IR 05000244/1981011

IE Insp Rept 50-244/81-11 on 810601-30.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Operating Records, Surveillance Testing,Ie Bulletin Response,Lers & Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings

ML17258A214
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	07/31/1981
From:	Kister H, Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML17258A209	List: IR 05000244/1981011 ML17258A208
References
50-244-81-11, NUDOCS 8110090187
Download: ML17258A214 (16)

Text

Report No.

Docket No.

U.S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50244-810504 Li N

Priority Category Licensee:

Rochester Gas and Electr'n Rochester New Facility Name:

Inspection at:

Ontario, New York Inspection conducted:

June 1-30, 1981 Inspectors:

R.

P.

Z erman, Senior Resident Inspector a

RI d te s 'gned date signed dat si ned Approved by:

H. B. Kister, hief, Reactor Projects Section 1C, Division of Resident

Project Inspection te igned Ins ection Summar

Ins ection on June 1-30, 1981 Re ort No. 50-244/81-11 reas ns ecte

Routine, onsste, regu ar, an ac s haft inspection by the resident inspector ours).

Areas inspected included plant operating records; surveillance testing; IEBulletin response; periodic and special reports; Licensee Event Reports; licensee action on previous inspection findings; followup inspection-Three Mile Island Lessons Learned implementation; and accessible portions of the facility during plant tours".

Results:

No items of noncompliance were identified during this inspection.

Region I Form 12 t Rev Anri 1= 77 h.

8if0090f87 8f0804'DR ADQCK 05000244

PDR

I ~

4 4'

~

~ lt I

f+I

14 tq I

)If t

'g

~

~ ~

"I j

lg

'"I I I

DETAILS Persons Contacted The below listed technical and supervisory level personnel were among those contacted:

W. Backus, Operations Supervisor J. Bodine, gC Engineer L. Boutwell, Maintenance Supervisor W. Dillion, Supervisor of Nuclear Security C. Edgar, I 5 C Supervisor D. Filkins, Supervisor Health Physics and Chemistry D. Gent, Results and Test Supervisor G. Larizza, Technical Engineer R. Morrill, Training Coordinator T. Meyer, Nuclear Engineer J.

C. Noon, Assistant Plant Superintendent C. Peck, Operations Engineer B. guinn, Health Physicist B. A. Snow, Plant Superintendent S. Spector, Maintenance Engineer The inspector also interviewed and talked with other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection.

Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s (Closed)

Inspector Follow Item (244/78-11-03):

Technical Specification Amend-ment 41, effective April 23, 1981, removed the periodic surveillance require-ment for verification of the minimum amount of diesel fuel oil onsite when in the cold or refueling shutdown condition.

(Closed)

Inspector Follow Item (244/79-19-01):

Licensee investigation deter-mined that the boric acid dilution in the Boric Acid Storage Tanks(BASTs)

was due to leakage from the Refueling Water Storage Tank through one of the closed BAST outlet valves.

The subject valve was inspected during the 1980 annual shutdown,'and cr ud on the internals is believed to have led to the leakage path.

Review of Plant 0 erations a ~

General The inspector reviewed plant operations through direct inspection throughout the reporting period.

Activities in progress included core reload following radiography of the 'A'eactor Coolant Pump bowl longitudinal welds; low power physics testing; and resumption of routine power operation on June 2 ~

~ >>

1ll I

I ~

e~ '1 I ~

ee

~

~

e r

It I

, I e

t lf 1 ~

,t I

~ e I

e II. I ll

~

f ef nf r

I I

e e1

b.

Shift Lo s and 0 eratin Records Operating logs and records were reviewed against Technical Speci-fications and administrative procedure requirements.

