IR 05000244/1979009
| ML17244A856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1979 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Caphton D, Graham P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17244A854 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-79-09, 50-244-79-9, NUDOCS 7910020419 | |
| Download: ML17244A856 (22) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-244/79-09 Docket No. 50-244 License No; DPR-18 Priority:
Category:
C Licensee:
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 Facility Name:
R. E.,Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Ontario, New York Inspectors:
Inspection conducted:
June 26-29, 1979
~
H. Bettenhausen Reactor Inspector
.u, )-
P.
D. Grah m,
Rea tor In ector date signed 8'3 7 d t sig ed Approved by:
c j
D.
L. Caphton, Chief, Nuclear Support Section No.
1, R08NS Branch ate sig ed Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on June 26-29 1979 Re ort No. 50-244/7909 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspecton by f'eg>Onal based inspectors of post-refueling startup testing for Cycle IX, including core thermal power, shutdown margin, incore/excore detector calibra-tion, control rod worths and axial flux difference; testing of systems prior to startup, including rod position indications and rod drop times; general employee training and operator requalification training.
The inspection involved 61 inspector-hours on site by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Results:
-In the twelve areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identifie DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
"Mr. M.
H. Backus, Operations Supervisor
"Mr. J.
C. Bodine, gC Inspection Engineer
~Mr.
G.
F. Larizza, Technical Engineer Mr.
R. Marchionda, Assistant Training Coordinator
"Mr. T.
A. Meyer, Nuclear Engineer
- Mr. J.
C.
Noon, Assistant Plant Superintendent
"Mr. C.
H. Peck, Operation Engineer Ms.
K. Risley, Instructor
"Mr. B.
A. Snow, Plant Superintendent Mr.
B. Steffon, Computer Technician Ms. J. Zabinski, Cadet Engineer
.
2.
The inspectors also interviewed several other members of the licensee s staff during the course of this inspection.
"Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Post Refuelin Plant 0 erations Facility records were reviewed to determine that systems dis-turbed during the refueling outage were returned to service in accordance with approved procedures.
Systems chosen for review were the reactor coolant system and the control rod system.
The following procedures were reviewed:
O-l. 1, Plant Heatup From Cold Shutdown, Revision 38, dated October 20, 1978.
Completed March 23, 1979, March 25, 1979, March 30, 1979.
0-1. 1B, Establishing Containment Integrity, Revision 15, dated July 28, 1978.
Completed March 21, 1979.
0-1. 1C, Pre-Critical Technical Specification Check Sheet, Revision 16, dated December 18, 1978.
Completed March 30, 1979, and April 2, 1979.
0-1. 1D, Pre-Heatup Plant Requirement Check List, Revision 6, dated July 22, 1977.
Completed March 22, 1979, March 24, 1979, and April 2, 1979.
0-1.2, Plant From Hot Shutdown to Steady Load, Revision 46, dated March 17, 1979.
Completed April 9, 197 "3-PT-7, Hydrostatic Test of the Reactor Cooling System (RCS), Revision 16, dated April 18, 1978.
Completed March 24, 1979.
0-2.3.2, Filling and Venting the RCS, Revision 6, dated March 11, 1978.
Completed March 19, 1979.
From this review of records and discussions with plant staff, the inspectors ascertained that the startup was conducted in accordance with approved procedures and with Technical Speci-fications.
The following rod position indication procedures were reviewed:
2-3.1, Rod Position Indication (RPI) System
"Shutdown" Bank at Power Alignment, Revision 1, dated March 25, 1978, 'completed April 6, 1979.
I 2-4.1, RPI System "Part Length" 'Bank at Power Alignment, Revision 1, dated March 25, 1978, completed October 13, 1978.
2-5.1, RPI System "A" Bank at Power Alignment, Revision 0, dated October 16, 1975, completed April 6, 1979.
2-6.1, RPI System
"B" Bank at Power Alignment, Revision 0, dated October 16, 1975, completed April 6, 1979.
2-7. 1, RPI System
"C" Bank at Power Alignment, Revision 0, dated October 16, 1975, completed April 6, 1979.
2-8. 1, RPI System
"D" Bank at Power Alignment, Revision 0, dated October 17, 1975, completed April 6, 1979.
The following valve lineup check lists were reviewed:
S-30.5, Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Valve Po'sition Verification, Revision 1, dated June 1, 1979,.completed June 15, 1979.
S-30.4, Auxiliary Feedwater System Valve Position Verifica-tion, Revision 1, dated March 24, 1979, completed June 9,
1979.
Finally, the test for control rod drop times, RSSP-7, Rod Drop Times, Revision 4,"'approved August 26, 1975, completed March 25, 1979, was reviewed.
All 29 rods dropped in less than 1.8 seconds, meeting Technical Specification No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.
Post-Refuelin Startu Testin The inspectors revi ewed tests, checks and. documents*
descry ibed below to verify that startup testing was conducted i.n accordance with technically adequate procedures and as requiredby Technical Specifi-cations.
