IR 05000244/1979017
| ML17249A530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1979 |
| From: | Kister H, Markowski R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17249A529 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-79-17, NUDOCS 8001310131 | |
| Download: ML17249A530 (12) | |
Text
U.S'.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT R
I
. ~55-544 75-l7 Docket No. 50-244 Regio.n I License No.
DPR-18 Priority Category C
Licensee:
Rochester Gas and Electric Cor oration 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 Facility Name:
R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
Inspection at:
Ontario, New York Inspection conduc ed:
November 13-16, 1979 Inspectors:
t
ar ows s, eactor nspector zz/ir/7p date signed date signed Approved by:
ister,.
ie,
Re No. 4, RO&NS Br Projects Section date signed date signed Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on November 13-16 1979 Re ort No. 50-24'4 79-17 R
'
"
'
I IP P
57:
I vation of control room activities; and, onsite Licensee Event Report followup.
The inspection involved 25 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC regional based inspector.,
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12
{Rev. April 77)
80IIx 3>0 /3
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Mr.
Mr.,
- Mr.
Mr.
- Mr; H. Backus, Operations Supervisor J. Bodine, Station gC J.
Noon, Assistant Plant Superintendent C. Peck, Operations Engineer T. Schuler, gC Engineer The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel including onshift
'licensed operators, electrical and mechanical maintenance foremen, and members of the health physics and general office staffs.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Plant 0 erations Review.
a.
Shift Lo s and 0 eratin Records (1)
The inspector reviewed the following logs and records:
Official Record, November 1-13, 1979; Shift Foreman Record, November 1-13, 1979; Operations Plans, October 2 - November 13, 1979; Operations Standing Orders, as delineated in the Index dated July 3, 1979; Computer Log Sheet, Sections,1-'6, September 1-5 and November 1-4, 1979; Daily Surveillance Record, November 1-10, 1979; and, Records issued for control of LCO's for Operating Equipment (A52.4'),dated August 4 and 29, September-7, 10, 13, 19, and 24, and, October 16, 1979.
(2)
The logs and records were reviewed to verify that:
Log sheet entries are filled out and initialed;
a~
3'og entries involving abnormal conditions are sufficiently detailed; r
Operating standing orders and Operations Plans do not conflict with the intent of the Technical'Specification (TS);
Problem=identification reports confirm compliance with TS reporting and LCO requirements.
(3)
Acceptance criteria for the above review included inspector judgement and requirements of applicable Technical Specifications and the following procedures:
A-20, "Control Room Logs," Revision 9; A-52.4, "Control of Limiting Conditions for Operations,"
Revision 20; A-52.5, "Control of Limiting Conditions for System Specifica-tions," Revision 5; A-52.6, "Operations Standing Order," Revision 3; A-52.7, "Operations Plan," Revision 1; 0-6, Operations and Process Monitoring, Revision 17; 0-6. 13, Daily Surveillance Log, Revision 1; and, S-26.2, Computer Out of Service, Revision 5.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Observation of Plant Status from the Control Room On November 14, 1979, the inspector verified conformance to those Technical Specification (TS) requirements which can be determined from observation of monitoring instrumentation and equipment switch positions in the, control room.
The following observations and/or activities were conducted:
The indicated combination of thermal power level (X), coolant pressure and coolant temperature were below the limit shown in TS Figure 2.1-1;
The indicated pressurizer pressure was less than 2735 psig (TS 2.2);
Both reactor coolant pumps were operating (TS 3.1.1.1.b);
Both Steam Generators were operable and the temperature difference across the tube sheet was
< 100 F (TS 3.1.1.2);
Water volumes of the Refueling Water Tank, Condensate Storage Tank, NaOH Tank and Boric Acid Storage Tanks were greater than the minimum required; Utilizing procedure 0-6'.2, Main Control Board System Status Verification, Revision 8, the inspector performed a sampling review of the specified equipment alignment status; Utilizing procedure 0-6.4, Core quadrant Power Tilt Calculation, Revision 5, the inspector verified by calculation that the quadrant to average core quadrant power tilt ratio was less than 1.02; The indicated average axial flux difference was within +5% of the target value; Control rod bank position was consistent with TS Figure 3.10-1; Individual rod positions were within 15 inches of their respective group demand position; The average of indicated containment pressure was 0 psig; SI accumulator levels, pressures, and indicated valve position were as required; and, At least two licensed-operators were in the control room with one at the controls.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
NRC Re ion I Review of Licensee Event Re orts (LERs)
The inspector reviewed LER's received in the NRC: I office to verify that details of the event were clearly reported including the accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action.