Included in the review were:

Control Room Log Daily Surveillance Log Shift Supervisor's Log Plant Recorder Traces Plant Process Computer Printout Station Event Reports daily during control room surveillance daily during control room surveillance daily during control room surveillance daily during control room surveillance daily during control room surveillance 6/1/81 through 6/30/81 c ~

The logs and records were reviewed to verify'hat entries were properly made; entries involving abnormal conditions provided sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, deficiencies, corrective action res-toration and testing; records were being reviewed by management; oper-ating orders did not conflict with the Technical Specifications; logs and event reports detailed no violations of Technical Specification or reporting requirements; logs and records were maintained in accordance with Technical Specification and administrative procedure requirements.

Plant Tour During the course of the inspection, tours of the following areas were conducted:

Control Room Containment Auxiliary Building Intermediate Building (including control point)

Service Building Turbine Building Diesel Generator Rooms Battery Rooms

r

e It

~4's I

I',I ~

I

\\

I 4 I I

~ p'

I t

1 I

I I-hl

~

~

'4

~

I S

'IS

\\I

'I 4 I

I

- SP

4'I 4 I

~

~

I Il

f f

~ 1 I ~

I pl

~

'

~

Is

Screenhouse Yard Area and Perimeter The following observations resulted from the tours:

a ~

b.

C.

d.

e.

Monitorin instrumentation.

Process instruments were o serve for corre ation etween channels and for con-formance with Technical Specification requirements.

Annunciator alarms.

Various alarm conditions which had een rece>ve an acknowledged were observed.

These were discussed with shift personnel to verify that the reasons for the alarms were understood and corrective action, if required, was being taken.

Shift mannin

.

Control room and-shift manning were observed or conformance with 10 CFR 50.54 (K), Technical Specifi-cations, and administrative procedures.

Radiation rotection controls.

Areas observed included contro po nt operation, posting of radiation and high radiation areas, compliance with Radiation Work Permits and Special Work Permits, personnel monitoring devices being properly worn, and personnel frisking practices.

E ui ment lineu s.

Valve and electrical breakers were ver f>e to e

n the position or condition required by Technical Specifications and plant lineup procedures for the applicable plant mode.

This verification included control board indications daily and field observations made during routine plant tours.

E ui ment ta in.

Selected equipment, for which tagging requests a

een initiated, was observed to verify that tags were in place and the equipment in the condition spec-ified.

g, Fire rotection.

Fire detection and fire fighting equip-ment was o served for conformance with Technical Specifi-cations and administrative procedures.

~Securit

.

Areas observed for conformance with regulatory requirements, the site security plan and administrative procedures, included vehicle and personnel access, protect-ed and vital area integrity, escort and badgin H h

I h

W h

= F

~

F t Ff I

H

~

F

.

H h

H t

~

~

h H

~ a H

I I

C N

~,

I

)I

~

a H

H ~

~

I Hlh I

Hh

Plant housekee in controls.

Plant conditions were o serve for con ormance w>th administrative porcedures.

Storage of. material and components was observed with respect to prevention of fire and safety hazards.

House-keeping was evaluated with respect to controlling the spread of surface and airborne contamination.

During tours of the Auxiliary Building conducted on June 23 and 29, the inspector noted that substantial cleanup was necessary before pre-outage conditions could be achieved.

Specifically, a substantial amount of contaminated refueling equipment and debris remain on the operating level of the Auxiliary Building.

Decontamination, storage or disposal remains necessary for much of the above.

Trash, expired Special Work Permits, articles of protective clothing, portable shielding not in use (lead blankets),

and extra-neous material from completed work locations could be found

,on all levels.

The licensee representative stated that additional emphasis would be given to cleanup of the Aux-iliary Building.

The inspector will continue to monitor housekeeping controls in the Auxiliary Building during routine tours.

(81-11-01).-

4.

Ins ector Witnessin of Surveillance Tests

~

~a.

