IR 05000244/1980011
| ML17258A763 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1980 |
| From: | Dante Johnson, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17258A761 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-80-11, NUDOCS 8102060559 | |
| Download: ML17258A763 (16) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION ANO ENFORCEMENT R
p P
k R.~R License No.
OPR-18 Licensee:
R he t Region I Pri.or ity
'on Category 89 East Avenue Rochester New York 14 4 Facility Name:
R.
F.. Ginna Nuclear Power P
a t
't Inspection at:
Ontario, New York Inspection conducted:
August 1 - October 31, 1980 Inspectors:
.
F. Joh on, Senior Resident Inspector (Interim)
date signed date signed Approved by:
.
B. Kister, hief, Reactor Projects Section No. 4; R08NS Branch dat signed Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Au ust 1 - October
1980 Re ort No. 50-244 80-11 A~d:
R f
t p
t y
R td tf p
fpl operations, including tours of the facility; log and record review; operational safety verification; followup on previous inspection items; review of monthly reports; review of operational events; observation of physical security and surveillance tests.
The inspections involved 149 on site hours by the resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
-
SX0306e~"
DETAILS Persons Contacted I
F.
W.
Aman, Office Supervisor W.
H. Backus, Operations Supervisor
.
E. J. Beatty, Technical Projects Coordinator J.
Bodine, guality Control Engineer L.
E. Boutwell; Maintenance Supervisor L. I. Depew, Shift Supervisor W.
K. Dillion, Supervisor of Nuclear Security C.
E. Edgar, I8C Supervisor D. Filkins, Supervisor, Chemistry and Health Physics R.
B. Junot, Shift Supervisor J.
G. Larizza, Technical Engineer J.
E. Maier, Vice President, Electric and Steam Production T.
A. Marlow, Cadet Engineer R.
W. Morrill, Training Coordinator J.
C.
Noon, Assistant Plant Superintendent C.
Peck, Operations Engineer B.
R. guinn, Health Physicist B.
A.
Snow, Plant Superintendent S. Spector',
Maintenance Engineer R.
Wood, 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.
.Status of Previousl
. Identified Ins ection Findin s (Closed)
Noncompliance (50-244/78-24-03):
Failure to provide adequate storage facilities of single type records.
The inspector verified by direct observation that radiographs have been filed in fire proof metal cabinets and relocated at the Jefferson Road Record Vault which has a four hour fire rating and is equipped with temperature and humidity control. In addition, operations recorder charts were transferred from the Warehouse Building to the new storage facilities at Andrews Street which complies with the fire protection criteria as stated in Regulatory Guide 1.88, paragraph 17.4.
(Closed) Deviation (50-244/80-04-01):
Failure to meet commitment on train-ing of licensed operators on small break loss of coolant procedures, as required by NUREG-0578, Section 2. 1.9.
The inspector verified through interviews with licensee personnel and by review of applicable records that all licensed operators had received the required training in the subject emergency procedures.
The training consisted of formal discussions and control room walk-through of emergency procedures E-l. 1 through E-1.4.
All training efforts were completed on April 24, 198 ~a cA
Witnessin of Surveillance Tests The inspector witnessed the performance of surveillance testing of selected
'ompone'nts to verify that the surveillance test procedure was proper and in use; test instrumentation required by procedure was calibrated and in use; Technical Specifications were satisfied prior to removal of the component or system from service; test was performed by qualified personnel; the pro-cedure was adequately detailed to assure performance of a satisfactory sur-viellance; and, test results satisfied the procedural acceptance criteria; or were properly dispositioned.
The inspector witness'ed the performance of:
PT 2.7, Service Water System Valve and Pump Check, performed August 20, 1980.
PT'5.40, Process Instrumentation Reactor Protection Channel Trip Test
'Channel 4), performed August 22, 1980.
Review of Plant 0 eration - Plant Ins ections a.
The inspector reviewed plant operations through direct ins'pection and'bservation throughout the reporting, period.
The following areas were inspected:
(1)
Control Room (Daily)
(2)
Auxiliary Building (3)
Turbine Building (4)
-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 (ll) Physical Security b.
The following determinations were made:
Monitoring instrumentation:
The inspector verified that selected instruments were functional and demonstrated parameters within Technical Specification limits.
Valve 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 procedures 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.
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 discussed 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 inspecto~
conducted periodic visual channel checks of protective instrumenta-tion and inspection of electrical switchboards to confirm avail-ability of safeguards equipment.
Security.
During the course of these inspections, observations relative to protected and vital area security were made, including access controls, boundary integrity, search, escort, and badging.
No notable conditions were identified.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie erational Events a e At 0125 hours0.00145 days <br />0.0347 hours <br />2.066799e-4 weeks <br />4.75625e-5 months <br /> on. August 26, 1980 while per forming PT.6.4 "Excore/Incore Recalibration Test",
a turbine runback occurred with the control rods at 224 steps during the performance of a core flux map as required by PT.6.4.
The cause of the power decrease (~5K) was attributed to a hT
.condition received from nuclear power range Channel 44.
The hT condition cleared immediately and power was restored to normal and the core flux map completed.
This event was evaluated by the nuclear engineer, reviewed by the on site safety committee and deemed an expected event under the existing plant conditions and thereby no
. further corrective action is planned.
The inspector had no further questions relative to this event.
b.
At 0930 hours0.0108 days <br />0.258 hours <br />0.00154 weeks <br />3.53865e-4 months <br /> on August 27, l980 while performing PT.16 "Auxiliary Feedwater System" the "B" pump discharge valve (MOV-4008) would not operate from the control board switch.
Subs'equent investigation revealed that the breaker for valve MOV-4088 was open.
The breaker was restored to its normal closed position and the valve tested satis-factorily.
The licensee initiated 5-30.4 '(valve and breaker alignment procedure) to ensure that all other breakers and valves were in the
. proper position.
No discrepancies were identified.
A review of records revealed that on August 13, 1980 procedure 5-30.4 was performed and that the subject breaker was in the proper position.
The PORC's.
review of this event recommended a "Brain Storming" (further indepth review) session to preclude future events of this nature.
The inspector will continue to review the licensee's actions (80-11-
.01).
C.
At 0120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> on August 30, 1980 the "A" containment sump pump =started in auto and continued to run for ~10 minutes.
The "B" containment sump pump was started from the control room and after ~l minute the
"A" pump stopped automatically.
A trouble card was submitted for the
"A" pump to be checked during the next scheduled shutdown.
Th'e inspector will follow to review the licensee's actions (80-11-02).
d.
At 0602 hours0.00697 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.953704e-4 weeks <br />2.29061e-4 months <br /> on September 10, 1980, while performing PT.12.2
"B Diesel General Surveillance Test", the breaker for bus 16 failed to close to the "B" diesel generator.
The "A" diesel generator was started and closed on its.respective bus and operated satisfactorily.
A corrective action report f1273 was issued which resulted in the discovery that. the closing relay for the affected breaker malfunctioned due to a maladjustment of the mechanical guide pin.
Repairs were effected and the
",B" diesel was tested satisfactorily and returned to servic The inspector had no further questions relative to this event.
.While at 100K power at 2110 hours0.0244 days <br />0.586 hours <br />0.00349 weeks <br />8.02855e-4 months <br /> on September 15, 1980 an oil level alarm was'eceived on the "lA" reactor coolant pump.
The associated oil level gauges were monitored and levels appeared normal.
Pump operation was continued.:
A containment entry was made to physically check the oil level,s.
The "A" reactor coolant pump lower motor bearing sump was refilled and the, alarm cleared.
The inspector had no further questions relative to this event.
Mhile at,lOOX power at 0315 hours0.00365 days <br />0.0875 hours <br />5.208333e-4 weeks <br />1.198575e-4 months <br /> on September 16, 1980 a turbine runback occurred due to an operator error.
Mhile performing surveil-lance test PT.6.3.2, step '6.38 requires that the. operator place the rod stop bypass
'switch to the B position, instead the operator placed the sw'itch to the normal position.
Mith the existing conditions this-caused the turbine runback function to be placed in service.
The runback was terminated immediately by the operator and power was decreased to only 96K momentarily and then returned to 100K power.
The operator was interviewed by licensee, management and the need to carefully perform steps as required by procedure were discussed..
This was considered to be an isolated human error event.
The i'nspector had no further questions relative to this event.
While at 10(C power at 1023 hours0.0118 days <br />0.284 hours <br />0.00169 weeks <br />3.892515e-4 months <br /> on September 22, 1980 'an above ambient in 1'ine temperature alarm of 20 F was received from the pressurizer power operated relief valves.
The indicated PORV leakage and both block valves were shut.
Leak-off temperatures were monitored in con" junction with pressurizer relief tank pressure, level and temperature.
With the block valves shut conditions remained stable and operators were instructed to maintain do'se surveillance of key parameters.
The block valves will remain shut until repairs can be affected during the next shutdown.
The i'nspector will continue to review the licensee's actions (80-11" 03).
At 0636 hours0.00736 days <br />0.177 hours <br />0.00105 weeks <br />2.41998e-4 months <br /> on October 3, 1980 while starting the "A" diesel generator in accordance with PT 12.l, it was discovered that the manual barring device and associated pinion gear had engaged which resulted in severe damage to the barring mechanism.
The "A" diesel generator was declared inoperable and the "B" diesel 'generator was started in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
The on site safety review commit'tee determined that the engagement of the manual barring device did not render the disel generator inoperable.
The entire assembly was removed, from the "A" diesel generator, the diesel was tested satisfactot ily and returned to service at approximately 1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br /> on
October 3, 1980.
The licensee is preparing a 30 day IER in accordance with the.requirements of Section 6 of the Technical Specifications re'lative to entering a limiting condition for operation.
At 1030 hours0.0119 days <br />0.286 hours <br />0.0017 weeks <br />3.91915e-4 months <br /> on October 8, 1980, during a tour of the diesel generator rooms, it was discovered that th'e manual barring device on the "B" diesel generator was engaged.
The removal of the barring device
.assembly had been previously determined by the Plant Operations Review Committee to not have any effect on the operability of the diesel as a
result of the diesel generator A event on October 3, 1980.
Therefore, to preclude further recurrence of this event the assembly was removed from the B diesel generator.
The question remains however that on October 3, 1980 the "B" diesel generator was started and run satis-factorily indicating that at this time the manual barring device was not engaged as evidenced by no damage to the device.
The question remained how it became engaged on October 8, 1980.
The resident inspector requested that a complete investigation be made to determine the safety significance of this event, whether there was any violation of procedural requirements, or lack of training of the operators.
The results of this investigation and review of the circumstances surround-ing this event including corrective actions shall be submitted to the NRC Region I Office of Inspection
'and Enforcement within 30 days.
The inspector'will continue to review the licensee's actions
{80-11-04).
While at 100K power at 1445 hours0.0167 days <br />0.401 hours <br />0.00239 weeks <br />5.498225e-4 months <br /> on October 20, '1980 the turbine reference signal momentarily lost proper 'indication and the control rods started stepping out.
Attempts to reduce turbine
'1oad auto-matically were unsuccessful and turbine controls were placed on manual and power restored to normal.
This is a recurring event (reference 80-09-Ol).
The licensee is continuing evaluation of these events in order to arrive at adequate corrective actions.
The inspector will continue to review the licensee's actions (80-09-01).
6.
Review of Plant 0 erations - Lo s and Records During the inspection period, the inspector reviewed operating logs and records covering the inspection time period against Technical Specifications and Administrative Procedure Requirements.
Included in the review were:
Shift Supervisor's Log - daily during control room surveillance Station Event Reports 8/1/80 through 10/25/80
i
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 Spe'cifications; logs and records are maintained in accordance witli 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; 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.
Mithin the scope of the above, the following periodic reports were reviewed by the inspector.
Monthly Operating Reports for July through September, 1980.
Exit Interview At periodic intel vals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and finding I
,j~