In addition, the inspector determined whether further information was-required from the licensee, whether generic implications were involved and whether the event warranted on site followup.
The following LER's were reviewed:
LER 78-009/01T-O, Fire Watch for Halon System Repair;
- LER 79-001/03L-O, Bus 14 Breaker for."C" Safety Injection Pump;
- LER 79-002/03L-O,
"A" Charging Pump Cylinder Cracked;
- LER 79-003/03L-O,
"B" Charging Pump Varidrive Belt Slippage;
- LER 79-004/03L-.O,
"A" Diesel Generator Trip After Day Tank Level Alarm Test; and,
- LER 79-005/03L-O, Failure of MOV 851B to Reopen.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Onsite Followu of Licensee Events For those LER's selected for onsite followup (denoted by an * in Paragraph 3), the inspector verified by discussion and review of references listed below that:
the reporting requirements of the Technical Specification had been met; the corrective action as stated in the report was completed; the cause of the event had been determined; and, continued operation of the facility was conducted in accordance with Technical Specifications.
The records reviewed were:
Official Record and A52.4 form dated January 3, 1979; Trouble Card No.
79-17; and, Safeguard Breaker Maintenance Procedure, M32.1 dated January 3,
1979 (LER 79-001);
Official Record and A52.4 form dated January 4, 1979; Maintenance Procedure M11.4.11 dated January ll, 1979; Engineering Work Request No. 2437; and, procurement documentation associated with Purchase Order N-EG-03290 (LER 79-002);
Official Record and A52.4 form dated January 4, 1979; Trouble Report No. 79-38 dated January 4, 1979; and, procedure 0-6.11, Routine Opera-tions Check Sheet, Revision
(LER 79-003);
Official Record and A25.1 form dated February 6, 1979; PT 12.1, Emergency Diesel Generator 1A, Revision 10; PT 12.2, Emergency Diesel Generator 1B, Revision 11; Procedure Change Notice No.79-278; and, Memorandum:
Operations Engineer to Plant Operating Staff (LER 79-004); and,
Offical Record and A52.4 form dated February 6, 1979; PT-4, Residual Heat Removal. Loop, Annual Hydro Test of Low Pressure Piping; and, PT-2.3, Safeguards Valve Testing, April to August, 1979'.
No items of noncompliance were identified; however, one.LER remains unresolved as discussed below.
On January 4, 1979, a crack developed in the "A" Charging Pump cylinder block.
The unit is an Ajax Iron Works Tiripiex T125 verticle plunger pump.
Discussions with licensee personnel and a sampling review of charging pump maintenance history indicated that this was the first occurrence of this type 'at the R.
E. Ginna site.
Preliminary evaluation conducted by the licensee had indicated that the failure of the cylinder block had been due to fatique cracking.
The event is still under review by the licensee and the cause of the cracking has not yet been determined.
Pending completion of this review and. reinspection by RI, this item is unresolved; (79-17-O1)
~
~
~5.
Unresolved Items Items for which more information is required to determine acceptability are termed as unresolved items.
Paragraph 4 of this report discusses an unre-solved item.
6.
Exit Interview A management meeting was held with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 16, 1979.
The purpose, scope and findings of this inspection as detailed in this report were discusse