The ins ector witnessed the erfor p

p mance of surveillance testing of selected components to verify that the surveillance test procedure was properly approved and in use; test instrumentation required by the procedure was calibrated and in use; Technical Specifications were satisfied prior to removal of the system from service; test was performed by qualified personnel; the procedure was adequately detailed to assure performance of a satisfactory surveillance; and test results satisfied the procedural acceptance criteria, or were properly dispositioned.

b.

The inspector witnessed the performance of:

Refueling Shutdown Surveillance Procedure (RSSP)-2.7, Safety Injection Sequence Timers Train A and B, Revision 9, April 24, 1981, performed June 5, 1981.

RSSP-2.2, Diesel Generator Load and Safeguard Sequence Test, Revision 15, April 28, 1981, performed on June 10, 1981.

Periodic Test (PT)-2.10.4, Safety Injection Check Valve and NOV Leakage Test, Revision 0, June 18, 1981, performed June 19, 1981.

No items of noncoypliance were observe I'

~

~

~ II It I

'I I

I

,I'

$ ~

I=

I ~ l

~ T h ~

I

~

~

I I

I I

~ ~

'

~

~

5.

Fol 1 owu on IE Bulletins IEB The inspector reviewed facility records, interviewed licensee personnel and observed facility equipment/components to verify that:

licensee management received and reviewed the bulletin in accordance with administrative procedures; information discussed in the licensee's bulletin response was accurate; corrective action was taken as discussed in the reply; and, the licensee's response was within the timeperiod required.

IEB 80-20, Failures of Westinghouse Type W-2 Spring Return To Neutral Control EwWltc lBs The licensee identified Westinghouse Type W-2 control switches in the auto-matic start control circuit of the following safety-related breakers:

Safety Injection Pump Breakers (4)

Containment Spray Pump Breakers (2)

Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Breakers (2)

Containment Cooling Pump Breakers (2)

Residual Heat Removal Pump Breakers (2)

Service Water Pump Breakers (4)

Containment Recirculation Fan Breakers (4)

Diesel Generator (DG) Supply Breakers (2 for each D/G)

The inspector reviewed data associated with ten continuity tests performed during the period July 25, 1980 through November 30, 1980.

The tests, con-ducted in accordance with Emergency Maintenance Procedure 272, Continuity Verification of Safety-Related Contacts of W-2 Switches (With Spring Return to Normal), did not detect any instances: of improper neQtral contact closure.

The indicating light portion of the above control circuits were rewired on December 3, 1980 to permit early detection of a neutral contact failure.

System Modification Procedure 80.10.1, used to perform the rewiring incorporated the recommendations of Westinghouse Technical Bulletin No. NSD-TB-80-09.

This bul-letin is closed.

6.

Licensee Event Re ort LER's)

The inspector reviewed the following LER to verify that the details of the

Jh

~

II

~

II Th th

~

~

h I

II FFF

4>>

~

'

I

'f,)

I Fh

h

F

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 generic implications were in-volved.

The inspector also verified that the reporting requirements of Tech-nical Specifications and Station Administrative and Operating Procedures had been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken, that the event was reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee, and that the continued operation of the facility was conducted within the Technical Specification limit.

81-12:

Reactor Protection Instrument Drift - May 4, 1981.

During refueling Frequency calibration, one of four pressurizer pressure transmitters was found out of acceptable tolerance (L lX of scan)

due to transmitter drift.

The transmitter was recalibrated and returned to service.

Primar Coolant S stem Pressure Isolation Valves The NRC issued an Order for Modification of Licensee and associated imple-menting'echnical Specifications on April 20, 1981, which require periodic surveillance testing for leakage from specific check valves which isolate

. the Primary Coolant System from low pressure piping systems.

The inspector reviewed data associated with the following surveillance tests to verify that the above Technical Specifications were properly satisfied prior to the conclusion of the annual outage.

Periodic Test (PT) 2.10.2, RHR System Core Deluge Check Valves 853A 8l 853B, Revision 3, July 30, 1980, performed May 4, 1981.

PT 2.10.3, Low Head Safety Injection Check Valves, Revision 1, June 9, 1980, performed June 16, 1981.

PT 2.10.4, Safety Injection Check Valve and MOV Leakage Test, Revision 0, June 18, 1981.

The two RHR core deluge check valves (853A and B) were leakage tested in ac-cordance with PT 2.10.2.

The test was performed at a primary coolant system pressure of 495 psig.

The test method consisted of opening the respective in-line motor operated valve (MOV 852A or B), located between the check valve and pressure indicator (PI) 639.

Back leakage through the check valve would be indicated by an increase on PI 639 (initially indicating 26 psig).

Test results for both check valves indicated no increase in pressure on PI 639.

The inspector noted that the leakage test appears to be dependent on the length of time the MOV remains open, due to the long run of piping between the 852/853 valves and PI 639.

The duration of time each MOV was to be maintained open was not specified by procedure nor was it required to be recorded.

Small leakage quantities of a few gallons per;,minute may nest be immediately visible on the 0-600 psig PI 639 scale.

The inspector stated that a procedure revision re-quiring the MOVs to be maintained open for a fixed length of time may aid in

~

4,

0

~

~

t

I

~

I

~

~

j

4

4

4 4 ):

F"

h

~

~

hl I

h, f ~

0 I fd jd

~

~

~

0 hl

Ij I

fl'

I

0

~

t F'if j

tj

~

I

~

t'

~

0 ~

~

~

~

I I

Mf jd 4"

4 'Ij f '

P

~

~

tl

~

~ '

l

~I

~ -r I ~

h

~

P

~ '

~

t

~

I

~

~

lit

~ ~

tt

4

~

'

t I'

t I

4 jl

'I f

~

"F

0 'I

assuring test result accuracy.

The licensee representative acknowledged the inspector 's comment and stated that methods to improve the performance of the surveillance test would be reviewed.

The inspector will follow licensee actions to assure accurate test results.

(81-11-02)

8.

Followu Ins ection - Three Mile Island TMI Lessons Learned Im lementation I.C.G Guidance on Procedures for Verif in Correct Performance of erat> n Acts vs ts es Reference :

IE Inspection Report 81 -04 The licensee has issued a procedure revi si on to Administrati ve Procedure 1 402 ~

Bypass of Safety Function or Jumper Control, Revi si on 1, June 1 0,

1 981, re-quiring a second knowledgabl e indi vidual to verify instal 1 ati on and removal of jumpers, and the bypassing of a safety function through the 1 ifting of leads

~

Based on the inspector '

review of the above procedure revisi on, the 1 icensee appears to have sati sfied the requi rement and associated commi tment as address ed in the r eferenced inspecti on repor t.

III. D. 3. 3 Im roved In-Plant Iodine Instrumentation Under Accident Conditions Reference:

IE Inspection Report 81-04 The inspector reviewed Site Contingency Procedure (SC) - 1.9, In-Plant Radi-ation Monitoring; Revision 6, May 13, 1981 and verified that reference was made to the'nvironmental laboratory as a suitable low background facili'ty for counting air samples (silver zeolite cartridges)

under accident conditions 9.

Review of Periodic!sand S ecial Re orts a ~

Upon receipt, periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee pursuant to Technical Specification 6.9.1 and 6.9.3 were reviewed by the inspector.

This review included the following considerations:

the report included the information required to be reported by NRC requirements; test results and/or supporting information were consistent with design predictions and performance specifications; planned cor rec tive action was adequate for resolution of identified problems; deter-mination whether any information in the report required classification as an abnormal occurrence; and the validity of reported information.

llithin the scope of the above, the following periodic reports were re-viewed by the inspector.

Monthly Operating Report for May, 1981.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

, 10.

Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and finding ~

~

~

"F

lf

4 I I

l I

4'hf

~

I I

li I

I, f

~

~

h

~

AJ AI I

~

1