ML111300462

IR 05000416-11-002; on 01/21/2011 – 03/27/2011; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Integrated Resident and Regional Report; Fire Protection, Maintenance Effectiveness, Radiological Hazard Assessment and Exposure Controls, and Event Follow-Up

ML111300462
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	05/10/2011
From:	Vincent Gaddy NRC/RGN-IV/DRP/RPB-C
To:	Mike Perito Entergy Operations
References
IR-11-002
Download: ML111300462 (61)

See also: IR 05000416/2011002

Text

May 10, 2011

Mr. Mike Perito

Vice President Operations

Entergy Operations, Inc.

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station

P.O. Box 756

Port Gibson, MS 39150

Subject: GRAND GULF NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT NUMBER

05000416/2011002

Dear Mr. Perito:

On March 27, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection

at your Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. The enclosed integrated inspection report documents the

inspection findings, which were discussed on April 14, 2011, with Mike Perito, Vice President

Operations, and other members of your staff.

The inspections 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.

Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that one Severity Level IV

violation of NRC requirements occurred. The NRC has also identified five issues that were

evaluated under the risk significance determination process as having very low safety

significance (Green). The NRC has determined that four of these findings have violations

associated with these issues. Additionally, one licensee-identified violation, which was

determined to be of very low safety significance, is listed in this report. However, because of

their very low safety significance and because they were entered into your corrective action

program, the NRC is treating these findings as noncited violations, consistent with Section 2.3.2

of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

If you contest the significance of the noncited violations, 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, D.C. 20555-0001, with

copies to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV,

612 E. Lamar Blvd, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas, 76011-4125; the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001; and the

NRC Resident Inspector at the facility. 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

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400

ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125

Entergy Operations, Inc.

- 2 -

of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator,

Region IV, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its

enclosures, and your response, if you choose to provide one, will be made available

electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's

document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-

rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy

or proprietary, information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Vincent Gaddy, Chief

Project Branch C

Division of Reactor Projects

Docket: 50-416

License: NPF-29

Enclosed: NRC Inspection Report 05000416/2011002

w/Attachment: Supplemental Information

Distribution via ListServe

Entergy Operations, Inc.

- 3 -

Electronic distribution by RIV:

Regional Administrator (Elmo.Collins@nrc.gov)

Deputy Regional Administrator (Art.Howell@nrc.gov)

DRP Director (Kriss.Kennedy@nrc.gov)

DRP Deputy Director (Troy.Pruett@nrc.gov)

DRS Director (Anton.Vegel@nrc.gov)

Senior Resident Inspector (Rich.Smith@nrc.gov)

Branch Chief, DRP/C (Vincent.Gaddy@nrc.gov)

Senior Project Engineer, DRP/C (Bob.Hagar@nrc.gov)

Project Engineer, DRP/C (Rayomand.Kumana@nrc.gov)

GG Administrative Assistant (Alley.Farrell@nrc.gov)

Public Affairs Officer (Victor.Dricks@nrc.gov)

Public Affairs Officer (Lara.Uselding@nrc.gov)

Project Manager (Alan.Wang@nrc.gov)

Branch Chief, DRS/TSB (Michael.Hay@nrc.gov)

RITS Coordinator (Marisa.Herrera@nrc.gov)

Regional Counsel (Karla.Fuller@nrc.gov)

Congressional Affairs Officer (Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov)

RIV OEDO/ETA (Stephanie Bush-Goddard@nrc.gov)

OEMail Resource

ROP Reports

File located: R:\\_REACTORS\\_GG\\GG 2011002 RP-RLS-vgg.docx

SUNSI Rev Compl.

Yes No

ADAMS

Yes No

Reviewer Initials

VGG

Publicly Avail

Yes No

Sensitive

Yes No

Sens. Type Initials

VGG

SRI:DRP/PBC

SPE:DRP/PBC

C:DRS/EB1

C:DRS/EB2

RLSmith

BHagar

TRFarnholtz

NFOKeefe

/RA/RCHagar for

/RA/

/RA/

/RA/

5/4/2011

5/4/2011

4/21/2011

4/15/2011

C:DRS/OB

C:TSS

C:DRS/PSB1

C:DRS/PSB2

C:ACES/SAC

MHaire

MHay

MPShannon

GEWerner

NTaylor

/RA/

/RA/

/RA/

/RA/

/RA/

4/15/2011

4/18/2011

4/18/2011

4/15/2011

4/18/2011

C:DRP/C

VGaddy

/RA/

5/10/11

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax

- 1 -

Enclosure

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket:

05000416

License:

NPF-29

Report:

05000416/2011002

Licensee:

Entergy Operations, Inc.

Facility:

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station

Location:

7003 Baldhill Road

Port Gibson, MS 39150

Dates:

January 21, 2011, through March 27, 2011

Inspectors:

R. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector

M. Baquera, Resident Inspector, Palo Verde

A. Fairbanks, Reactor Inspector

C. Graves, Health Physicist

L. Ricketson, P.E., Senior Health Physicist

E. Uribe, Reactor Inspector

Approved By:

Vincent Gaddy, Chief, Project Branch C

Division of Reactor Projects

- 2 -

Enclosure

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000416/2011002; 1/1/2011 - 3/27/2011; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Integrated Resident

and Regional Report; Fire Protection, Maintenance Effectiveness, Radiological Hazard

Assessment and Exposure Controls, and Event Follow-Up.

The report covered a 3-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and an announced

baseline inspection by region-based inspectors. Five Green noncited violations of significance

were identified and one Green finding of significance was identified. The significance of most

findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, or Red) using Inspection Manual

Chapter 0609, Significance Determination Process. The cross-cutting aspect is determined

using Inspection Manual Chapter 0310, Components Within the Cross Cutting Areas. Findings

for which the significance determination process does not apply may be Green or be assigned a

severity level after NRC management review. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe

operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor

Oversight Process, Revision 4, dated December 2006.

A.

NRC-Identified Findings and Self-Revealing Findings

Cornerstone: Mitigating Systems

SLIV. Inspectors identified a noncited violation of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4), which

requires the final safety analysis report be updated, at intervals not exceeding 24

months, to reflect changes made in the facility or procedures described in the

final safety analysis report. Licensee personnel failed to update the original

revision of the final safety analysis report to reflect the actual number of low

pressure coolant injection loops available for automatic initiation during shutdown

cooling operations in Mode 3. The licensee plans to update the final safety

analysis report at the next scheduled revision. This finding was entered into the

licensees corrective action program as condition report CR-GGN-2011-01631.

The failure of licensing personnel to update the final safety analysis report to

reflect the available low pressure coolant injection loops for automatic initiation

during shutdown cooling operations in Mode 3 was a performance deficiency.

This finding was evaluated using traditional enforcement because it had the

potential for impacting the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function. The

inspectors used the NRC Enforcement Policy, dated September 30, 2010, to

evaluate the significance of this violation. Consistent with the NRC Enforcement

Policy, this finding was determined to be a Severity Level IV noncited violation.

Green. The inspectors identified a noncited violation of 10 CFR Part 50.65(a)(2)

for the licensees failure to demonstrate that the performance of the train B

control room air conditioner was being effectively controlled through the

performance of appropriate preventive maintenance. Engineering did not

properly evaluate maintenance rule functional failures resulting in the system

remaining in an a(2) status instead of an a(1) status. As corrective action, the

- 3 -

Enclosure

train B control room air conditioner was moved into an a(1) status. The licensee

entered this issue into their corrective action program as Condition Report

CR-GGN-2011-01623.

The finding was more than minor because it was associated with the equipment

performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and adversely

affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and

capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable

consequences. Inspectors performed a Phase 1 screening, in accordance with

Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 4, Phase 1 - Initial Screening and

Characterization of Findings, and determined that the finding was of very low

safety significance (Green) because the maintenance rule aspect of the finding

did not cause an actual loss of safety function of the system nor did it cause a

component to be inoperable. As corrective action, the train B control room air

conditioner was moved into an (a)(1) status. This finding had a crosscutting

aspect in the area of human performance associated with the decision making

component because licensee personnel failed to make appropriate safety-

significant or risk-significant decisions to address the multiple failures of the train

B control room air conditioner compressor. H.1(a) (Section 1R12.b.2)

Green. The inspectors reviewed a self-revealing noncited violation of 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, after the licensee failed to

determine the cause and prevent recurrence of a significant condition adverse to

quality associated with the train B control room air conditioner compressor

tripping due to low oil pressure. Specifically, on December 13, 2010, the train B

control room air conditioner compressor tripped on low oil pressure after the

licensee had performed a root cause analysis to identify the cause and prevent

recurrence of a similar compressor trip on October 14, 2010. As immediate

corrective action, the licensee installed an inline suction filter. No additional

failures have occurred since its installation. The finding was entered into the

licensees corrective action program as Condition Report CR-GGN-2010-07315.

This finding was more than minor because it was associated with the equipment

performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and adversely

affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and

capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable

consequences. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, "Significance

Determination Process," Phase 1 worksheets, the inspectors determined that a

Phase 2 analysis was required because the finding represented a loss of system

safety function. The plant-specific risk informed notebook does not include the

evaluation of risk caused by the loss of cooling to the main control room.

Therefore, the senior reactor analyst conducted a Phase 3 analysis. Based on

the bounding analysis, the analyst determined that the change in core damage

frequency result was 5.9 x 10-7. This noncited violation was therefore determined

to be of very low safety significance (Green). This finding had a crosscutting

aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution associated with the

corrective action program component because licensee personnel failed to

- 4 -

Enclosure

thoroughly evaluate the multiple failures of the train B control room air conditioner

compressor. P.1(c) (Section 4OA3.1.b)

Cornerstone: Barrier Integrity

Green

. The inspectors identified a noncited violation of Facility Operating License

Condition 2.C(41), involving the failure to ensure that transient combustible were

not stored in the fire exclusion zone near the independent spent fuel storage

installation. The inspectors performed a quarterly fire protection inspection of

independent spent fuel storage installation and identified a large air conditioner

with combustible material covering it located in the fire exclusion zone that was

within 60 feet of the dry fuel storage pad. The inspectors determined through

interviews that the material had been placed there the previous day by the

maintenance department. As immediate corrective action the licensee removed

the combustible material from the area. The finding was entered into the

licensees corrective action program as Condition Report CR-GGN-2011-00455.

This finding was more than minor because it was associated human performance

attribute of the Barrier Integrity Cornerstone to provide reasonable assurance

that physical design barriers protect the public from radionuclide releases caused

by accidents or events. Using Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix F, Fire

Protection Significance Determination Process, the inspectors determined that

the finding impacted the fire prevention and administrative controls category.

The inspectors assigned a low degradation rating due to the fact that the amount

of combustible material in the area was minimal. The inspectors concluded that

the finding was of very low safety significance (Green) due to the fact there were

no fire ignition sources in the area. The cause of this finding has a crosscutting

aspect in the area of human performance associated with the work practices

component because the licensee failed to effectively communicate expectations

regarding storage of combustible material near the dry fuel storage pad. H.4(b)

(Section 1R05.1.b)

Green. The inspectors reviewed a self-revealing, Green finding of EN-DC-115,

Engineering Change Process, involving the failure to maintain adequate design

control measures associated with the installation of the mitigation monitoring

system. On November 8, 2010, a reactor coolant pressure boundary failure

occurred at the skid mounted Online Noble Chemical - Mitigation Monitoring

System pump inside primary containment. The positive displacement sample

pump ejected the pump piston from the housing, resulting in an approximate

7 gpm leak of reactor coolant. The steam leak resulted in a reactor recirculation

system flow control valve lockup (due to hydraulic power unit motor failure) and

approximately 15,000 square feet of contaminated area in the primary

containment structure. The licensee failed to ensure proper validation testing for

the pump prior to installation. Specifically, the licensee did not ensure that the

pump could withstand the operating pressures and temperatures of the system in

- 5 -

Enclosure

which it was installed. The licensee removed the mitigation monitoring system

from service and isolated the skid from the reactor water cleanup system. This

finding was entered into the licensees corrective action program as Condition

Report CR-GGN-2010-07852.

The finding is more than minor because it affects the design control attribute of

the Barrier Integrity Cornerstone to provide reasonable assurance that physical

design barriers protect the public from radionuclide releases caused by accidents

or events. Therefore, using inspection Manual Chapter 0609, "Significance

Determination Process," Phase 1 Worksheet for LOCA initiators, the inspectors

concluded that the finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because

the failure of the mitigation monitoring system would not have exceeded technical

specifications limits for identified leakage in the reactor coolant system. This

finding has a crosscutting aspect in the work practices component of the human

performance area; because the licensee failed to adequately oversee the design

of the mitigation monitoring system such that nuclear safety is supported. H.4(c)

(Section 4OA3.2.b)

Cornerstone: Occupational Radiation Safety

Green. The inspectors identified a noncited violation of Technical Specification 5.7.2, resulting from the licensees failure to use a qualified radiation protection

technician to provide direct continuous coverage of work in a locked high

radiation area. The finding was placed into the corrective action program as

Condition Report CR-GGN-2011-01045, and corrective action was being

evaluated.

The failure to use a qualified radiation protection technician to provide direct

continuous coverage of work in a locked high radiation area is a performance

deficiency. The finding was more than minor because it was associated with the

Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone attribute (exposure control) of

program and process and affected the cornerstone objective, in that, the failure

to use qualified radiation protection technicians to provide job coverage in a high

radiation area with dose rates in excess of 1000 mrem/hr had the potential to

increase personnel dose. Using the Occupational Radiation Safety Significance

Determination Process, the inspectors determined the finding to have very low

safety significance because: (1) it was not associated with ALARA planning or

work controls, (2) there was no overexposure, (3) there was no substantial

potential for an overexposure, and (4) the ability to assess dose was not

compromised. (Section 2RS01.b)

B.

Licensee-Identified Violations

Violations of very low safety significance, which were identified by the licensee, have

been reviewed by the inspectors. Corrective actions taken or planned by the licensee

have been entered into the licensees corrective action program. These violations and

corrective action tracking numbers (condition report numbers) are listed in

Section 4OA7.

- 6 -

Enclosure

REPORT DETAILS

Summary of Plant Status

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station began the inspection period at full rated thermal power. On January

9, 2011, operators reduced power to 68 percent for a planned control rod sequence exchange

and isolation of the moisture separator reheaters (MSRs) second stage steam to both the A

and B MSRs due to tube leaks in the A MSR. The plant was returned to 96 percent power on

January 10, 2011, which was maximum power level allowed with MSR second stage steam

isolated. On February 18, 2011, operators reduced power to 77 percent for monthly control rod

testing, turbine testing, and to remove B heater drain pump from service in an attempt to repair

a steam leak on the heater drain pump B discharge flange. The plant was returned to 96

percent power on February 19, 2011. On March 11, 2011, operators reduced power to 84

percent power for a planned control rod testing and to remove B heater drain pump from

service in another attempt to repair a steam leak on the heater drain pump B discharge flange.

The plant was returned to 96 percent power on March 12, 2011. On March 23, 2011, operators

reduced power to 93 percent power to remove the B heater drain pump from service again in

another attempt to repair a steam leak on the heater drain pump B pump discharge flange.

The plant was returned to 96 percent power on March 12, 2011. The plant remained at 96

percent power for the remainder of the inspection period.

1.

REACTOR SAFETY

Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity, and

Emergency Preparedness

1R01 Adverse Weather Protection (71111.01)

.1

Readiness for Seasonal Extreme Weather Conditions

a.

The inspectors performed a review of the adverse weather procedures for seasonal

extreme low temperatures. The inspectors verified that weather-related equipment

deficiencies identified during the previous year were corrected prior to the onset of

seasonal extremes, and evaluated the implementation of the adverse weather

preparation procedures and compensatory measures for the affected conditions before

the onset of, and during, the adverse weather conditions.

Inspection Scope

During the inspection, the inspectors focused on plant-specific design features and the

procedures used by plant personnel to mitigate or respond to adverse weather

conditions. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the updated final safety analysis report

and performance requirements for systems selected for inspection and verified that

operator actions were appropriate as specified by plant-specific procedures. Specific

documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment. The inspectors

also reviewed corrective action program items to verify that plant personnel were

identifying adverse weather issues at an appropriate threshold and entering them into

- 7 -

Enclosure

their corrective action program in accordance with station corrective action procedures.

The inspectors reviews focused specifically on the following plant systems:

Standby service water

Emergency diesel generators

Plant service water

Fire water pumps and tanks

These activities constitute completion of one readiness for seasonal adverse weather

sample as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.01-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

.2

Readiness for Impending Adverse Weather Conditions

a.

Since extreme cold conditions and icing were forecast in the vicinity of the facility for

January 9, 2011, the inspectors reviewed overall preparations/protection for the

expected weather conditions. On January 7, 2011, the inspectors inspected the standby

service water towers because their safety-related functions could be affected as a result

of the extreme cold and icing conditions forecast for the facility. The inspectors observed

space heater operation and weatherized enclosures to ensure operability of affected

systems. The inspectors reviewed licensee procedures and discussed potential

compensatory measures with control room personnel. The inspectors focused on plant

managements actions for implementing the stations procedures for ensuring adequate

personnel for safe plant operation and emergency response would be available.

Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

Inspection Scope

These activities constitute completion of one readiness for impending adverse weather

condition sample as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.01-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

1R04 Equipment Alignments (71111.04)

.1

Partial Walkdown

a.

The inspectors performed partial system walkdowns of the following risk-significant

systems:

Inspection Scope

Division II standby service water system during Division I maintenance outage

- 8 -

Enclosure

Residual heat removal system B during residual heat removal system A

maintenance outage

Residual heat removal system C during residual heat removal system A

maintenance outage

Division II standby diesel generator system during Division I maintenance outage

Standby liquid control system A during standby liquid control system B

maintenance outage

The inspectors selected these systems based on their risk significance relative to the

reactor safety cornerstones at the time they were inspected. The inspectors attempted

to identify any discrepancies that could affect the function of the system, and, therefore,

potentially increase risk. The inspectors reviewed applicable operating procedures,

system diagrams, UFSAR, technical specification requirements, administrative technical

specifications, outstanding work orders, condition reports, and the impact of ongoing

work activities on redundant trains of equipment in order to identify conditions that could

have rendered the systems incapable of performing their intended functions. The

inspectors also inspected 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 obvious deficiencies. The

inspectors also verified that the licensee had properly identified and resolved equipment

alignment problems that could cause initiating events or impact the capability of

mitigating systems or barriers and entered them into the corrective action program with

the appropriate significance characterization. Specific documents reviewed during this

inspection are listed in the attachment.

These activities constitute completion of five partial system walkdown samples as

defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.04-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

1R05 Fire Protection (71111.05)

Quarterly Fire Inspection Tours

a.

The inspectors conducted fire protection walkdowns that were focused on availability,

accessibility, and the condition of firefighting equipment in the following risk-significant

plant areas:

Inspection Scope

Division II diesel generator room (1D303)

- 9 -

Enclosure

Residual heat removal pump and heat exchanger rooms A (1A102 and 1A103)

Residual heat removal pump and heat exchanger rooms B (1A105 and 1A106)

Reactor Core Isolation Pump Room (1A104)

Dry fuel storage pad area (Area 59 the Yard)

The inspectors reviewed areas to assess if licensee personnel had implemented a fire

protection program that adequately controlled combustibles and ignition sources within

the plant; effectively maintained fire detection and suppression capability; maintained

passive fire protection features in good material condition; and had implemented

adequate compensatory measures for out of service, degraded or inoperable fire

protection equipment, systems, or features, in accordance with the licensees fire plan.

The inspectors selected fire areas based on their overall contribution to internal fire risk

as documented in the plants Individual Plant Examination of External Events with later

additional insights, their potential to affect equipment that could initiate or mitigate a

plant transient, or their impact on the plants ability to respond to a security event. Using

the documents listed in the attachment, the inspectors verified that fire hoses and

extinguishers were in their designated locations and available for immediate use; that

fire detectors and sprinklers were unobstructed; that transient material loading was

within the analyzed limits; and fire doors, dampers, and penetration seals appeared to

be in satisfactory condition. The inspectors also verified that minor issues identified

during the inspection were entered into the licensees corrective action program.

Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

These activities constitute completion of five quarterly fire-protection inspection samples

as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.05-05.

b.

Findings

Introduction

. The inspectors identified a Green noncited violation of Facility Operating

License Condition 2.C(41), involving the failure to ensure that transient combustible were

not stored in the fire exclusion zone near the independent spent fuel storage installation.

Description

. On January 24, 2011, the inspectors performed a quarterly fire protection

inspection of independent spent fuel storage installation. The inspectors identified a

large air conditioner with combustible material covering it located in the fire exclusion

zone that appeared to be within 60 feet of the dry fuel storage pad. The inspectors

brought this to the attention of the work center senior reactor operator. The work center

senior reactor operator contacted the site fire engineer, who walked down the fire

exclusion zone and determined that the combustible material covering the air conditioner

was within the 60 feet of the dry fuel storage pad, which is in violation of plant procedural

requirements. The inspectors determined through interviews that the material had been

placed there the day before by the maintenance department. The site had the air

conditioner and the covering material removed from the fire exclusion zone to restore

compliance.

The licensee documented this violation in Condition Report CR-GGN-2011-00455. Its

short-term corrective actions included removing the combustible material from the area.

- 10 -

Enclosure

Analysis. The inspectors determined that the failure to follow fire protection procedures

developed for control of transient combustible material stored near the dry spent fuel

storage pad was a performance deficiency. This finding was more than minor because it

was associated human performance attribute of the Barrier Integrity Cornerstone to

provide reasonable assurance that physical design barriers protect the public from

radionuclide releases caused by accidents or events. Using Manual Chapter 0609,

Appendix F, Fire Protection Significance Determination Process, the inspectors

determined that the finding impacted the fire prevention and administrative controls

category. The inspectors assigned a low degradation rating due to the fact that the

amount of combustible material in the area was minimal. The inspectors concluded that

the finding was of very low safety significance (Green) due to the fact there were no fire

ignition sources in the area. The finding has a crosscutting aspect in the area of human

performance associated with the work practices component because the licensee failed

to effectively communicate expectations regarding storage of combustible material near

the dry fuel storage pad. H.4(b)

Enforcement. Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Facility Operating License Condition 2.C(41)

states, in part, that the plant shall implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the

Fire Protection Program as described in the UFSAR. UFSAR Section 9B,

Administrative Controls, section 9B.6.a, governs the handling and limits the use of

ordinary combustible materials in safety related areas. Fire area 59, defined as the yard,

contains the fire exclusion area next to the dry fuel storage pad and prohibits the storage

of any combustible material in this area. Contrary to this, on January 23, 2011, the

licensee stored combustible material inside the transient combustible exclusion zone

near the dry fuel storage pad. The licensee restored compliance by removing the

material from the area on January 25, 2011. Because the finding was of very low safety

significance (Green) and was documented in the licensees corrective action program as

CR-GGN-2011-0455, this finding is being treated as a noncited violation (NCV)

consistent with Section VI.A of the NRC Enforcement Policy:

NCV 05000416/2011002-01; Transient Combustible Stored in the Fire Exclusion Zone

Near the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

1R06 Flood Protection Measures (71111.06)

a.

The inspectors reviewed the flooding analysis, and plant procedures to assess seasonal

susceptibilities involving internal flooding; reviewed the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report and corrective action program to determine if licensee personnel identified and

corrected flooding problems; inspected underground bunkers/manholes to verify the

adequacy of sump pumps, level alarm circuits, cable splices subject to submergence,

and drainage for bunkers/manholes; subject to flooding that contain cables whose failure

could disable risk-significant equipment. The inspectors walked down the areas listed

below. Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

Inspection Scope

January 11, 2011, division 1 and 2 standby service water manholes

- 11 -

Enclosure

These activities constitute completion of one bunker/manhole sample as defined in

Inspection Procedure 71111.06-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

1R07 Heat Sink Performance (71111.07)

a.

The inspectors reviewed licensee programs, verified performance against industry

standards, and reviewed critical operating parameters and maintenance records for the

Division 1 emergency diesel generator jacket water and lube oil heat exchangers. The

inspectors verified that performance tests were satisfactorily conducted for heat

exchangers/heat sinks and reviewed for problems or errors; the licensee utilized the

periodic maintenance method outlined in EPRI Report NP 7552, Heat Exchanger

Performance Monitoring Guidelines; the licensee properly utilized biofouling controls;

the licensees heat exchanger inspections adequately assessed the state of cleanliness

of their tubes; and the heat exchanger was correctly categorized under 10 CFR 50.65,

Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power

Plants. Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

Inspection Scope

These activities constitute completion of one heat sink inspection sample as defined in

Inspection Procedure 71111.07-05.

b.

Findings

No findings were identified.

1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program (71111.11)

a.

On January 31, 2011, the inspectors observed a crew of licensed operators in the plants

simulator to verify that operator performance was adequate, evaluators were identifying

and documenting crew performance problems and training was being conducted in

accordance with licensee procedures. The inspectors evaluated the following areas:

Inspection Scope

Licensed operator performance

Crews clarity and formality of communications

Crews ability to take timely actions in the conservative direction

Crews prioritization, interpretation, and verification of annunciator alarms

Crews correct use and implementation of abnormal and emergency procedures

- 12 -

Enclosure

Control board manipulations

Oversight and direction from supervisors

Crews ability to identify and implement appropriate technical specification

actions and emergency plan actions and notifications

The inspectors compared the crews performance in these areas to preestablished

operator action expectations and successful critical task completion requirements.

Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

These activities constitute completion of one quarterly licensed-operator requalification

program sample as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.11.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12)

a.

The inspectors evaluated degraded performance issues involving the following risk

significant systems:

Inspection Scope

Appendix R emergency lighting units (Z92)

Control room air conditioning (Z51)

Residual heat removal (E12)

The inspectors reviewed events such as where ineffective equipment maintenance has

resulted in valid or invalid automatic actuations of engineered safeguards systems and

independently verified the licensee's actions to address system performance or condition

problems in terms of the following:

Implementing appropriate work practices

Identifying and addressing common cause failures

Scoping of systems in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(b)

Characterizing system reliability issues for performance

Charging unavailability for performance

Trending key parameters for condition monitoring

- 13 -

Enclosure

Ensuring proper classification in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) or -(a)(2)

Verifying appropriate performance criteria for structures, systems, and

components classified as having an adequate demonstration of performance

through preventive maintenance, as described in 10 CFR 50.65(a)(2), or as

requiring the establishment of appropriate and adequate goals and corrective

actions for systems classified as not having adequate performance, as described

in 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1)

The inspectors assessed performance issues with respect to the reliability, availability,

and condition monitoring of the system. In addition, the inspectors verified maintenance

effectiveness issues were entered into the corrective action program with the appropriate

significance characterization. Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are

listed in the attachment.

These activities constitute completion of three quarterly maintenance effectiveness

samples as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.12-05.

b.

.1 Failure to Update Available Low Pressure Cooling Injection Loops in the Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report

Findings

Introduction. Inspectors identified a Severity Level IV, noncited violation for the

licensees failure to update the final (updated) safety analysis report in accordance with

10 CFR 50.71(e)(4). Specifically, the licensee failed to update Section 6.3, Emergency

Core Cooling Systems, to appropriately reflect the available emergency core cooling

equipment during shutdown cooling operations in Mode 3.

Description. On February 28, 2011, while reviewing the updated final safety analysis

report for a maintenance effectiveness inspection of the residual heat removal system,

the inspectors determined that Section 6.3.1.1.1.e, Emergency Core Cooling Systems,

states, The ECCS is designed to satisfy all criteria specified in Section 6.3 for any

normal mode of reactor operation. Additionally, Section 6.3.1.1.2.d states, In the event

of a break in a pipe that is part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, no single active

component failure in the emergency core cooling system shall prevent automatic

initiation and successful operation of less than the following combination of emergency

core cooling system equipment: 1) Three low pressure coolant injection loops, the low

pressure core spray and the automatic depressurization system (i.e., high pressure core

spray failure); 2) Two low pressure coolant injection loops, the high pressure core spray

and the automatic depressurization system (i.e., low pressure core spray diesel

generator failure); and 3) One low pressure coolant injection loop, the low pressure core

spray, the high pressure core spray and automatic depressurization system (i.e., low

pressure coolant injection diesel generator failure).

Procedure 03-1-01-3, Plant Shutdown, Revision 118, Section 6.14 states, When

shutdown cooling is placed in service at less than 135 psig, then the associated

containment spray and low pressure coolant injection systems may be considered

- 14 -

Enclosure

operable if capable of being manually realigned and not otherwise inoperable.

Inspectors noted that because the residual heat removal system that provides shutdown

cooling in Mode 3 is not available for automatic initiation (must be manually realigned) of

low pressure coolant injection, in the event of a reactor coolant system pipe break, that

the aforementioned statements in Section 6.3 did not appropriately reflect the available

emergency core cooling equipment during shutdown cooling operations. In other words,

the combinations of emergency core cooling equipment available for automatic initiation

would include one less low pressure coolant injection loop.

The licensee entered this issue into their corrective actions program as Condition Report

CR-GGN-2011-01631. The licensee planned to take actions to update the updated final

safety analysis report at the next scheduled revision.

Analysis. The failure of licensing personnel to update the final safety analysis report to

reflect the available low pressure coolant injection loops for automatic initiation during

shutdown cooling operations in Mode 3 was a performance deficiency. This finding was

evaluated using traditional enforcement because it had the potential for impacting the

NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function. The inspectors used the NRC

Enforcement Policy, dated September 30, 2010, to evaluate the significance of this

violation. Consistent with the NRC Enforcement Policy, this finding was determined to

be a Severity Level IV noncited violation. This finding had no crosscutting aspect as it

was associated with a traditional enforcement violation.

Enforcement. Title 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) requires the final safety analysis report be

updated, at intervals not exceeding 24 months, and states in part, the revisions must

reflect all changes made in the facility or procedures described in the FSAR. Contrary

to the above, licensing personnel failed to update the original revision of the final safety

analysis report to reflect the actual number of low pressure coolant injection loops

available for automatic initiation during shutdown cooling operations in Mode 3.

Because the finding is of very low safety significance and has been entered into the

corrective action program as Condition Report CR-GGN-2011-01631, this violation is

being treated as a noncited violation consistent with the NRC Enforcement Policy:

NCV 0500416/20011002-02, "Failure to Update Available Low Pressure Coolant

Injection Loops in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report."

.2 Failure to Demonstrate Maintenance Effectiveness of Train B Control Room Air

Conditioner

Introduction. The inspectors identified a Green noncited violation of 10 CFR Part

50.65(a)(2) for the failure to demonstrate that the performance of the train B control

room air conditioner was being effectively controlled through the performance of

appropriate preventive maintenance.

Description. On March 2, 2011, the inspectors performed a maintenance effectiveness

inspection of the control room air conditioning system. Inspectors determined that on

February 3, 2010, the train B control room air conditioner compressor was replaced with

a remanufactured compressor as part of annual preventative maintenance of the

system. On March 27, 2010, the control room air conditioner compressor tripped on low

- 15 -

Enclosure

usable oil pressure. The licensees investigation revealed that the compressor pencil

strainer was approximately fifty percent covered with unidentified contaminants. Similar

contaminants were identified on the oil sump strainer. The licensee concluded that the

compressor had been installed with contaminants inside the lower half of the

compressor, and subsequently replaced the remanufactured compressor on April 1,

2010, with a newly rebuilt compressor. System engineering did not classify this event as

a maintenance rule functional failure even though operations had declared the train

inoperable and also stated in their operability determination that it could not meet its 30

day mission time.

The train B control room air conditioner compressor subsequently either tripped or failed

to properly cool the control room, due to low usable oil pressure, on three separate

occasions (once in April, once May, and once in June). In response to the June failure,

the licensee performed extensive maintenance on the train B control room air

conditioner compressor, which included installing a five micron suction line filter in the

system. Additionally, all three events were identified as maintenance rule functional

failures attributed to foreign material fouling in the system, which would have resulted in

the performance criteria being exceeded (less than or equal to two maintenance rule

functional failure events or as a repeat functional failure). However, the sites

maintenance rule coordinator informed the inspectors that the first two events in April

and May were not counted toward the criteria because they were from the same cause

as the June event and; therefore, they would all be counted as one failure even thought

the train was returned to service each time after corrective maintenance was performed

and declared operable by operations. Additionally, on June 22, 2010, the train was

declared inoperable due to multiple Freon leaks and was classified as another

maintenance rule functional failure for the train. On August 10, 2010, the licensee

performed a Maintenance Rule (a)(1) evaluation for the subject system and, based on

the presentation to the expert panel by system engineering, the panel only considered

two events as maintenance rule functional failures. System engineering did not count

the one failure in March or consider the two failures in April or May. The expert panel

only considered the failures in June due to low oil pressure and Freon leaks. Therefore

the expert panel concluded that, although the train B control room air conditioner system

had exceeded its established performance criteria for functional failure events, a number

of effective corrective actions had been identified and implemented and additional

corrective actions were not necessary; therefore, the subject system was allowed to

retain its (a)(2) status.

The train B control room air conditioner compressor subsequently either tripped or failed

to properly cool the control room, due to low usable oil pressure, on two separate

occasions (once in September and once in October). The October trip of the subject

system compressor occurred while the train A control room air conditioner was out of

service for routine maintenance. The compressor pencil strainer and sump strainer were

again identified with contaminants on them. The licensee was required to make an

eight-hour report to the NRC and submit a licensee event report due to both trains of

control room air conditioner being inoperable. The licensees root cause analysis failed

to identify that the train B control room air conditioner performance had not been

demonstrated through the performance of appropriate preventative maintenance; nor did

the root cause identify that the licensee failed to set goals and monitor the system as

- 16 -

Enclosure

required by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1). The train B control room air conditioner was ultimately

moved into (a)(1) status on February 4, 2011, after the subject compressor again tripped

due to low oil pressure on December 13, 2010. After this trip and upon further

evaluation, the licensee performed an additional corrective action that installed an in line

suction filter with smaller filtering diameter and larger surface area to remove foreign

material from the system. They also modified the operator rounds to obtain daily

readings of differential pressure across this new filter and through calculation,

determined a differential pressure necessary for the filter to be changed out and the unit

to be inspected for foreign materials.

The licensee entered this issue into their corrective actions program as Condition Report

CR-GGN-2011-01623. From installation of the new inline suction filter to the conclusion

of the inspection period, no additional trips of train B control room air conditioning have

occurred.

Analysis. The inspectors determined that the failure to demonstrate that the

performance of the train B control room air conditioner was being effectively controlled

through the performance of appropriate preventive maintenance was a performance

deficiency. The finding was more than minor because it was associated with the

equipment performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and adversely

affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of

systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences.

Inspectors performed a Phase 1 screening, in accordance with Inspection Manual

Chapter 0609, Attachment 4, Phase 1 - Initial Screening and Characterization of

Findings, and determined that the finding was of very low safety significance (Green)

because it did not result in a loss of system safety function since the train A control room

air conditioner remained operable. This finding had a crosscutting aspect in the area of

human performance associated with the decision making component because licensee

personnel failed to make appropriate safety-significant or risk-significant decisions to

address the multiple failures of the train B CRAC compressor. H.1(a)

Enforcement. Title 10 CFR 50.65(a)(2), states, in part, that monitoring as specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not required where it has been demonstrated that the

performance or condition of a structure, system, or component is being effectively

controlled through the performance of appropriate preventative maintenance, such that

the structure, system, or component remains capable of performing its intended

function. Contrary to the above, from March 2010 to February 2011, the licensee failed

to demonstrate that the performance of the train B control room air conditioning system

was effectively controlled through the performance of appropriate preventative

maintenance. This finding was entered into the licensees corrective action program as

Condition Report CR-GGN-2011-01623. Because this finding was determined to be of

very low safety significance and was entered into the licensees corrective action

program, this violation is being treated as a noncited violation consistent with the NRC

Enforcement Policy: NCV 05000285/2011002-03, Failure to Demonstrate Maintenance

Effectiveness of Train B Control Room Air Conditioner.

- 17 -

Enclosure

1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control (71111.13)

a.

The inspectors reviewed licensee personnel's evaluation and management of plant risk

for the maintenance and emergent work activities affecting risk-significant and safety-

related equipment listed below to verify that the appropriate risk assessments were

performed prior to removing equipment for work:

Inspection Scope

On January 9, 2011, during an ice storm requiring the plant to enter a yellow risk

condition and enter their off normal event procedure for severe weather.

On February 3, 2011, during an ice storm requiring the plant to enter a yellow risk

condition and enter their off normal event procedure for severe weather. The

weather required the site to cancel work and monitor their safety related standby

service water system for icing conditions.

On February 9, 2011, during a winter storm, while a divisions 1 diesel generator

and residual heat removal A were out for planned maintenance outage requiring

the plant to enter orange risk.

On February 28, 2011, during the accidental unearthing of energized plant

service water pump cables, no consequence to the plant but resulted in work

stoppage and evaluation of risk status for the site.

On March 8-9, 2011, with an emergent issue with the division 1 diesel generator

and a tornado watch issued for the area requiring the plant to enter yellow risk.

The site entered their severe weather off normal procedure; this procedure

required the site to secure from half scram surveillances.

The inspectors selected these activities based on potential risk significance relative to

the reactor safety cornerstones. As applicable for each activity, the inspectors verified

that licensee personnel performed risk assessments as required by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4)

and that the assessments were accurate and complete. When licensee personnel

performed emergent work, the inspectors verified that the licensee personnel promptly

assessed and managed plant risk. The inspectors reviewed the scope of maintenance

work, discussed the results of the assessment with the licensee's probabilistic risk

analyst or shift technical advisor, and verified plant conditions were consistent with the

risk assessment. The inspectors also reviewed the technical specification requirements

and inspected portions of redundant safety systems, when applicable, to verify risk

analysis assumptions were valid and applicable requirements were met. Specific

documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

These activities constitute completion of five emergent work control inspection samples

as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.13-05.

- 18 -

Enclosure

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

1R15 Operability Evaluations (71111.15)

a.

The inspectors reviewed the following issues:

Inspection Scope

Division 3 high pressure core spray diesel generator outside air fan temperature

switch fluctuating

Train A standby service water drift eliminator support base plate corrosion and

missing brass bolts

Train A standby service water valve P41-F299A flange degradation

Residual heat removal equipment area temperature high/inoperable due to

temperature switch

Site fire truck inoperable

Division 1 diesel generator auxiliary oil pump not obtaining procedural pressures

during pre-lube prior to surveillance run

The inspectors selected these potential operability issues based on the risk significance

of the associated components and systems. The inspectors evaluated the technical

adequacy of the evaluations to ensure that technical specification operability was

properly justified and the subject component or system remained available such that no

unrecognized increase in risk occurred. The inspectors compared the operability and

design criteria in the appropriate sections of the technical specifications and UFSAR to

the licensee personnels evaluations to determine whether the components or systems

were operable. Where compensatory measures were required to maintain operability,

the inspectors determined whether the measures in place would function as intended

and were properly controlled. The inspectors determined, where appropriate,

compliance with bounding limitations associated with the evaluations. Additionally, the

inspectors also reviewed a sampling of corrective action documents to verify that the

licensee was identifying and correcting any deficiencies associated with operability

evaluations. Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the

attachment.

These activities constitute completion of six operability evaluations inspection samples

as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.15-04

- 19 -

Enclosure

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

1R18 Plant Modifications (71111.18)

a.

To verify that the safety functions of important safety systems were not degraded, the

inspectors reviewed the following temporary modifications:

Inspection Scope

Temporary Modification for RWCU A/B Leak Detection (EC 22625 & EC 22635)

Temporary Modification to install bypass signals for B first stage Pressure

Sensor (EC22768)

The inspectors reviewed the temporary modifications and the associated safety-

evaluation screening against the system design bases documentation, including the

updated final safety analysis report and the technical specifications, and verified that the

modification did not adversely affect the system operability/availability. The inspectors

also verified that the installation and restoration were consistent with the modification

documents and that configuration control was adequate. Additionally, the inspectors

verified that the temporary modification was identified on control room drawings,

appropriate tags were placed on the affected equipment, and licensee personnel

evaluated the combined effects on mitigating systems and the integrity of radiological

barriers.

These activities constitute completion of two samples for temporary plant modifications

as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.18-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

1R19 Postmaintenance Testing (71111.19)

a.

The inspectors reviewed the following postmaintenance activities to verify that

procedures and test activities were adequate to ensure system operability and functional

capability:

Inspection Scope

For standby liquid B after a maintenance outage

For reactor protection motor generator B after required maintenance

For residual heat removal system A after a maintenance outage

- 20 -

Enclosure

For standby service water system A after a maintenance outage

For division 1 diesel generator after a maintenance outage

For high pressure core spray minimum flow valve 1E22-F012 after corrective

maintenance

The inspectors selected these activities based upon the structure, system, or

component's ability to affect risk. The inspectors evaluated these activities for the

following (as applicable):

The effect of testing on the plant had been adequately addressed; testing was

adequate for the maintenance performed

Acceptance criteria were clear and demonstrated operational readiness; test

instrumentation was appropriate

The inspectors evaluated the activities against the technical specifications, the UFSAR,

10 CFR Part 50 requirements, licensee procedures, and various NRC generic

communications to ensure that the test results adequately ensured that the equipment

met the licensing basis and design requirements. In addition, the inspectors reviewed

corrective action documents associated with postmaintenance tests to determine

whether the licensee was identifying problems and entering them in the corrective action

program and that the problems were being corrected commensurate with their

importance to safety. Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in

the attachment.

These activities constitute completion of six postmaintenance testing inspection samples

as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.19-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

1R22 Surveillance Testing (71111.22)

a.

Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the UFSAR, procedure requirements, and technical

specifications to ensure that the surveillance activities listed below demonstrated that the

systems, structures, and/or components tested were capable of performing their

intended safety functions. The inspectors either witnessed or reviewed test data to

verify that the significant surveillance test attributes were adequate to address the

following:

Preconditioning

- 21 -

Enclosure

Evaluation of testing impact on the plant

Acceptance criteria

Test equipment

Procedures

Test data

Testing frequency and method demonstrated technical specification operability

Test equipment removal

Restoration of plant systems

Updating of performance indicator data

Engineering evaluations, root causes, and bases for returning tested systems,

structures, and components not meeting the test acceptance criteria were correct

Reference setting data

Annunciators and alarms setpoints

The inspectors also verified that licensee personnel identified and implemented any

needed corrective actions associated with the surveillance testing.

On January 7, 2011, reactor coolant system leakage detection surveillance

On February 4, 2011, inservice test of residual heat removal system B quarterly

On February 23, 2011, reactor coolant routine chemistry surveillance

On March 2, 2011, fuel handling area ventilation exhaust radiation monitor time

response test

On March 10, 2011, division 1 diesel generator monthly surveillance

On March 18, 2011, division 3 diesel generator monthly surveillance

On March 20-21, 2011, functional checks with reactor core isolation cooling

valves at the remote shutdown panel

Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

- 22 -

Enclosure

These activities constitute completion of seven surveillance (one reactor coolant system

leakage detection, one inservice test, and five routine tests) testing inspection samples

as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.22-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness

1EP6 Drill Evaluation (71114.06)

.1

Emergency Preparedness Drill Observation

a.

The inspectors evaluated the conduct of a routine licensee emergency drill on March 3,

2011, to identify any weaknesses and deficiencies in classification, notification, and

protective action recommendation development activities. The inspectors observed

emergency response operations in the simulator control room and emergency

operations facility to determine whether the event classification, notifications, and

protective action recommendations were performed in accordance with procedures. The

inspectors also attended the licensee drill critique to compare any inspector-observed

weakness with those identified by the licensee staff in order to evaluate the critique and

to verify whether the licensee staff was properly identifying weaknesses and entering

them into the corrective action program. As part of the inspection, the inspectors

reviewed the drill package and other documents listed in the attachment.

Inspection Scope

These activities constitute completion of one sample as defined in Inspection

Procedure 71114.06-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

2.

RADIATION SAFETY

Cornerstone: Occupational and Public Radiation Safety

2RS01 Radiological Hazard Assessment and Exposure Controls (71124.01)

a.

Inspection Scope

This area was inspected to: (1) review and assess licensees performance in assessing

the radiological hazards in the workplace associated with licensed activities and the

implementation of appropriate radiation monitoring and exposure control measures for

both individual and collective exposures, (2) verify the licensee is properly identifying

and reporting Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone performance indicators, and

- 23 -

Enclosure

(3) identify those performance deficiencies that were reportable as a performance

indicator and which may have represented a substantial potential for overexposure of

the worker.

The inspectors used the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, the technical specifications,

and the licensees procedures required by technical specifications as criteria for

determining compliance. During the inspection, the inspectors interviewed the radiation

protection manager, radiation protection supervisors, and radiation workers. The

inspectors performed walkdowns of various portions of the plant, performed independent

radiation dose rate measurements and reviewed the following items:

Performance indicator events and associated documentation reported by the

licensee in the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone

The hazard assessment program, including a review of the licenses evaluations

of changes in plant operations and radiological surveys to detect dose rates,

airborne radioactivity, and surface contamination levels

Instructions and notices to workers, including labeling or marking containers of

radioactive material, radiation work permits, actions for electronic dosimeter

alarms, and changes to radiological conditions

Programs and processes for control of sealed sources and release of potentially

contaminated material from the radiologically controlled area, including survey

performance, instrument sensitivity, release criteria, procedural guidance, and

sealed source accountability

Radiological hazards control and work coverage, including the adequacy of

surveys, radiation protection job coverage, and contamination controls; the use of

electronic dosimeters in high noise areas; dosimetry placement; airborne

radioactivity monitoring; controls for highly activated or contaminated materials

(non-fuel) stored within spent fuel and other storage pools; and posting and

physical controls for high radiation areas and very high radiation areas

Radiation worker and radiation protection technician performance with respect to

radiation protection work requirements

Audits, self-assessments, and corrective action documents related to radiological

hazard assessment and exposure controls since the last inspection

Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

These activities constitute completion of the one required sample as defined in

Inspection Procedure 71124.01-05.

b.

Findings

- 24 -

Enclosure

Introduction. The inspectors identified a Green, noncited violation of Technical

Specification 5.7.2, resulting from the licensees failure to use a qualified radiation

protection technician to provide direct continuous coverage of work in a locked high

radiation area.

Description. The inspectors reviewed Condition Report CR-GGN-2011-00655, which

documented the identification by Cooper Nuclear Station that a contractor seeking

employment as a radiation protection technician did not meet ANSI 18.1 requirements.

The finding, documented February 2, 2011, was discussed with Entergy sites during a

teleconference. Then, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station determined the individual had been

employed as a radiation protection technician at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station during

Refueling Outage 17, conducted in April and May 2010. In response, Grand Gulf

Nuclear Station reviewed the radiation surveys performed by the individual (from April 15

through May 13, 2010), concluded the surveys contained data comparable with that

documented in other surveys in the same areas under similar conditions, and closed the

condition report on February 8, 2011. The inspectors reviewed the radiation survey

records included in the condition report and noted something the licensee had not

addressed. On April 27, 2010, the individual had provided job coverage for work in a

locked high radiation area (an area with dose rates greater than 1000 mrem/hour).

Survey GG-1004-0660 identified the work area as the 128-foot auxiliary pipe chase,

above the reactor water cleanup pump rooms. Since the individual used by the licensee

to provide job coverage and surveillance in a locked high radiation area was not a

qualified radiation protection technician, the inspectors identified this as a performance

deficiency.

Analysis. The failure to use a qualified radiation protection technician to provide direct

continuous coverage of work in a locked high radiation area is a performance deficiency.

The finding was more than minor because it was associated with the Occupational

Radiation Safety Cornerstone attribute (exposure control) of program and process and

affected the cornerstone objective, in that, the failure to use qualified radiation protection

technicians to provide job coverage in a high radiation area with dose rates in excess of

1000 mrem/hr had the potential to increase personnel dose. Using the Occupational

Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process, the inspectors determined the

finding to have very low safety significance because: (1) it was not associated with

ALARA planning or work controls, (2) there was no overexposure, (3) there was no

substantial potential for an overexposure, and (4) the ability to assess dose was not

compromised. The inspectors identified no cross-cutting aspect associated with this

finding.

Enforcement. Technical Specification 5.7.2, controls for high radiation areas with dose

rates greater than 1000 mrem/hour, consists of all the controls for high radiation areas

(Technical Specification 5.7.1) plus it requires doors to the area remain locked except

during periods of access by personnel under an approved radiation work permit that

shall specify the dose rate levels in the immediate work areas and the maximum

allowable stay times for individuals in those areas. In lieu of the stay time specification

for the radiation work permit, direct or remote continuous surveillance may be made by

personnel qualified in radiation protection procedures to provide positive exposure

- 25 -

Enclosure

control over the activities being performed within the area. Contrary to the above, during

work in an area with dose rates greater than 1000 mrem/hour on April 27, 2010, in lieu of

the stay time specification for the radiation work permit, direct or remote surveillance

was not made by personnel qualified in radiation protection procedures to provide

positive exposure control over the activities being performed within the area. Instead, an

unqualified person was assigned to provide surveillance of a locked high radiation on

April 27, 2010. The licensee initiated Condition Report CR-GGN-2011-01045 to

document the fact that it failed to identify this performance deficiency as part of the

review associated with the closure of Condition Report CR-GGN-2011-00655.