The predicted physics parameters for R. E. Ginna plant'fuel, Cycle IX are contained in XN-NF-79-13, R.E..Ginna Cycle IX Startup Calculations and Nuclear Data for Operation',
issued March 8, 1979.
The startup test program was described in the test procedure PT 34 0,:
Startup Physics Test Program, Revision 2, approved March 19, 1979; completed May 7, 1979.
This program will be described in more detail in the paragraphs below.
In general, the agreement between predicted physics parameters for the beginning of Cycle IX and the parameters measured in the startup testing program was excellent.
Power Distribution Measurement Flux maps are obtained in ac-cordance with procedure S-15. 1, Flux Mapping Normal Procedure, Revision 21, Approved August 7, 1978.
The inspectors reviewed procedures completed on March 31, 1979, April 5, 1979, April 6, 1979, April 7, 1979, April 12, 1979, April 24, 1979 and May 7, 1979 for completeness and proper use of the in-core detection system.
The performance of S-15. 1 on June 26, 1979 was witnessed by the inspectors.
The licensee maintains the incore flux map printouts on site and transmits the digital data to a large offsite digital com-puter for detailed full-core analysis.
The full-core analysis is managed by Rochester Gas and Electric corporate engineer-
'ing staff.
Summary information on hot channel factors, qua-drant power tilt, axial flux difference and other appropriate data is then sent to the plant nuclear engineer for his infor-mation.
The inspectors reviewed the following flux map data provided from the plant process computer and incore summary information.
E
~Ma IX-1 IX-2 IX-12 IX-13 Date Performed March 31, 1979 March 31, 1979 June 12, 1979 June 26, 1979 Power Level 3X 9X 100K lOOX The calculations use appropriate penalty factors.
No anomalies associated with Cycle IX operations have been identifie No items of noncompliance or deviations were found in this review.
b.
Incore/Excore Detector Correlation The inspector reviewed the procedure PT 6.4, Revision No. 7, Excore/Incore Recalibration and the appropriate data sheets and flux map analysis for the excore-incore correlation performed April 9, 1979.
The purpose of the review was to identify the following items.
Precautions and limitations during the actual perform-ance of the calibration were established; The completed procedure including the worksheets reflect the -specific and the desired prerequisites and initial conditions prior to the commencement of data acquisition for the calibration; The Axial Flux Difference during the test is maintained as required by the Technical Spectification; The control banks were not inserted beyond their inser-tion limits at any time during the calibration; Data collection and documentation proceeded as pre-scribed in the test procedure; and The 100K excore detector currents had been determined from the data collected.
C.
No inadequacies were identified.
Core Thermal Power Evaluation The licensee determines his maximum license thermal power limit by conducting daily (or more often) core thermal power calculations (calorimetrics) in accordance with procedure 0-6.3, Maximum Unit Power, Revision 7, approved December 18, 1978.
The inspector reviewed the adequacy of procedure 0-6.3 and verified the calculations performed on April 5, 1979 and the period April 27 through May 24, 1979.
Instrumentation which provided necessary input data was calibrated;
The constants in the calculation were accurately estab-.
lished; and The heat balance calculations were performed daily (or more often) as required for the period reviewed.
No items of noncompliance. were identified.
d.
Determination of Reactor Shutdown Mar in Procedures 0-3.1, Revision 6, approved April 23, 1979, Boron Concentration for the Xenon Free All Rods in - Most Reactive
.
Rod Stuck Out SDM and 0-3, Revision 7, Hot Shutdown with Xenon Present, approved February 6, 1978, were reviewed.
The licensee complies with the shutdown margin requirements of TS 3. 10. 1 by maintaining the rod insertion limits of TS 3. 10. 2 and use of the above procedures to determine the required Boron Concentration for the Xenon free condition.
e.
No inadequacies wer'e identified in this area.
Isothermal Tem erature Coefficient of Reactivit This measurement was performed under procedure PT 34.2, Moderator Temperatur'e Coefficient Measurement, Revision 0, approved April 27, 1978.
The measurement was performed in accordance with the prerequisites and precautions of the pro-cedure on March 31, 1979.
Results compared with predictions were:
Condition Measured cm/F All Rods Out (ARO)
-3.7 Bank D In-4. 5 Predicted ( cm/F-3. 6-6. 1 No inadequacies were noted in this review.
Control Rod Worth Measurements and Predictions The following completed procedures were reviewed to verify that prerequisites, initial test conditions and precautions were met before and during test performance:
PT 34.3, RCC,Bank Worth Measurement, Revision 1, approved March 19, 1979, completed March 31, 1979 and April 1, 197 PT 34.4, RCC Bank 0 and C Boron Concentration, Revision 0, approved April 27, 1978, completed March 31, 1979 and April 1, 1979.
