IR 05000244/1980009
| ML17250A689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1980 |
| From: | Johnston D, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17250A688 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-80-09, 50-244-80-9, NUDOCS 8010230115 | |
| Download: ML17250A689 (14) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION ANO ENFORCEMENT R
p D
kLN.CdM44 License No.
DPR-18 Region I Priority Category Licensee:
Rochester Gas and Electric Cor oration 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 Facility Name:
R E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Inspection at:
Ontario, New York Inspection conducted:
June9-July 31, 1980 t
Inspectors:
Fsc
. F. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector (Interim)
dat signed date signed Approved by:
.
B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects Section No. 4, RO&NS Branch d te signed dat signed Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on June 9-Julv 31 1980 Re ort No. 50-244 80-09 regs ns ecte
outlne inspect)ons y t e resl ent inspector of plant operations, lnclu lng tours of the facility; log and record review; review of licensee events; operational safety verification; observation of physical security; and,.
qualification of the training staff.. The inspections involved 52 on site hours by the resident NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
'
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
eoiosse I I b
DETAILS 1.
Persons
. Contacted 2.
F.
W. Aman, Office Supervisor
.
W. H. Backus, Operations Supervisor E. J. Beatty, Technical Projects Coordinator L. E. Boutwell, Maintenance Supervisor L. I. Depew, Shift Supervisor W.
K. Dillion, Supervisor of Nuclear Security C,
E. Edgar, I&C Supervisor R.
B. Junot, Shift Supervisor J.
G,.Larizza, Technical Engineer T. A. Marlow, Cadet Engineer R,
M. Morrill, Training Coordinator A. G. Morris, Assistant Training Coordinator J.
C, Noon, Assistant Plant Superintendent B. R. guinn, Health Physicist B. A. Snow, Plant Superintendent R. Mood, Coordinator of Nuclear Security Training The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection including operations, performance, training, quality assurance, maintenance.
and administrative personnel.
Review of Plant 0 eration - Plant Ins ections I
a.
The inspector reviewed plant operations through direct inspection and observation throughout the reporting period.
The following areas were inspected:
(1)
Control Room (Daily)
(2)
Auxiliary Building
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Turbine Building
Radwaste Facility 5)
Diesel Generator Rooms 6)
Intake and Discharge Buildings (7)
Condensate Polishing Facility 8)
Vital Switchgear Rooms 9)
Control Point 10) Site Perimeter b.
The following determinations were made:
Monitoring instrumentation:
The inspector verified that selected instruments were functional and demonstrated parameters within Technical Specification limits.
Val.ve positions.
The inspector verified that selected valves were in the position or condition required by Technical Specifi-cations for the applicable plant mode.
This verification in-cluded control board indication and field observation of valve position (Safeguards Systems).
Radiation Controls, The inspector verified by observation that control point iprocedures and posting requirements were being followed, The inspector identified no failures to properly post radiation and high radiation areas.
Plant housekeeping conditions.
Observations relative to plant housekeeping identified no unsatisfactory conditions.
Fluid leaks.
No fluid leaks were observed which had not been identified by station personnel and for which corrective action had not been initiated, as necessary.
Piping vibration.
No excessive piping vibrations were observed and no adverse conditions were noted.
Selected pipe hangers and seismic restraints were observed and no adverse conditions were noted.
Control room annunciators.
Selected lit annunciators were dis-cussed with control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being taken, By frequent observation".through the inspection, the inspector verified that control room manning requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 (k) and the Technical Specifications were being met.
In addition, the inspector observed shift turnovers to verify that continuity of system status was maintained.
The inspector periodically questioned shift personnel relative to their awareness of plant conditions.
Technical Specifications.
Through log review and direct observa-tions during tours, the inspector verified compliance with selected Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation.
The following parameters were sampled frequently:
accumulator levels and pressures, RWST level, BIT temperature, containment pressure and temperature, axial flux difference.
In addition, the inspector conducted periodic visual channel checks of protective instrumentation and inspection of electrical switch-boards to confirm availability of safeguards equipmen Security.
During the course of these inspections, observations relative to protected and vital area security were made, in-cluding access controls, boundary integrity, search, escort, and badging.
No notable conditions were identified.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3, 0 erational Events a ~
While'operating at 100Ã power at 9:53 PM on June 27, 1980, reactor control rods automatically stepped.out (four steps)
in response to a lowering of Reactor Coolant System 'average temperature (T-AVE).
The cause was attributed to oscillation of the ¹1 turbine control valve.
The plant was returned to steady state operation within 2 minutes.
Subsequent investigations did not result in the determination of the cause of the spurious signal from the hurbine control system.
The licensee is continuing to observe turbine control valve operations for similar conditions.
The inspector had no further questions relative to this'vent.
b.
At 6:00 AM, on June 29, 1980 power was reduced to 48/ in order to perform surveillance testing of turbine reheat stop valves.
At 3:20 PM, power was returned to 98Ã and at 4: 10 PM Axial Flux Tilt Alarm was received.
Axial Flux Difference (AFD) was discovered to be out of the target band on the low side by -4. 11.
Power was reduced to less than 90K in accordance with Technical Specification 3. 10.2.9, and the AFD returned to within the target band.
At 5:00 PM a power increase commenced and at 6: 10 PM full power was reached with the associated AFD within the target band and the plant in a steady state condition.
c ~
The above event is a normally expected occurrence associated with the planned power transient required for the surveillance test.
The inspector had no further questions relative to this event.
At ll:00 AM on June 10, 1980, it was discovered that the outside retention tank Ph reading of 9. 1 was beyond the established adminis-trative range of 6.5-8.5.
