IR 05000244/1988009
| ML17251A150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1988 |
| From: | Cowgill C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17251A148 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-88-09, 50-244-88-9, NUDOCS 8807060271 | |
| Download: ML17251A150 (14) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-244/88-09 Licensee No.
DPR-18 Pri ority Category C
Licensee:
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 49 East Avenue Rochester, New York Facility:
Location:
R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Ontario, New York Inspection Conducted:
May 9, 1988 through June 12, 1988 Inspectors:
C.
S. Marschall, Senior Resident Inspector, Ginna N.
S. Perry, Resident Inspector, Ginna Approved By:
C.
.
Cowgi ll Chief eactor P
sects Section lA Da e
~Summal Areas Ins ected:
During the period, routine inspections by the resident inspec-tors of station activities were conducted, including plant operations, Engi-neered Safety Feature Walkdown, operational safety verification, surveillance, maintenance, radiological protection, physical security, review of safety pre-cautions, post-maintenance testing, review of periodic and special reports, and action on previous inspection findings.
Results:
In the eleven areas inspected, no violations or deviations were iden-tified.
However, a weakness was observed in the timeliness of the licensee's post-maintenance testing process (Section 2.i), and a weakness was identified in the area of observing proper safety precautions and concern for safety-related equipment when personnel perform various plant activities (Section 2.h).
8807060271 880627 PDR ADQCK 05000244
'
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted During this inspection period, inspectors held discussions with and inter-viewed operators, technicians, engineers and supervisory level personnel.
The following people were among those contacted:
J.
C.
D. L.
R.
M.
R. A.
- T. A.
T. A.
J.
T.
"T. R.
L. F.
B. A.
- S.
M.
"J. A.
R.
E.
Bodine, Nuclear Assurance Manager Filkins, Chemistry 8 Health Physics Manager Kober, Senior Vice President, Production and Engineering Marchionda, Training Manager Marlow, Maintenance Manager Meyer, Superintendent Ginna Support Services St. Martin, Station Engineer Schuler, Operations Manager Smith, Operations Supervisor Snow, Superintendent Nuclear Production Spector, Superintendent Ginna, Station Widay, Technical Manager, Mood, Supervisor Nuclear Security
"Denotes persons present at exit meeting on June 15, 1988.
2.
Functional or Pro ram Areas Ins ected a.
Review of Plant 0 erations (71707)
At the beginning of the inspection period, the plant was operating at approximately 100 percent power.
On June 1,
1988, a plant trip occurred when a controlling feedwater flow channel failed and the steam generator reached the low level trip setpoint.
Both trains of Safety Injection actuated on low pressurizer pressure, see Special Inspection Report 50-244/88-11.
Operators declared the reactor critical on June 4,
1988, and the main generator was synchronized to the grid on June 5,
1988.
The plant was operating't approximately 100 percent power at the con-clusion of the inspection period.
b.
En ineered Safet Feature ESF S stem Walkdown (71710)
A complete alignment verification of accessible valves required closed or locked closed was performed to verify operability of the Containment Isolation system.
The inspectors verified valves were closed and locked closed as required by the UFSAR.
Valves required locked closed were verified included in (Administrative Procedure)
A-52.2, Control of Locked Valve and Breaker Operation, Revision 82, effective date 3-25-88.
All valves were checked for labeling, cleanliness and state of repai '
One minor discrepancy was identified.
Three leakage, test instrumen-tation lines, required locked closed, were discovered as potentially allowing some handwheel and valve movement, The licensee immediately replaced the locking chain to better secure the valve.
c.
0 erational Safet Verification (71707)
On a daily basis, inspectors observed shift turnover and conduct of operations in the control room.
Operators were attentive and responsive to plant parameters and conditions.
Portions of the plant startup on June 5 and 6, 1988 were observed, Control room conduct was professional and manning was adequate to handle potential difficulties.
d.
Monthl Surveillance Observation (61726)
Inspectors observed portions of surveillance test procedures to verify test instrumentation was properly calibrated, approved procedures were used, work was performed by qualified personnel, Limiting Conditions for Operation were met, and the system was correctly restored following testing.
The following surveillance activities were observed:
Periodic Test (PT)-16, Revision 51, "Auxiliary Feedwater System",
effective date May 20, 1988, observed May 25, 1988.
During performance of this test, the inspectors observed personnel climbing on plant equipment near the turbine-driven auxiliary feed pump.
See section 2.h.
Monthl Maintenance Observations (62703)
The inspectors 'observed portions of various safety-related maintenance activities to determine redundant cbmponents were operable, activities did not violate Limiting Conditions for Operation, required administra-tive approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to initiating work, ap-proved procedures were used or the activity was within the "skills of the trade", appropriate radiological controls were implemented, igni-tion/fire prevention control's were properly implemented, and equipment was properly tested prior to; returning it to service.
Maintenance (M)-37.88, "Inspection and Repair of CV-3505B", effec-tive date May 20, 1988, observed May 20 and 24, 1988.
Maintenance (M)-11. 14, "Inspection and Maintenance of Inger sol Rand Pumps", effective date May 2, 1986, observed June 1,
1988
'
During setup in preparation for the maintenance work on the containment spray pump, the inspectors observed personnel standing on safety-related equipment while.erecting scaffolding over the pump.
This exhibits an-other example of lack of respect for plant equipment, see section 2.h.
Licensee control of these activities was adequate to ensure component operability.
Radiolo ical Protection Review (71709)
During this inspection period, the resident inspectors verified on a
random basis:
RWPs were implemented properly; dosimetry was properly worn in controlled areas; dosimeter readings were recorded properly; access control at entrances to high radiation areas was adequate; personnel use contamination monitors as required when exiting controlled areas, and postings and labeling were in compliance with regulations and procedures.
