG 1.8, September 1975
requires at least 5 years of professional experience in applied radiation protection with at
least 3 years of this professional experience in applied radiation protection work in a
nuclear facility dealing with radiological problems similar to those encountered in nuclear
power stations, preferably in an actual nuclear power station.
Contrary to the above, on April 28, 2015, an individual was designated and performed
the duties of the RPM failed to meet the professional experience as required by TS 5.3.1
as specified in RG 1.8.
Although the failure to meet TS 5.3.1 was determined to be of very low significance, the
licensee failed to enter the issue into the Corrective Action Program, and failed to restore
compliance. Therefore, this finding is being cited as a Notice of Violation in accordance
with the NRC Enforcement Policy Section 2.3.2.a. The Notice of Violation is attached to
this inspection report.
4OA6 Management Meetings
.1 Exit Meeting Summary
- On November 30, 2015, the inspectors presented the inspection results to
Mr. E. Harkness and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee
acknowledged the issues presented. The inspectors confirmed that none of
the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary.
ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
6
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee
D. Hamilton, Director Plant Operations
E. Harkness, Site Vice President
L. Zerr, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
K. Green; Project Manager
R. Pedersen, Sr. Health Physicist
U. Shoop, Branch Chief
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED
Opened
05000440/2015010-01 NOV Unqualified Radiation Protection Manager
Closed and Discussed
None
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System
ANSI American National Standards Institute
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DRS Division of Reactor Safety
FENOC First Energy Nuclear Operating Company
IMC Inspection Manual Chapter
NCV Non-Cited Violation
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
PARS Publicly Available Records
RIII Region III
RG Regulatory Guide
RPM Radiation Protection Manager
TS Technical Specification
Attachment
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following is a partial list of documents reviewed during the inspection. Inclusion on this list
does not imply that the NRC inspector reviewed the documents in their entirety, but rather that
selected sections or portions of the documents were evaluated as part of the overall inspection
effort. Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply NRC acceptance of the document or
any part of it, unless this is stated in the body of the inspection report.
4OA2 Problem Identification and Resolution
- Perry Technical Specifications 5.3.1; Unit Staff Qualifications
- Perry Technical Specifications 5.2.1(d)
- RG 1.8; Personnel Selection and Training; Rev. 1-R; dated 09/1975
- American National Standard; ANSI N18.7-1971; Selection and Training of Nuclear Power
Plant Personnel; dated 03/08/71
- NUREG/CR-5569; Health Physics Position Data Base; Rev. 1; dated 02/1994
- Health Physics Position; HPPOS-018; Qualification of Radiation Protection Manager - RG 1.8,
Rev. 1; dated 08/05/82
- Health Physics Position; HPPOS-020; Clarification of RG 1.8 on Qualification of RPM;
dated 10/11/77
- Quality Assurance Program Manual; FENOC; Perry Nuclear Power Plant; Rev. 19;
dated 09/23/13
- FENOC Fleet Oversight FMOV 15-001; RG 1.8; dated 04/29/15
- Memo to File - Selection for Perry RPM; Date not Provided
2
E. Harkness -2-
In addition, if you disagree with the cross-cutting aspect assigned to any finding 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 Regional Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident
Inspector at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390, Public
Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding, 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 NRCs Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)
component of the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
(the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Hironori Peterson, Chief
Health Physics and Incident Response Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No. 50-440
License No. NPF-58
Enclosure:
w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
cc: Distribution via LISTSERV
DISTRIBUTION:
RidsNrrPMPerry Resource Linda Linn
RidsNrrDorlLpl3-2 Resource DRPIII
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource DRSIII
Cynthia Pederson Jim Clay
Darrell Roberts Carmen Olteanu
Richard Skokowski ROPreports.Resource@nrc.gov
ADAMS Accession Number ML15341A009
Publicly Available Non-Publicly Available Sensitive Non-Sensitive
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copy
OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII
NAME TGo:cl JCassisty per signature for HPeterson RSkokowski
DATE 12/04/15 12/04/15 12/04/15
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY