IR 05000244/1987029
| ML17251A925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1988 |
| From: | Cowgill C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17251A924 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-87-29, IEB-87-002, IEB-87-2, NUDOCS 8802080333 | |
| Download: ML17251A925 (10) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-244/87-29 Docket No. 50-244 Licensee No.
DPR-18 Priority Category C
Licensee:
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 49 East Avenue Rochester, New York Facility Name:
R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant inspection at: -Ontario, New York Inspection Conducted:
December 1, 1987 through January 23, 1988 Inspectors:
T.
N.
Approved by:
C.
J. Polich, Senior Resident Inspector, Ginna S. Perry, Resident Inspector, Ginna
~l J.
Co gill C ief, Reactor Projects Section 1A
~II IQ Date Ins ection Summar Ins ection on December
1987 throu h Januar
1988 Re ort No. 50-244/87-29 Areas Ins ected:
Routine on-site regular and backshift inspection by two resident inspectors.
Total inspector hours were 95.
Areas inspected included:
licensee action on previous findings; review of plant operations; operational safety veri-fication;, surveillance testing; plant maintenance; and review of periodic and special reports.
Results:
In the eight areas inspected no violations were observed.
8802080333 880201 PDR ADQCK 05000244 G
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted During this inspection period, the inspectors held discussions with and in-terviewed operators, technicians, engineers and supervisory level personnel.
J.
C.
~D.
L.
- R.
W.
- R. A.
T. A.
T. A.
- J
- T. R.
- B. A.
- S.
M.
- J. A.
R.
E.
Bodine, Nuclear Assurance Manager Fi lkins, Chemistr'y
& Health Physics Manager Kober, Vice President, Electric and Steam Production Marchionda, Training Manager Marlow, Maintenance Manager Meyer, Superintendent Ginna Support Services St. Martin, Station Engineer Schuler, Operations Manager Snow, Superintendent Nuclear Production Spector, Superintendent Ginna Production Miday, Technical Manager Mood, Supervisor Nuclear Security Denotes persons present at Exit Meeting on January 22, 1988.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
'a
~
(Closed)
Inspector Follow-up Item (86-21-01): Unintentional closure of Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV)-operator error.
The operator was re-moved from normal shift duties for more than three months.
During this time he received counseling and additional training on the simulator and the main control board under the direction of a licensed operator.
All operators received training about the event and were reminded of the importance of operator attentiveness.
b.
(Closed)
Inspector Follow-up Item (87-20-02):
Housekeeping discrepancies found during NRC and licensee plant tour.
All housekeeping discrepancies were either verified by the inspector as completed or were verified by the inspector as being on the licensee's maintenance trouble report system.
3.
Review of Plant 0 erations Throughout the reporting period, the inspectors reviewed routine power opera-tions.
The plant operated at full power for the entire period except for December 10 when power was decreased to 48% to repair condenser tube leaks.
On January 8, the licensee started decreasing power (coastdown) for the February refueling outag '
4.
0 erational Safet Verification a.
General During the inspection period, the inspectors observed and examined acti-vities to verify the operational safety of the licensee's facility.
The observations and examinations of those activities were conducted on a
daily, weekly or monthly basis.
On a daily basis, the inspectors observed control room activities to verify compliance with selected Limiting Condition for Operations (LCOs)
as prescribed in the facility Technical Specifications (TS).
Logs, in-strumentation, recorder traces, plant conditions, and trends were re-viewed for compliance with regulatory requirements.
Shift turnovers were observed on a sampling basis to verify that all pertinent information relating to plant status was relayed.
During each week, the inspectors toured the accessible areas of the facility to observe the following:
General plant and equipment conditions Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment Radiation protection controls Conduct of selected activities for compliance with licensee's ad-ministrative controls and approved procedures Interiors of electrical and control panels Implementation of selected portions of the licensee's physical security plan Plant housekeeping and cleanliness Essential safety feature equipment alignment and conditions The inspectors talked with operators in the control room, and other per-sonnel.