Because the violation was of very low safety significance and it was entered into the

licensees corrective action program, the violation is being treated as a noncited

violation, consistent with the enforcement policy. NCV 05000416/2011002-04, Failure

to Use a Qualified Radiation Protection Technician to Provide Direct Continuous

Coverage of Work in a Locked High Radiation Area.

2RS02 Occupational ALARA Planning and Controls (71124.02)

a.

Inspection Scope

This area was inspected to assess performance with respect to maintaining occupational

individual and collective radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable

(ALARA). The inspectors used the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, the technical

specifications, and the licensees procedures required by technical specifications as

criteria for determining compliance. During the inspection, the inspectors interviewed

licensee personnel and reviewed the following items:

Site-specific ALARA procedures and collective exposure history, including the

current 3-year rolling average, site-specific trends in collective exposures, and

source-term measurements

ALARA work activity evaluations/postjob reviews, exposure estimates, and

exposure mitigation requirements

The methodology for estimating work activity exposures, the intended dose

outcome, the accuracy of dose rate and man-hour estimates, and intended

versus actual work activity doses and the reasons for any inconsistencies

Records detailing the historical trends and current status of tracked plant source

terms and contingency plans for expected changes in the source term due to

changes in plant fuel performance issues or changes in plant primary chemistry

Radiation worker and radiation protection technician performance during work

activities in radiation areas, airborne radioactivity areas, or high radiation areas

Audits, self-assessments, and corrective action documents related to ALARA

planning and controls since the last inspection

- 26 -

Enclosure

Specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the attachment.

These activities constitute completion of the one required sample as defined in

Inspection Procedure 71124.02-05.

b.

Findings

No findings were identified.

4.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification (71151)

.1

Data Submission Issue

a.

The inspectors performed a review of the performance indicator data submitted by the

licensee for the fourth Quarter 2010 performance indicators for any obvious

inconsistencies prior to its public release in accordance with Inspection Manual

Chapter 0608, Performance Indicator Program.

Inspection Scope

This review was performed as part of the inspectors normal plant status activities and,

as such, did not constitute a separate inspection sample.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

.2

Unplanned Scrams per 7000 Critical Hours (IE01)

a.

The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the unplanned scrams per 7000 critical

hours performance indicator for the period from the first quarter 2010 through the fourth

quarter 2010. To determine the accuracy of the performance indicator data reported

during those periods, the inspectors used definitions and guidance contained in NEI

Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 6.

The inspectors reviewed the licensees operator narrative logs, condition reports, event

reports, and NRC integrated inspection reports for the period of January 2010 through

December 2010 to validate the accuracy of the submittals. The inspectors also reviewed

the licensees condition report database to determine if any problems had been identified

with the performance indicator data collected or transmitted for this indicator and none

were identified. Specific documents reviewed are described in the attachment to this

report.

Inspection Scope

These activities constitute completion of one unplanned scrams per 7000 critical hours

sample as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151-05.

- 27 -

Enclosure

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

.3

Unplanned Scrams with Complications (IE02)

a.

The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the unplanned scrams with

complications performance indicator for the period from first quarter 2010 through the

fourth quarter 2010. To determine the accuracy of the performance indicator data

reported during those periods, the inspectors used definitions and guidance contained in

NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline,

Revision 6. The inspectors reviewed the licensees operator narrative logs, condition

reports, event reports, and NRC integrated inspection reports for the period of January

2010 through December 2010 to validate the accuracy of the submittals. The inspectors

also reviewed the licensees condition report database to determine if any problems had

been identified with the performance indicator data collected or transmitted for this

indicator and none were identified. Specific documents reviewed are described in the

attachment to this report.

Inspection Scope

These activities constitute completion of one unplanned scrams with complications

sample as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

.4

Unplanned Power Changes per 7000 Critical Hours (IE03)

a.

The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the unplanned power changes per 7000

critical hours performance indicator for the period from first quarter 2010 through the

fourth quarter 2010. To determine the accuracy of the performance indicator data

reported during those periods, the inspectors used definitions and guidance contained in

NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline,

Revision 6. The inspectors reviewed the licensees operator narrative logs, condition

reports, event reports, and NRC integrated inspection reports for the period of January

2010 through December 2010 to validate the accuracy of the submittals. The inspectors

also reviewed the licensees condition report database to determine if any problems had

been identified with the performance indicator data collected or transmitted for this

indicator and none were identified. Specific documents reviewed are described in the

attachment to this report.

Inspection Scope

These activities constitute completion of one unplanned transients per 7000 critical

hours sample as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151-05.

- 28 -

Enclosure

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

.5

Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness (OR01)

a.

Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed performance indicator data for the second quarter of 2010

through the fourth quarter of 2010. The objective of the inspection was to determine the

accuracy and completeness of the performance indicator data reported during these

periods. The inspectors used the definitions and clarifying notes contained in NEI

Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 6,

as criteria for determining whether the licensee was in compliance.

The inspectors reviewed corrective action program records associated with high

radiation area (greater than 1 rem/hr) and very high radiation area non-conformances.

The inspectors reviewed radiological, controlled area exit transactions greater than

100 mrem. The inspectors also conducted walkdowns of high radiation areas (greater

than 1 rem/hr) and very high radiation area entrances to determine the adequacy of the

controls of these areas.

These activities constitute completion of the occupational exposure control effectiveness

sample as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151-05.

b.

Findings

No findings were identified.

.6

Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications/Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

Radiological Effluent Occurrences (PR01)

a.

Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed performance indicator data for the second quarter of 2010

through the fourth quarter of 2010. The objective of the inspection was to determine the

accuracy and completeness of the performance indicator data reported during these

periods. The inspectors used the definitions and clarifying notes contained in NEI

Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 6,

as criteria for determining whether the licensee was in compliance.

The inspectors reviewed the licensees corrective action program records and selected

individual annual or special reports to identify potential occurrences such as

unmonitored, uncontrolled, or improperly calculated effluent releases that may have

impacted offsite dose.

- 29 -

Enclosure

These activities constitute completion of the radiological effluent technical

specifications/offsite dose calculation manual radiological effluent occurrences sample

as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151-05.

b.

Findings

No findings were identified.

4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems (71152)

Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity, Emergency

Preparedness, Public Radiation Safety, Occupational Radiation Safety, and

Physical Protection

.1

Routine Review of Identification and Resolution of Problems

a.

As part of the various baseline inspection procedures discussed in previous sections of

this report, the inspectors routinely reviewed issues during baseline inspection activities

and plant status reviews to verify that they were being entered into the licensees

corrective action program at an appropriate threshold, that adequate attention was being

given to timely corrective actions, and that adverse trends were identified and

addressed. The inspectors reviewed attributes that included the complete and accurate

identification of the problem; the timely correction, commensurate with the safety

significance; the evaluation and disposition of performance issues, generic implications,

common causes, contributing factors, root causes, extent of condition reviews, and

previous occurrences reviews; and the classification, prioritization, focus, and timeliness

of corrective actions. Minor issues entered into the licensees corrective action program

because of the inspectors observations are included in the attached list of documents

reviewed.

Inspection Scope

These routine reviews for the identification and resolution of problems did not constitute

any additional inspection samples. Instead, by procedure, they were considered an

integral part of the inspections performed during the quarter and documented in

Section 1 of this report.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

.2

Daily Corrective Action Program Reviews

a.

In order to assist with the identification of repetitive equipment failures and specific

human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of

Inspection Scope

- 30 -

Enclosure

items entered into the licensees corrective action program. The inspectors

accomplished this through review of the stations daily corrective action documents.

The inspectors performed these daily reviews as part of their daily plant status

monitoring activities and, as such, did not constitute any separate inspection samples.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

.3

Selected Issue Follow-up Inspection

a.

During a review of items entered in the licensees corrective action program, the

inspectors recognized CR-GGN- 2009-05879 a corrective action item documenting

temperature switches for safety related ventilation system. The inspectors reviewed that

item as described in Inspection Procedure 71152.02 to verify, in part, licensee evaluation

and disposition of operability and reportability issues; consideration of extent of condition

and cause, generic implications, common cause, and previous occurrences;

classification and prioritization of the problems resolution commensurate with the safety

significance; and identification of corrective actions that were appropriately focused to

correct the problem.

Inspection Scope

These activities constitute completion of one in-depth problem identification and

resolution sample as defined in Inspection Procedure 71152-05.

b.

No findings were identified.

Findings

4OA3 Event Follow-up (71153)

.1

(Closed) LER 05000416/2010-002-00, Control Room Air Conditioning Inoperability -

Loss of Both Trains

a.

On October 14, 2010, while operating at approximately 100 percent power, the train B

control room air conditioner subsystem tripped on low oil pressure while the train A

control room air conditioner subsystem was out of service for maintenance. The control

room temperature increased and actions were taken to maintain control room

temperatures below the technical specification limit of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The two

control room air conditioning subsystems were inoperable for 64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br /> and 24 minutes

until the train A control room air conditioner was declared operable.

Inspection Scope

The three possible failure mechanisms that the licensee identified in their root cause

evaluation were 1) the intermittent failure of the low oil differential pressure switch, 2) the

- 31 -

Enclosure

intermittent failure of one or more loading/unloading mechanisms, and 3) one or more of

the temperature control valves were in an open condition or in a more than desired open

position. The licensee also identified a contributing cause of failure to exclude foreign

material during maintenance activities on the train B control room air conditioner.

Inspectors reviewed the circumstances surrounding the event, the licensees response

to the event, and the licensees corrective actions to preclude repetition. Documents

reviewed as part of this inspection are listed in the attachment. The enforcement

aspects of this finding are discussed in this section and in Section 1R12. This LER is

closed.

b.

Findings

Introduction. The inspectors reviewed a self-revealing, Green noncited violation of 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, after the licensee failed to

determine the cause and prevent recurrence of a significant condition adverse to quality

associated with the train B control room air conditioner compressor tripping due to low oil

pressure.

Description. On October 14, 2010, the train B control room air conditioner subsystem

tripped on low oil pressure while the train A control room air conditioner subsystem was

out of service for maintenance. The control room temperature increased, and actions

were taken to maintain control room temperatures below the technical specification limit

of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The licensee determined that the event (i.e., one subsystem

inoperable and unavailable for maintenance while the other subsystem was inoperable

due to a trip) was reportable to the NRC. The two control room air conditioning

subsystems were inoperable for 64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br /> and 24 minutes until the train A control room

air conditioner was declared operable. This was a significant condition because it

rendered technical specification required equipment inoperable.

The licensees corrective actions to address the event involved performing a root cause

evaluation. The licensee concluded that the three possible failure mechanisms were 1)

an intermittent failure of low oil differential pressure switch, 2) an intermittent failure of

one or more loading/unloading mechanisms, and 3) failure of one or more thermal

expansion valves. The licensee also concluded that a contributing cause of the event

was the failure to exclude foreign material during maintenance activities of the system.

The licensee addressed each of the possible root causes, as well as the contributing

cause, since a single root cause could not be determined. The corrective action for the

three probable root causes included 1) ensuring that only original differential pressure

switches are used (or a suitable equivalent) for replacement; 2) revising planned

maintenance tasks to included instructions for the loader/unloader disassembly,

inspection and reassembly; 3) revising tasks for compressor A and B rebuilds; and 4)

revising compressor preventative maintenance tasks to record the degree of superheat

for each thermal expansion valve.

Despite the corrective actions implemented by the licensee, the train B control room air

conditioner compressor again tripped on December 13, 2010, due to low oil pressure.

After this trip and upon further evaluation, the licensee performed an additional

corrective action that installed an inline suction filter with smaller filtering diameter and

- 32 -

Enclosure

larger surface area to remove foreign material from the system. The licensee also

modified the operator rounds to obtain daily readings of differential pressure across this

new filter and through calculation, determined a differential pressure necessary to

change the filter. The condition report that documented the December 13th event was

closed to the corrective actions associated with the October 14th compressor trip and the

new corrective action associated with the newly installed in line suction filter.