Ph sical Securit Review (71881)
The inspectors made observations to verify selected aspects of the sta.
tion physical security program were in accordance with regulatory re-quirements, including the physical security plan and approved procedures.
During this inspection period, the resident inspectors verified on a
random basis:
x-ray machines and metal and explosive detectors were operational; Protected Area (PA) and Vital Area (VA) barriers were well maintained; access control during security turnover was adequate; personnel were properly badged for unescorted or escorted access, and the minimum guard compliment was maintained with a director for onsite security activities over at least one 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period.
Additionally, no obstructions to or hiding places near the PA were identified; illumination on, the PA was adequate, and central and secondary alarm station monitors were adequate.
Review of Safet Precautions (71707)
On May 18, 1988, the inspectors observed plant personnel, including one manager, climbing on safety-related equipment, and not following proper safety precautions as described in the plant safety manual, to gain access to a valve.
After thi,s was discussed with plant manage-ment, temporary planking was erected.
However, on May 25, 1988, with the temporary planking in place, the inspectors observed plant per-sonnel not using the planking.
Through discussions with plant manage-ment, including the Fire Protection and Safety Coordinator, it was determined that management action is needed.
The failure to include scaffolding and personnel safety requirements is considered a weak-ness in the licensee's job planning proces On June 1,
1988, during observation of maintenance on the 'B'ontain-ment Spray (CS)
pump, several areas of concern were identified by the inspectors.
Prior to the start of work, a. site employee dressed in protective clothing was observed lying in a restful position on the floor near the CS pump, with his eyes closed.
The inspectors identi-fied this to licensee personnel and the individual got up.
The inspectors expressed concern to station management regarding their observations.
The potential for area contamination indicates lying on the floor is not good ALARA practice.
In addition, inspectors observed a steel I-beam, used in the rigging to remove the pump, resting on the CS pump discharge piping and the bonnet of a valve in the suction piping.
The beam required several men to lift during rigging.
While assembling the rigging, maintenance personnel were observed standing on the CS pump, piping and valves.
The practice of resting foreign material and standing on safety-related components was dis-cussed with plant management and corrective actions will be reviewed in a future inspection report.
Post-Maintenance Testin (71707)
On June 9,
1988 at 9:39 A.M., the 'B'omponent Cooling Water (CCW)
pump was declared inoperable when the motor breaker failed to immedi-ately open, following actuation of the breaker switch to the "OFF" position.
Technical Specification 3.3.3 allows one CCW pump to be inoperable for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Following maintenance troubleshooting, the licensee returned the pump to the auto-start status at approximately 4:00 P.M..
However, the 'B'CW pump was not declared operable until 7: 10 A.M. on June 10, 1988, two and one half hours before the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> time limit expired.
The 'B'CW pump was left inoperable overnight in order to perform additional post-maintenance testing the following morning.
Prior to declaring the pump operable, operators cycled the pump's motor breaker twice.
I The licensee's failure to promptly declare safety-related equipment operable was identified. in an earlier inspection report, see 50-244/
87-29.
The inspectors will evaluate the licensee's actions on prompt post-maintenance testing in future inspection reports.
Review of Periodic and S ecial Re orts (90713).
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.
This review included the following considerations:
reports contained information required by the NRC; test results and/
or supporting information were consistent with design predictions and performance specifications; and reported information was valid.
Within this scope, the following report was reviewed by the inspectors:
i
'
Monthly Operating Report for April 1988.
The report was considered adequate to meet regulatory requirements.
k.
Plant Tour b Re ion I Mana ement (71707)
On June 3,
1988, the Projects Section Chief and Resident Inspecto'r toured the Auxiliary Building.
The general condition of the building and equipment was satisfactory.
However, a number of discrepancies were noted and provided to plant management at the conclusion of the tour.
Additionally, the inspector noted that the licensee requires protec-tive clothing to the enter the Auxiliary Building to prevent personnel contamination.
The licensee stated that although they believe no contamination would occur, this is a precautionary measure.
The inspector noted that at other facilities conditions were maintained such that this precautionary measure was not necessary.
The inspectors also observed several items that indicate increased management attention to plant operators'ours may be warranted.
These item included:
flash lights in spaces designated for operations use were not operable; an equipment tag was adrift in a location not close to the equipment; and a bracket designed to catch leakage from a
pump that had not been emptied for what appeared to be an extended period of time.
These items were also discussed with plant management at the conclusion of the tour.
l.
Conclusions Overall, the plant operated safely during the inspection period.
Operators were attenti ve and responsive to plant parameters and con-ditions, and control room conduct was professional during the June
and 6, 1988 plant startup ( section 2.c).
The practice of standing on and resting equipment on safety-related components was observed as a
weakness in the licensee's surveillance and'maintenance programs (section 2.h).
The failure to promptly declare safety-related equip-ment operable illustrates a weakness in the.licensee's post-maintenance testing process (section 2.i).
3.
Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s (71707)
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (87-20-01):
Twi.ce, in September 1987, the plant experienced a main turbine runback followed by closure of the north turbine stop valve.
In both instances, the stop valve closure could not be explaine The inspectors reviewed testing and maintenance performed on the turbine stop valves during the 1988 refueling outage.
westinghouse representa-tives were present during the.stop valve closure investigation.
The results were inconclusive; however, it is suspected the test solenoid was the most likely reason the north stop valve closed.
Corrective actions included leaving both test solenoid links open.
This item is closed.
4.
Exit Interview (30703)
At periodic intervals during the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss inspection scope and findings.
During this inspection, period, no violations or unresolved items were identified.
Based on NRC Region I review of this report and discussion held with licensee representatives, it was determined this report does not contain information subject to
CFR 2.790 restriction '