Approximately 3,000 gallons of water was discharged from the retention tank to the discharge canal.
Due to dilution from the circulating water system the Ph reading at time of discharge showed no change.
The Ph limit of 9.0 set by the State of New York for direct discharge to Lake Ontario was not exceeded.
To preclude further events of this nature the licensee has installed two waste collection systems to segregate sample liquid streams and prevent their entry directly into the retention tan The resident inspector reviewed the design changes to the'ystem and had no further questions.
At 8:45 AN, on July 11, 1980, sample analysis of the "A" and "B" boric acid storage tanks indicated a boron concentration of 11.8/
and 11.7%, respectively.
At 10:25 AN the "A" and "B" tanks were resampled.
The results verified the previous concentrations.
Technical Specifi-cation. allowable limits for boron concentration are 125 to 13K.
In accordance with T.S. 3.2.3,. power reduction was commenced at 10Ã/hour.
Nanual isolation valves were closed on both boric acid storage tanks to prevent leakage and any further dilution.
The licensee initiated boric acid addition and at 3:50 PN both "A" and "B" tanks were in-specification.,
Power reduction was terminated at 70Ã and sampling time was increased to once every four hours.
At 5:50 AN on July 14, 1980 "B" boric acid storage tank was found again to be below T.S. limits at 11.85 boron concentration.
Batching to "B" tank began and power reduction commenced per plant procedures.
At 7:30 AM on July 14, 1980 both "A" and "B" boric acid storage tanks were sampled and the boron concentration was now above T.S.
limits at 14.3%.
A check was made of the'itrating chemical (sodium hydroxide)
used in the analysis.
It was determined that the normality was 0. 114 instead of 0. 100.
Subsequent investigations revealed that this was the cause for the series of events described, above.
The cause for the change in normality was found and corrected and the "A" and
"B" boric acid storage tanks were placed within T.S. limits.
The licensee reviewed his controls over chemical.reagents and has taken additional measures to ensure the adequacy of the!;subject titrating chemical.
The inspector had no further questions relative to this event.
At 2203 hours0.0255 days <br />0.612 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.382415e-4 months <br /> on July 29, 1980 the turbine control valves started opening from an undetermined cause which resulted in automatic control rod movement in response to a lowering Tavg.
Turbine and rod controls were placed in manual and power was reduced and Tavg adjusted.
Controls remained in manual for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> while troUbleshooting commenced arid recorder traces were monitored in an attempt to identify the cause for the perturbation.
Both turbine and control rods were placed. back in automatic on July 30, 1980 and closely monitored for several days.
Attempts to repeat the sequence of events were unsuccessful and trouble-shooting of the control systems was unable to determine the cause for the spurious signal.
The licensee is continuing to closely observe turbine control valve operation.
The inspector will continue to review the licensee's actions.
(80-09-10)
4.
Revi ew of Pl ant 0 erati ons - Lo s and Records During the inspection period, the inspector reviewed operating logs and records covering the inspection time period against Technical Specifi-cations and Administrative Procedure Requirements.
Included in the review were:
Shift Supervisor's Log - daily during control room surveillance Station Event Reports - 6/10/80 through 6/31/80 Control Room Log - daily during control room surveillance Plant Recorder Traces - daily during control room surveillance Plan of the Day - daily.during control room surveillance The logs and records were reviewed to verify that entries are properly made; entries involving abnormal conditions provide sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, deficiencies, corrective action, restoration and testing; records are being reviewed by management; operating orders do not conflict with the requirements of the Technical Specifications; logs and incident reports detail no violations of Technical Specifications or reporting requirements; logs and records are maintained in accordance with Technical Specifications and administrative control procedure requirements.
Several entries in these logs were the subject of additional review and discussion with licensee personnel.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
5.
Licensee Event Re orts LER's The inspector reviewed the following LER to verify that the details of the event were clearly reported, including the accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action.
The inspector determined whether further information was required, and whether that generic implications were involved.
The inspector also verified that the reporting requirements of Technical Specifications and Station Administrative and Operating Pro-cedures had been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken, that the event was reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee, and that continued operation of the facility was conducted within Technical Specjfication limit :
Analysis of boron concentration on July 11, 1980 of boric acid storage tanks,."A" and
"B". indicated 11.7/ and 11.8A boric acid, respectivelv.
Refer to Paragraph 3.d.
6.
uglification of Licensee Trainin Staff The licensee's. training staff personnel consists of a Training Coordinator (TC) and Three Assistant Training Coordinators (ATC) that are actively engaged in training licensee personnel on plant systems, integrated responses and transients.
The inspector verified by review of applicable records and discussions with licensee personnel that the TC and two of the ATC's now hold vali',d Senior Reactor Operator licenses for the Ginna Facility.
The remaining ATC currently has a Reactor Operator license.
On Julv 30, 1980 in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Section'5. 10 an application for a Senior Reactor Operator examination was submitted by the licensee for the above ATC to the Operator Licensing Branch, Division of Project Manage-ment, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
7.
Review of Periodic and S ecial Re orts Upon receipt, periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee pur-suant to Technical Specification 6.9. 1 were reviewed by the inspector.
This review included the following consideration:
the report includes the information required to be reported by the NRC; planned corrective actions are adequate for resolution of identified problems; and that the reported information is valid.
Within the scope of the above, the following periodic reports were reviewed by the inspector, Monthly Operating Reports for May and June, 1980.
8.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
During the inspection period the resident inspector also attended and participated i.n an exit interview conducted by a regionally based security inspector on July 11, 1980.