The licensee entered this event into their corrective actions program as condition report

CR-GGN-2010-07315. Since the use of the new inline suction filter, they have not had

any additional trips of the control room air conditioning B. The April 2011 inspection

showed that the filter had reduced foreign material on the compressor suction strainer by

40 percent from the March 2011 inspection. Also in May 2011, the licensee plans to

boroscope the evaporation section of the air conditioner to search for any other foreign

material.

Analysis. The inspectors determined that the failure to take corrective actions to prevent

recurrence of the train B control room air conditioner compressor tripping due to low oil

pressure was a performance deficiency. This finding was more than minor because it

was associated with the equipment performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems

Cornerstone and adversely affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability,

reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent

undesirable consequences. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, "Significance

Determination Process," Phase 1 worksheets, the inspectors determined that a Phase 2

estimate was required because the finding represented a loss of system safety function.

The plant-specific risk informed notebook does not include the evaluation of risk caused

by the loss of cooling to the main control room. Therefore, the senior reactor analyst

conducted a Phase 3 analysis.

The analyst noted that understanding the risk affect of control room chillers required a

review of the following items:

Loss of offsite power frequency (LOOP): Several alternative methods of cooling

control room equipment are available provided offsite power is available.

Therefore, the dominant risk impact of essential chillers is during a loss of offsite

power. The loss of offsite power frequency documented in the plant-specific

SPAR model is 3.59 x 10-2/year.

Loss of the opposite train probability (PCH-A): The performance deficiency only

affected Train B CRAC. Therefore, the Train A would still be available to cool the

main control room. The generic failure probability for a single train of safety-

related equipment is approximately 3 x 10-2/demand.

Exposure Period (EXP): Although the Train B CRAC system was placed in

service without correcting the failure mechanism on November 1, 2010, the

chiller continued to be utilized and run for much of the time until failure on

December 13, 2010. The analyst noted that the chiller ran from November 12

until it failed on December 13, 2010. Therefore, the time that the chiller was

actually unavailable to perform its 24-hour risk significant mission time was

- 33 -

Enclosure

about 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> (the last 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of its run and the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> it took to repair).

This gave an exposure time of 2 days.

Conditional Core Damage Probability (CCDP): In the worst case failure of

control room air conditioning would result in main control room abandonment.

The generic CCDP for shutting the reactor down from outside the main control

room is approximately 0.1.

The analyst determined that a bounding assessment of the change in core damage

frequency (CDF), can be calculated as follows:

CDF = LOOP * PCH-A * EXP * CCDP

= 3.59 x 10-2/year * 3 x 10-2/demand * 2 days/365 days/year * 0.1

= 5.9 x 10-7

Based on the above bounding analysis, the analyst determined that the change in core

damage frequency result was 5.9 x 10-7. This noncited violation was therefore

determined to be of very low safety significance (Green). This finding had a crosscutting

aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution associated with the corrective

action program component because licensee personnel failed to thoroughly evaluate the

multiple failures of the train B control room air conditioner compressor. P.1(c)

Enforcement. Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action,

states, in part, that in the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, measures

shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to

preclude repetition. Contrary to the above, plant personnel did not implement corrective

actions to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to quality associated with

the tripping of the train B control room air conditioning compressor due to low oil

pressure. Specifically, on December 13, 2010, the train B control room air conditioner

compressor tripped due to low oil pressure after the licensee had a performed a root

cause analysis to identify the cause and prevent recurrence of the compressor tripping

due to low oil pressure. Because the finding was of very low safety significance and has

been entered into the corrective action program as Condition Report CR-GGN-2010-

07315, this violation is being treated as a noncited violation, consistent with the NRC

Enforcement Policy. NCV 05000416/2011002-05, Failure to Prevent Recurrence of

Control Room Air Conditioner Compressor Tripping Due to Low Oil Pressure.

.2

Steam Leak in the Containment

a.

On November 8, 2010, the inspectors responded to the control room to observe operator

response to a steam leak in containment. The newly installed mitigation monitoring

system positive displacement pump ejected the cylinder causing an approximate seven

gallons per minute reactor coolant leak. The inspectors observed operator actions,

control room briefs and overall plant response to the event. The inspectors also

Inspection Scope

- 34 -

Enclosure

observed control room indications used to identify abnormal conditions in the

containment building. Documents reviewed for this inspection are listed in the

attachment.

b. Findings

Introduction. The inspectors reviewed a self-revealing, Green finding of EN-DC-115,

Engineering Change Process, involving the failure to maintain adequate design control

measures associated with the installation of the mitigation monitoring system.

Description. On November 8, 2010, at approximately 5:30 am, a reactor coolant

pressure boundary failure occurred at the skid mounted Online Noble Chemical -

Mitigation Monitoring System pump inside primary containment. The positive

displacement sample pump ejected the pump piston from the housing resulting in an

approximate 7 gpm leak of reactor coolant. The leak was not detected for approximately

4.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, resulting in the release of approximately 2,000 gallons of reactor coolant

which flashed directly to steam. The steam leak resulted in a reactor recirculation system

flow control valve lockup (due to HPU motor failure) and approximately 15,000 square

feet of contaminated area in the primary containment structure.

The inspectors reviewed the mitigation monitoring system modification documentation

and found that the design documentation did not appropriately address the design

requirements for the installation of the mitigation monitoring system pump. The licensee

failed to ensure proper validation testing for the pump prior to installation in the plant.

Specifically, they did not ensure that the pump would be able to withstand the system

operating pressures and temperatures in which it was installed. They failed to validate

the design, which had a single point vulnerability, that resulted in the piston injecting

from the pump and caused the leakage and contamination of the containment. In

addition, the inspectors reviewed the root cause analysis of the event and found that the

licensee failed to apply the appropriate oversight of the engineering vendor due to

weaknesses in the procedure EN-DC-114, "Vendor Quality Management/Oversight."

The licensee entered this event into their corrective actions program as condition report

CR-GGN-2010-07852. The licensee has currently removed the mitigation monitoring

system pump from the plant, and isolated the mitigation monitoring system skid from the

reactor water cleanup system. They are evaluating the design to make appropriate

changes to ensure a repeat of this event will not occur.

Analysis. The failure to implement adequate design control measures for modifications

to the plant, which impacted the reactor coolant pressure boundary, is a performance

deficiency. Specifically procedure EN-DC-115, Engineering Change Process, step

5.1[1], requires during the engineering change development a choice of new technology

or application is an error precursor which will need to have defensive functions built into

the design, testing and maintenance, including developing in-house expertise. Contrary

to this, the engineering change package that implemented this design change failed to

ensure proper validation testing was performed prior to installation in the plant. The

finding is more than minor because it affects the design control attribute of the Barrier

Integrity Cornerstone to provide reasonable assurance that physical design barriers

- 35 -

Enclosure

protect the public from radionuclide releases caused by accidents or events. Therefore,

using inspection Manual Chapter 0609, "Significance Determination Process," Phase 1

Worksheet for LOCA initiators, the inspectors concluded that the finding was of very low

safety significance (Green) because the failure of the mitigation monitoring system would

not have exceeded technical specifications limits for identified leakage in the reactor

coolant system. This finding has a crosscutting aspect in the area of human

performance associated with the work practices component because the licensee failed

to adequately oversee the design of the mitigation monitor system such that nuclear

safety is supported. H.4(c)

Enforcement. No violation of regulatory requirements occurred. This finding was

entered into the licensees corrective action program as CR-GGN-2010-07852, and is

identified as: FIN 05000416/2011002-06, Inadequate Design Control for the Mitigation

Monitoring System Modification.

4OA5 Other Activities

1.

(Closed) Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/179, Verification of Licensee Responses to

NRC Requirement for Inventories of Materials Tracked in the National Source Tracking

System Pursuant to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20.2207 (10 CFR

20.2207)

a.

Inspection Scope

An NRC inspection was performed to confirm that the licensee has reported their initial

inventories of sealed sources pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2207 and to verify that the National

Source Tracking System database correctly reflects the Category 1 and 2 sealed

sources in custody of the licensee. Inspectors interviewed personnel and performed the

following:

Reviewed the licensees source inventory

Verified the presence of any Category 1 or 2 sources

Reviewed procedures for and evaluated the effectiveness of storage and handling

of sources

Reviewed documents involving transactions of sources

Reviewed adequacy of licensee maintenance, posting, and labeling of nationally

tracked sources

b.

Findings

While comparing the National Source Tracking System database information, the

Licensees information submittal, and original source certificates, the inspector noted

that the licensee erroneously reported information for one of the four sources meeting

the reporting criteria. The licensee used original leak test data and submitted the wrong

- 36 -

Enclosure

serial number and activity date for the source. The licensee reviewed all relevant data

and submitted corrected documents within the five business days allowed by

10 CFR 20.2207(g). This finding was considered as an administrative error and of minor

safety significance.

4OA6 Meetings

Exit Meeting Summary

On February 18, 2011, the inspectors presented the results of the radiation safety inspections to

Mr. J. Browning, General Plant Manager, and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee

acknowledged the issues presented. The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials

examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information

was identified.

On April 14, 2011, the inspectors presented the inspection results to M. Perito, Site Vice-

President Operations and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the

issues presented. The inspector asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the

inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.

4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violations

The following violations of very low safety significance (Green) were identified by the licensee

and are violations of NRC requirements which meet the criteria of Section 2.3.2 of the NRC

Enforcement Policy for being dispositioned as noncited violations.

.1

Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) section 6.2.1 requires that fire detection

instrumentation for each fire detection zone shall be operable and if the required

detection system is inoperable an hourly fire watch must be established. Contrary to

this, on February 9, 2011 the licensee identified that fire detection instrumentation for fire

zone 2-12 had been left in the non-audible alarm for the main control room on the fire

computer when the limiting condition for operations was cleared on December 8, 2010

when zone was returned to operable status. The control room supervisor on February 9,

2011, discovered this condition when entering a fire-limiting condition for operation for

the division 1 diesel generator room to allow welding. The licensee determined that it

had been in non-audible status from December 8, 2010, through February 9, 2011. This

issue was documented in the licensees corrective action program in condition report

CR-GGN-2011-00851. The senior reactor analyst from region IV performed a bounding

evaluation of the change in risk caused by this condition. According to the Grand Gulf

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Fire Zone 2-12 only contains Division I

equipment. A fire that consumed the equipment in the area could not result in a loss of

offsite power or other unplanned transient. Given the ignition frequency of the area, the

60-day exposure period, and the conditional core damage probability with the loss of the

Division I emergency diesel generator, the analyst calculated that the change in risk was

significantly less than 1E-6. Therefore, this finding was of very low safety significance

(Green).