The test results compared with predictions as follows:
Rod Bank Measured (
cm Predicted cm 901 1,256 505 916 1,255 579 Total of B, C, D
2,662 2,750 In addition, Boron Concentration endpoints performed in accordance with PT 34.1, Initial Criticality and ARO Boron Concentration, Revision 2, approved March 19, 1979 and com-pleted March 31, 1979 were reviewed.
A comparison of measured and predicted Boron Concentrations for Cycle IX is tabulated below:
Condition Measurement mm Boron Prediction ( mm/Boron ARO Bank D In Bank C80 In 1,410 1,414 + 30 1,305 1,305 + 30 1,169 1,156 + 30 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
g.
Tar et Axial Flux Difference Calculation The inspector reviewed procedure 0-6.4. I, Revision 3, Refer-ence Equilibrium Indicated Axial Flux Oifference meterminatton, approved August 23, 1978, March 30, 1979, May 1, 1979 and
- completed June 1,
1979 for cothpliance with TS 3.10.2.
The procedure still referred to Cycle 8 parameters.
Licensee representatives stated that a Temporary Change Notice and a
procedure change request would be initiated.
This correction to include Cycle IX data and references will be the subject of a future inspection (244/79-09-01).
The completed.startup testing program was discussed with licensee representatives.
The close agreement between measured and predicted parameters and the reasons for this were discussed
.::
One parameter which was not measured was the power coefficient of reactivity.
Licensee staff members
discussed the difficulty and lack of accuracy of the measure-ment as the major reasons why they did not incude it in the startup test program.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Trainin for Em lo ees a.
Pro ram Definition The licensee revised and reindexed all plant administrative procedures related to training in the interval January to March, 1979.
The inspectors reviewed these procedures for conformance.to
CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II; 10 CFR 19.12; and ANSI 18.1-.1971.
The procedures outline the formal training program for new employees, existing employees, staff, craftsmen and technicians.
The training programs cover administrative controls and procedures, radiological safety, guality Control, and controlled access and security.
Formal training is provided to female employees as recom-mended in Regulatory Guide 8.13.
b.
Pro ram Administration The inspectors verified that training was provided as set forth in the procedures by review of training records and interviews with selected employees.
Records were reviewed for new and existing employees, male and female, who were technicians, plant staff and technical. staff members.
Inter-views were conducted with:
Two relatively new employees Two employees with more than one year of service A technician A technical staff member A general plant staff member.
The interviews verified tht the records reflect training received and that the training as conducted was meaningful and useful to those attending.
No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Re uglification Trainin for 0 erators The inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedure A-102. 14, R.
f. Ginna Operator Requalification Program, Revision 0, ap-proved March 2, 1979 and its conformance to the NRC-approved operator requalification program.
The program contains the following elements required by Appendix A to 10 CFR 55:
A two-year program cycle; An established, planned, continuing lecture schedule appropriate to deficient areas identified by the most recent annual examination; On-the-job training involving control manipulations, procedures and changes thereto, facility design changes, and contents of abnormal and emergency procedures; Annual written examinations, observation of performance, and simulation of emergency or abnormal conditions; A system of record-keeping.
The inspectors determined that the existing program conforms to requirements and commitments.
b.
Pro ram Im lementation The inspectors reviewed the results and licensee evaluation of the results of the 1979 annual examination.
The evalua-tion was used in preparation of the 1979 requalification lecture schedule.
The inspectors reviewed this schedule and the lesson plans and training materials for the first three topics presented.
C.
No inadequacies were identified.
Record Review The inspectors determined by interview and record review that, based upon the 1979 Annual Requalification Examination:
One licensed operator who is a technical staff member failed the examination and was removed from licensed duties and placed in an accelerated requalification
-10" program.
This was noted by memorandum dated February 19, 1979 from the Training Coordinator to the Superintendent; Three licensed operators who are part of plant management staff did not take the requalification examination because of the press of other duties.
They were removed from licensed activities until satisfactory examinations are submitted, according to a memorandum dated February 8, 1979 from the Training Coordinator to the Superintendent.
The inspectors reviewed the records and conducted an interview with a licensed operator who returned to licensed duties in 1978 following an extended illness.
The period and content of retraining appeared to be adequate and helpful in returning this individual to licensed duties.
A detailed record review was conducted for two reactor opera-tors, two senior reactor operators and two staff members holding senior reactor operator licenses who are not actively engaged in control room duties.
The records contained the following documentation:
Completed annual and lecture topic examinations Attendance at required lectures Required control manipulations Performance evaluations Emergency procedure reviews Simulator training and oral reorientation to the Ginna control board following simulator training.
No inadequacies were identified.
The inspectors interviewed four of the individuals whose records were reviewed.
The interviews were conducted to verify that the records reflect training received and to obtain the individuals'ppraisal of the content and effec-tiveness of the requalification program.
No discrepancies or inconsistencies between interview information and training records were identified.
No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Exit interview The inspectors met with licensee management representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on June 29, 1979.
The purpose, scope and findings of this inspection were presented at the meetin v