The discussions centered on pertinent topics of general plant conditions, procedures, security, training, and other aspects of the involved work activities.
b.
RHR and SI Breaker Failures While performing a test, on December 21, 1987, an attempt was made to manually start the 'B'HR pump from the main control room. It failed to start, but later started, on a second attempt.
Station electricians promptly investigated the failure and determined that the cause was in-adequate clearance associated with the Amptector, an overcurrent protec-tion device.
The licensee then corrected the RHR pump breaker.
The following day, December 22, 1987, the RHR pump was tested and, returned to operable status, a list was developed of breakers with the potential problem, and the licensee started testing these breakers.
On December 23, 1987, the 'B'I pump breaker failed during testing also due to in-adequate Amptector clearance.
This breaker was immediately repaired also.
The licensee continued testing and, before the end of the day, had tested all safeguards equipment breakers and made adjustments as appropriat The licensee's root cause analysis was good (prompt and exact);
however, follow-up actions were delayed.
After discovering and correcting the original Amptector problem, the licensee did not test additional breakers
'for Amptector problems until the following day.
Additionally, the
'B'HR pump.was not tested for operability until the morning after the breaker problem was corrected.
The inspector expressed his concern re-garding the delay in follow-up actions.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's concern.
5.
En ineered Safet Feature S stem Walkdown A complete walkdown of the accessible portions of the containment spray system was performed to verify its operability.
The inspector verified the licen-see's lineup procedure matched plant drawings, and the as-built con;igu, a-",on.
No equipment conditions or items that might degrade plant performance were identified.
6.
Surveillance Testin The inspectors witnessed the performance of surveillance testing of selected components to verify that:
the test procedure was properly approved and adequately detailed to assure performance of a satisfactory surveillance test; test instrumentation required by the procedure was calibrated and in use;-the test was performed by qualified personnel; and the test results satisfied Technical Specifications and procedural acceptance criteria, or were properly resolved.
b.
During this inspection period, the inspector witnessed the performance of selected portions of the following test:
Periodic Test (PT)-2. 1, "Safety Injection System Pumps, effective Decem-ber 2, I987.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.
IE Bulletin Follow-u The inspector reviewed licensee actions on the following IE 87-02:
In accordance with NRC Compliance Bulletin No. 87-02 Instruction 2500/26, the inspector accompanied the licensee and tagging of fasteners to verify compliance with Bulletin were obtained from two licensee warehouses.
The inspectors licensee's response in a future inspection report.
Bulletin.
and Temporary during selection 87-02.
Samples will review the 8.
Licensee Event Re orts LERs The LERs submitted to the NRC were reviewed to determine whether the details were clearly reported, the causes properly identified and the corrective actions appropriate.
The inspectors also determined whether the assessment
of potential safety consequences had been properly evaluated, whether generic implications were 'indicated, whether the event warranted on. site follow-up, whether. the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 were applicable, and whether the requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 had been properly met.
(Note: the dates indicated are the event dates)
The following LERs were reviewed and found to be satisfactory:
87-005, Revision 1,
May 14, 1987, Inadvertent Containment Isolation 87-006, November 30, 1987, Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Inoperable 87-007, December 18, 1987, Potential For Loss of Core Cooling During High Head Recirculation Phase Due to a
Common Node Power Supply Failure.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
9.
Review of Periodic and S ecial Re orts Upon receipt, periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee pursuant to Technical Specifications 6.9. 1 and 6.9.3 were reviewed by the inspectors'his review included the following considerations:
the reports contained the information required to be reported by NRC requirements; test results and/or supporting information we'e consistent with design predictions and performance specificati'ons; and the reported information was valid.
Mithin this scope, the following reports were reviewed by the inspectors:
Yionthly Operating Reports for November and December 1987.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
At periodic intervals during the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
Based, on the NRC Region I review of this report and discussion held with licensee representatives, it was determined that this report does not contain information subject to
CFR 2.790 restrictions.