- 37 -

Enclosure

A-1

Attachment

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee Personnel

R. Benson, Manager (Acting), Radiation Protection

J. Browning, General Plant Manager

D. Coulter, Senior Licensing Specialist

H Farris, Assistant Operation Manager

K. Higgenbotham, Planning and Scheduling Manager

J. Houston, Maintenance Manager

R. Jackson, Licensing

C. Lewis, Manager, Emergency Preparedness

C. Perino, Licensing Manager

M. Perito, Site Vice President of Operations

M. Richey, Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance

F. Rosser, Supervisor, Dosimetry

R. Sumrall, Superintendant, Operations Training

R. Sylvan, Supervisor, Radiation Protection

T. Trichell, Radiation Protection Manager

D. Wiles, Engineering Director

R. Wilson, Manager, Quality Assurance

E. Wright, Supervisor, Radiation Protection

NRC Personnel

R. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector

A-2

Attachment

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened and Closed 05000416/2011002-01 NCV Transient Combustible Stored in the Fire Exclusion Zone Near the

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Section 1R05)05000416/2011002-02 NCV Failure to Update Available Low Pressure Coolant Injection Loops

in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Section 1R12)05000416/2011002-03 NCV Failure to Demonstrate Maintenance Effectiveness of Train B

Control Room Air Conditioner(Section 1R12)05000416/2011002-04 NCV

Failure to Use a Qualified Radiation Protection Technician to

Provide Direct Continuous Coverage of Work in a Locked High

Radiation Area (Section 2RS01)05000416/2011002-05 NCV Failure to Prevent Recurrence of Control Room Air Conditioner

Compressor Tripping Due to Low Oil Pressure (Section 4OA3)05000416/2011002-06 FIN

Inadequate Design Control for the Mitigation Monitoring System

Modification (Section 4OA3)

Closed

TI 2515/179

TI

Verification of Licensee Responses to NRC Requirement for

Inventories of Materials Tracked in the National Source Tracking

System Pursuant to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 20.2207 (10 CFR 20.2207) (Section 4OA5)

05000416/2010-002-00 LER Control Room Air Conditioning Inoperability - Loss of Both Trains

(Section 4OA3)

A-3

Attachment

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Section 1RO1: Adverse Weather Protection

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

ENS-EP-302

Severe Weather Response

11

05-1-02-VI-2

Hurricanes, Tornados, and Severe Weather

113

04-1-01-P41-1

Standby Service Water System

133

04-1-01-N71-1

Circulating Water System

72

04-1-03-A30-1

Cold Weather Protection

20

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

SSW Pump Discharge Temperatures

January 6-10,

2011

WORK ORDER

WO 52233022

Section 1RO4: Equipment Alignment

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

9.3-17 - 9.3-25

GG UFSAR

3

07-1-34-C41-

C001-1

Standby Liquid Control Pump

10

04-1-01-C41-1

Standby Liquid Control System

119

04-1-01-P75-1

Standby Diesel Generator System

88

04-1-01-P41-1

Standby Service Water System

133

04-1-01-E12-1

System Operating Instructions Residual Heat Removal

System

137

04-1-01-E12-1

Residual Heat Removal B

137

04-1-01-E12-1

Residual Heat Removal C

137

A-4

Attachment

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

04-1-01-E12-1

Residual Heat Removal B Attachment IB

137

04-1-01-E12-1

Residual Heat Removal B Attachment IIIB

137

04-1-01-E12-1

Residual Heat Removal C Attachment IC

137

04-1-01-E12-1

Residual Heat Removal B Attachment VB

137

04-1-01-E12-1

Residual Heat Removal (Interface Valves) Attachment IIE

137

04-1-01-P41-1

Standby Service Water System Attachment IIB

133

04-1-01-P41-1

Standby Service Water System Attachment IIIB

113

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

11-4568

Scaffolding Evaluation Request

February 15,

2001

CALCULATION

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

9645

Diesel Generator Building Walls

August 2,

1976

C-C400

SSW CT and Basin (Pump-House) Tornado and No

Earthquake

May 28, 1976

C-0-100

Diesel Generator Bldg. Walls Tornado Wind Load W

August 2,

1976

WORK ORDER

WO 52256371

WO 00260559

WO 00259801

Section 1RO5: Fire Protection

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

Fire Pre-Plan DG-03 Division II Diesel Generator Room

3

9A-343 - 9A347

GG UFSAR

Fire Pre-Plan A-02

RHR A Pump Room 1A103

1

A-5

Attachment

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

Fire Pre-Plan A-03

RCIC Pump Room 1A104

1

Fire Pre-Plan A-04

RHR B Pump Room 1A105

1

9A.5.2.2

Safe Shutdown Equipment

Appendix 9B

Fire Protection Program

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2011-00862

CR-GGN-2011-01939

CR-GGN-2011-00851

CR-GGN-2011-00455

Section 1RO6: Flood Protection Measures

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

9A-336 - 9A338

GG UFSAR

9A.5.59

GG UFSAR FIRE AREA 59

EN-OP-104

Operability Determination Process Immediate Determination

For Degraded of Nonconforming Conditions

4

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

Russell Daniel Oil Co. Inc. Delivery Date Schedule

February 10,

2011

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2011-00198

CR-GGN-2011-00562

CR-GGN-2011-00654

WORK ORDER

WO 52281566

WO 52210679 03

WO 52210679 02

WO 52210679 01

WO 00041743

WO 52210679

A-6

Attachment

ENGINEERING CHANGE

EC No. 24971

EC No. 24904

EC No. 24972

Section 1R07:

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

08-S-03-10

Chemistry Procedure-Closed Loops

48

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

CCE 2006-0002

Commitment Change Evaluation Form

Letter

Response to Generic Letter 89-13; Service Water System

Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment

January 29,

1990

WORK ORDER

WO 00178965 01

WO 00178965 02

WO 00178965 03

Section 1R11: Licensed Operator Requalification Program

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

GSMS-LOR-

WEX03

LOR Training-Double Recirculation Pump Trip/ATWS

January 18,

2011

Rev 17

Turnover and Simulator Differences 2011 Cycle 1 Simulator

Training

1

Per Control Room Walkdown, Modifications to TREX Load

January 7,

2011

Letter

Emergency Preparedness January 31, 2011 Simulator Drill

Performance Indicators

February 1,

2011

A-7

Attachment

Section 1R12: Maintenance Effectiveness

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

EN-FP-S-001-

Multi

Engineering Standard-Appendix R Emergency Lighting Units

January 10,

2011

07-S-12-143

Big Beam Emergency Light Inspection, Battery Capacity

Verification, and Functional Test

2

EN-DC-203

Maintenance Rule Program

1

EN-DC-206

Maintenance Rule (a)(1) Process

1

EN-DC-207

Maintenance Rule Periodic Assessment

1

NMM EN-LI-118

Root Cause Evaluation Report Attachment IV (54 of 54)

12

EN-DC-205

Maintenance Rule Monitoring

2

GG UFSAR Table 7.5-1 Safety-Related Display

Instrumentation

GG UFSAR Table 7.5-2 Post-Accident Monitoring

Instrumentation

GG UFSAR 6.3 Emergency Core Cooling Systems

0

03-1-01-3

Integrated Operating Instructions Plant Shutdown

118

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

Emergency Lighting - GGNS Discussion of Recent Activities

Maintenance Rule Expert Panel June 22, 2010 Meeting

Minutes

Maintenance Rule Expert Panel August 10, 2010 Meeting

Minutes

Entergy Nuclear-GGNS Maintenance Rule Program Basis

Document, Control Room and Emergency Lighting (Z92)

System

0

Z92

Maintenance Rule Database Control Room and Emergency

Lighting

TM M348X.8001

Midtron 3200 Battery Conductance Tester

A-8

Attachment

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

VMA97/0181

Emergency Lights

Maintenance Rule Database Information - Main Control

Room Air Conditioning (Z51) System

March 21,

2009 to

December

23, 2010

Maintenance Rule Database Z51 Control Room HVAC

System

EC No.: 27856

Engineering Evaluation

0

Maintenance Rule Program (a)(1) Evaluation and Action Plan

Main Control Room Air Conditioning (Z51) System

Agenda for Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Meeting

February 4,

2010

RHR Heat Exchanger SSW Flow Indication (a)(1) Status

Maintenance Rule Database E12 RHR System

Maintenance Rule Program (a)(1) Evaluation for the Residual

Heat Removal (E12/RHR) System CR-GGN-2009-0754 CA

No. 002

Maintenance Rule (a)(1) Evaluation Standby Service Water

(P41) System (GR-GGN-2010-00305)

Agenda Items from Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Meeting

June 24,

2010

Agenda Items from Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Meeting

June 22,

2010

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN -2009-05330

CR-GGN -2010-00381

CR-GGN -2010-04575

CR-GGN -2010-04585

CR-GGN -2010-06346

CR-GGN -2011-00481

CR-GGN -2011-00521

CR-GGN -2011-01212

CR-GGN-2011-01650

CR-GGN-2010-01984

CR-GGN-2011-11505

CR-GGN-2011-01308

CR-GGN-2010-07315

CR-GGN-2009-00842

CR-GGN-2009-00754

GR-GGN-2009-01729

CR-GGN-2009-02477

CR-GGN-2009-03394

CR-GGN-2009-02947

CR-GGN-2009-02848

CR-GGN-2009-03292

CR-GGN-2009-03574

CR-GGN-2009-03592

CR-GGN-2009-04219

A-9

Attachment

CR-GGN-2010-01031

CR-GGN-2009-04048

CR-GGN-2009-05930

CR-GGN-2009-05215

CR-GGN-2009-05932

CR-GGN-2009-05472

CR-GGN-2009-06066

CR-GGN-2009-04733

CR-GGN-2010-00036

CR-GGN-2010-01329

CR-GGN-2011-00789

CR-GGN-2010-07351

CR-GGN-2010-04009

CR-GGN-2010-05892

CR-GGN-2011-00791

CR-GGN-2011-00820

CR-GGN-2011-00985

CR-GGN-2009-01204

CR-GGN-2010-00684

CR-GGN-2010-05290

CR-GGN-2010-01585

CR-GGN-2010-00800

CR-GGN-2010-01474

CR-GGN-2010-01337

CR-GGN-2009-05508

CR-GGN-2010-01320

CR-GGN-2010-01345

CR-GGN-2009-05731

CR-GGN-2009-06174

CR-GGN-2010-02797

CR-GGN-2010-02200

CR-GGN-2010-03655

CR-GGN-2010-04629

CR-GGN-2010-02990

CR-GGN-2010-03241

CR-GGN-2009-00350

CR-GGN-2009-00426

CR-GGN-2009-00846

CR-GGN-2009-01518

CR-GGN-2010-02805

CR-GGN-2010-04015

CR-GGN-2010-03333

CR-GGN-2010-04625

CR-GGN-2010-04255

CR-GGN-2009-05527

CR-GGN-2010-02974

CR-GGN-2010-06137

CR-GGN-2010-05208

CR-GGN-2010-05330

CR-GGN-2010-04686

CR-GGN-2010-04963

CR-GGN-2010-05572

CR-GGN-2010-03650

CR-GGN-2010-06978

CR-GGN-2010-06148

CR-GGN-2010-06150

CR-GGN-2010-05328

CR-GGN-2010-06142

CR-GGN-2011-00403

CR-GGN-2011-00749

CR-GGN-2011-00819

CR-GGN-2011-00850

CR-GGN-2010-06895

CR-GGN-2010-06918

CR-GGN-2011-01212

CR-GGN-2010-05147

WORK ORDER

WO 52255810

WO 52223396

WO 52271013 01

WO 52196016

WO 52220690

Section 1R13: Maintenance Risk Assessment and Emergent Work Controls

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-WM-101

On-line Work Management Process

7

EN-WM-100

Work Request Generation, Screening and Classification

5

EN-WM-101

On-line Work Management Process

8

EN-WM-101

On Line Emergent Work Addition/Deletion Approval Form for

the Week of March 7, 2011

7

A-10

Attachment

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-WM-101

On Line Emergent Work Addition/Deletion Approval Form for

the Week of February 28, 2011

7

WORK ORDER

WO250074

WO247598

WO52290243

WO52290462

WO52290463

WO52290464

WO70346

WO52291451

WO52291458

WO52291454

WO52291456

WO52291689

WO52291690

WO261213

WO52284287

WO52269835

WO52290236

WO52290463

WO52290464

WO52291844

WO52291454

WO52291456

WO261601

WO250966-02

WO237429

WO256910-01

WO52290639

WO52287735

WO52290638

WO52287736

WO52276935

WO260417

WO260212-02

WO260212-01

WO00219198

WO260529-07

WO52204865

WO260503

WO52243284

WO260529-07

WO52204865

WO52199495

WO255787-01,02,03,04

WO52249417

WO52271012

WO261175

WO259639

WO257881

WO200935-02

WO00257063

WO224859

WO261706

WO255360-08

WO263130

WO261181-01 and 02

WO262143

WO234988-04

WO234992-04

WO52250110-03

WO234985-04

WO259003-05

WO259005-05

WO259007-05

WO112951-08

WO52270042

WO52259286

WO52275616

WO52288663

WO52290468

WO52270252

WO52291424

WO52270250

WO52291423

WO235034

WO52288844

WO51563342

WO160041

WO52290473

WO52281103

A-11

Attachment

Section 1R15: Operability Evaluations

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-OP-104

Operability Determination Process

4

EN-DC-115

EC No. 20228

0

CALCULATION

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

PDS0170B

SSW Basin A Relief Valve

2

DRAWING

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

FSK-M-KC187-

01C1-Y

Design Change Drawing SSW Basin A and B

8

Design Change Drawing Reinforced Concrete Distribution

Support System Tower Elevation 157-8

8

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

2007-029

LBDCR Initiation

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unity 1 - Conforming License

Amendment to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategies Required

by Section B.5.b of the Commission Order EA - 02 - 026

July 18, 2007

GNRO-

2007/00037

Supplementary Response Regarding Implementation Details

for the Phase 2 and 3 Mitigation Strategies Grand Gulf

Nuclear Station

June 7, 2007

NEI 06-12

B.5.b Phase 2 & 3 Submittal Guideline

Rev 2

December

2006

7-15

GG FSAR

Rev 59

9.5-3

GG UFSAR

Attachment 9.2

Immediate Determination for Degraded of Nonconforming

Conditions CR-GGN-2011-01512

A-12

Attachment

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

Attachment 9.5

Operability Evaluation CR-GGN-2011-00155

NUS Switch Status

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2011-01173

CR-GGN-2011-00765

CR-GGN-2011-00155

CR-GGN-2011-00766

CR-GGN-2011-00799

CR-GGN-2011-01512

CR-GGN-2009-06838

CR-GGN-2011-01349

CR-GGN-2011-04701

CR-GGN-2011-00369

CR-GGN-2011-00643

CR-GGN-2011-00647

CR-GGN-2011-00665

CR-GGN-2011-00666

CR-GGN-2011-00667

CR-GGN-2011-00668

CR-GGN-2011-00669

CR-GGN-2011-00670

CR-GGN-2011-00671

Section 1R18: Plant Modifications

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-DC-136

Temporary Modifications

5

EN-LI-102

Corrective Action Process

16

DRAWING

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

E-1187-007

E31 Leak Detection System RWCU Flow Circuit Computer

Input

7

E1165014

Schematic Design Rod Control and Information System Rod

Position Information and SCRAM Time Test

13

E1173028

Schematic Design Reactor Protection System Testability

6

M1051A

Main and Reheat System

33

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

06-OP-1000-D-0001 Log Data

A-13

Attachment

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

CR-GGN-2009-

02198 CA 26

CR Periodic Review (initial at 6 months/follow by annual)

and/or Long Tem CA Classification Form

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2009-02198

CR-GGN-2010-04451

CR-GGN-2011-01231

WORK ORDER

WO00238932

WO00238928

WO00193921

WO00193920

WO002239736-01

WO002239736-02

WO002239736-03

ENGINEERING CHANGE

EC22768

EC22625

EC22635

Section 1R19: Postmaintenance Testing

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

06-OP-1E12-Q-

0005

LPCI/RHR Subsystem A MOV Functional Test

112

06-OP-1E12-Q-

0023

LPCI/RHR Subsystem A Quarterly Functional Test

121

06-0P-1E12-

0006

LPCI/RHR System B MOV Functional Test

111

06-OP-1P41-Q-

0004

Standby Service Water Loop A Valve AND Pump Operability

Test

119

04-1-03-P75-1

Div 1 Diesel Generator Unexcited Run

7

06-OP-1P75-M-

001

Data Sheet III Standby Diesel Generator 11 Functional Test

February 12,

2011

07-S-12-40

General Cleaning and Inspection of Rotating Electrical

Equipment

2

07-S-12-146

General Maintenance Instruction Motor Off Line Diagnostic

1

A-14

Attachment

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION /

DATE

Data Acquisition

07-S-12-55

Insulation Resistance Testing

10

06-IC-1E22-Q-

0004

HPCS System Flow Rate - Low (Bypass) Functional Test

104

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

RPS Motor GEN B - MCE Stator

February 2,

2011

HPCS Min Flow Valve Position

March 18,

2011

DRAWING

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

BRKR No. 52-

142229

IC71SOOIOB

BRKR No. 52-

142229

IC7IS003B (Local C71-S003B)

BRKR No. 52-

142229

IC7IS003D (Local C71-S003D)

Timeline for Events leading to NRC Notification Call on

HPCS

March 18,

2011

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2011-00945

WORK ORDER

WO52311451

WO52311569

WO52285575

WO00251847

WO52224645

WO52223715

WO00262318

WO00259110-01

WO00259110-03

WO00237650-01

WO00237650-04

WO00237650-05

WO00237650-06

WO52304041

WO00270205-01

A-15

Attachment

WO00270205-02

Section 1R22: Surveillance Testing

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

06-CH-1B21-O-

0002

Reactor Coolant Routine Chemistry-Sample February 23,

2011

106

06-CH-1B21-O-

0002

Reactor Coolant Routine Chemistry-Sample February 18,

2011

106

06-CH-1B21-O-

0002

Plant Operations Manual-Reactor Coolant Routine Chemistry

106

06-CH-1B21-W-

0008

Reactor Coolant Dose Equivalent Iodine

104

06-OP-1C61-R-

0002

Functional Checks with E51 Valves

109

06-OP-1P75-M-

0001

Standby Diesel Generator Functional Test

132

06-IC-1D17-R-

0010

Fuel Handling Area Ventilation Exhaust High High Radiation

Electronics Time Response Test

102

04-1-01-P81-1

High Pressure Core Spray Diesel Generator

67

06-OP-1P81-M-

0002

HPCS Diesel Generator 13 Functional Test

123

EN-OP-109

Conduct of Operations

2

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

Drywell Unidentified Leakage Rate vs. A Recirc Seal Delta

T

June 2010-

January 2011

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2011-01932

CR-GGN-2011-01868

WORK ORDER

WO52271012

WO52289870

WO52288401

WO52261837

WO52307262

WO00270146-01

A-16

Attachment

Section 1EP6: Drill Evaluation

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

Emergency Facility Log

March 3, 2011

Repair and Corrective Action Table

March 3, 2011

Emergency Notification Form 1-7 for EP Drill

March 3, 2011

GGNS 2011 1st Quarter ERO Training Drill

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2011-01481

CR-GGN-2011-01486

CR-GGN-2011-01495

CR-GGN-2011-01499

CR-GGN-2011-01510

CR-GGN-2011-01519

CR-GGN-2011-01520

CR-GGN-2011-01522

Section 2RS01: Radiological Hazard Assessment and Exposure Controls

PROCEDURES

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-RP-100

Radiation Worker Expectations

6

EN-RP-101

Access Control for Radiologically Controlled Areas

5

EN-RP-102

Radiological Control

2

EN-RP-106

Radiological Survey Documentation

2

01-S-08-1

Administration of the GGNS Radiation Protection Program

105

01-S-08-6

Radioactive Source Control

113

08-S-02-50

Radiological Surveys and Surveillances

116

AUDITS, SELF-ASSESSMENTS, AND SURVEILLANCES

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

LO-GLO-2010-93

Pre-NRC Rad Hazard Assessment and Exposure

Controls Assessment

December 16, 2010

CONDITION REPORTS

CR-GGN-2011-00183 CR-GGN-2011-00551 CR-GGN-2011-00655 CR-GGN-2011-00926

CR-GGN-2011-00740

A-17

Attachment

RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

GG-1102-0146

Routine Daily Surveys

February 15, 2011

GG-1012-0083

208 CTMT Entire Elevation

December 7, 2010

GG-1102-0152

208 CTMT Entire Elevation

February 15, 2011

GG-1012-0118

119 AB RHR A Room

December 9, 2010

GG-1012-0086

119 AB RHR A Room

February 7, 2011

GG-1011-0254

119 AB RHR B Room

November 30, 2010

GG-1101-0156

119 AB RHR B Room

January 16, 2011

GG-1011-0064

93 Aux RHR C & ADHR Hx Rooms

November 6, 2010

GG-1102-0044

93 Aux RHR C & ADHR Hx Rooms

February 3, 2011

GG-1011-0018

119 Aux Piping Penetration & Valve Room

November 2, 2010

GG-1102-0041

119 Aux Piping Penetration & Valve Room

February 3, 2011

GG-1011-0063

93 Aux HPCS Pump Room

November 6, 2010

GG-1102-0042

93 Aux HPCS Pump Room

February 3, 2011

RADIATION WORK PERMITS

NUMBER

TITLE

20101005

Tours and Inspections into all areas

20111054

Locked High Radiation Area Entries for Plant/System Investigations, Valve

Manipulations, Tagouts, and Misc. Activities

20111058

Maintenance in HRA /HCA & Above

Section 2RS02: Occupational ALARA Planning and Controls

PROCEDURES

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-RP-105

Radiological Work Permits

9

EN-RP-110

ALARA Program

7

AUDITS, SELF-ASSESSMENTS, AND SURVEILLANCES

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

LO # LO-GLO-

2010-00094

Pre-NRC Inspection for ALARA Planning and Controls-

Assessment

November 9, 2010

CONDITION REPORTS

A-18

Attachment

CR-GGN-2011-00425 CR-GGN-2011-00425 CR-GGN-2010-06335

RADIATION WORK PERMIT PACKAGES

NUMBER

TITLE

2010-1402

Refuel Floor High Water Activities

2010-1403

Reactor Disassemble/Reassemble

2010-1508

Under Vessel Activities

2010-1530

B Recirc Pump Replacement

2010-1534

B21F011B Stem Replacement

Section 4OA1: Performance Indicator Verification

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-LI-114

1st Quarter 2010 Unplanned Scrams per 7,000 Critical

Hours

4

EN-LI-114

2nd Quarter 2010 Unplanned Scrams per 7,000 Critical

Hours

4

EN-LI-114

3rd Quarter 2010 Unplanned Scrams per 7,000 Critical

Hours

4

EN-LI-114

4th Quarter 2010 Unplanned Scrams per 7,000 Critical

Hours

4

EN-LI-114

1st Quarter 2010 Unplanned Scrams with Complications

4

EN-LI-114

2nd Quarter 2010 Unplanned Scrams with Complications

4

EN-LI-114

3rd Quarter 2010 Unplanned Scrams with Complications

4

EN-LI-114

4th Quarter 2010 Unplanned Scrams with Complications

4

EN-LI-114

1st Quarter 2010 Unplanned Power Changes per 7,000

Critical Hours

4

EN-LI-114

2nd Quarter 2010 Unplanned Power Changes per 7,000

Critical Hours

4

EN-LI-114

3rd Quarter 2010 Unplanned Power Changes per 7,000

Critical Hours

4

EN-LI-114

4th Quarter 2010 Unplanned Power Changes per 7,000

Critical Hours

4

A-19

Attachment

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

January 2010 Core Thermal Power

February 2010 Core Thermal Power

March 2010 Core Thermal Power

April 2010 Core Thermal Power

May 2010 Core Thermal Power

June 2010 Core Thermal Power

July 2010 Core Thermal Power

August 2010 Core Thermal Power

September 2010 Core Thermal Power

October 2010 Core Thermal Power

November 2010 Core Thermal Power

December 2010 Core Thermal Power

Section 4OA2: Identification and Resolution of Problems

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

GGNS Position on Riley Temperature Switch Replacement

Maintenance Rule Program Functional Failures-Riley

Temperature Switches

NUS Switch Status

February 2,

2011

Riley History Discussion by Lee Eaton

Riley History Presentation to 2009 PInR

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2009-05879

A-20

Attachment

Section 4OA3: Event Follow-Up

PROCEDURE

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-DC-167

Classification of Structures, Systems, and Components

3

EN-HU-103

Human Performance Error Reviews for CR-GGN-2010-7877

4

EN-DC-115

Engineering Change Process

11

DRAWINGS

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

M-1127A

Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Noblechem Monitoring

System

0

M-1081B

Control Rod Drive Hydraulic System

28

M-1078A

Reactor Recirculation System Unit 1

33

M-1079

Reactor Water Clean-up System Unit 1

46

M-1069A

Process Sampling System Unit 1

24

OTHER

NUMBER

TITLE

DATE

Root Cause Evaluation Report-Control Room Air Conditioner

B Trip (Event Date 10-14-2010)

October 16,

2010

GNRO-

2010/00077

LER 2010-002-00Control Room Air Conditioning

December

13, 2010

Root Cause Evaluation Report Mitigation Monitor Durability

Monitor Pump Failure

November 8,

2010

MMS Skid Piping/Component Design Basis

Compliance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.26

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2010-07315

CR-GGN-2010-08580

CR-GGN-2010-07852

ENGINEERING CHANGE

A-21

Attachment

EC13135

EC13132

EC13138

Section 4OA5 Temporary Instruction 2515/179

PROCEDURES

NUMBER

TITLE

REVISION

EN-RP-143

Source Control

7

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS

TITLE

DATE

National Source Tracking System Annual Inventory Reconciliation Report

2010

National Source Tracking System Annual Inventory Reconciliation Report

2011

Section 4OA7: Licensee-Identified Violations

CONDITION REPORT

CR-GGN-2011-00851