ML17258A199
| ML17258A199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1981 |
| From: | Kister H, Wiggins J, Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17258A197 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-81-15, NUDOCS 8110060508 | |
| Download: ML17258A199 (16) | |
See also: IR 05000244/1981015
Text
U.'S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
55
5. ~55-25551-15
Docket No.
50-244
50244-810714
50244-810720
License
No. oPR-18
Priority
Category
Licensee:
Rochester
Gas
and Electric Cor orati
89 East Avenue
Rochester,
New York 14649
Facility Name:
R
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
Inspection at:
Ontario,
Inspection conducted:
August 1,- 31 '981
Inspectors:
R
R.
P.
Z
erman, Senior Resident
Inspector
\\
o 8/
da
e
igned
/o F
J. lliggins,
tor Inspector
a esgned
Approved by:
B. Kis r, Chief, Reactor Projects
Section
1C, Division of Resident
8
Project Inspection
date signed
F
A't
sig
ed
Ins ection
Summar
Inspection
on August 1-31,
1981
Re ort No. 50-244g81-15
reas
Ins ecte
Rout ne, onsste,
regu ar,
ac
s i t, and weekend inspection
by the
ress
ent inspector
and one regional-based
inspector
(87.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />).
Areas inspected
included plant operating records; surveillance testing; maintenance;
Licensee
Event
Reports; periodic and special
reports;
and accessible
portions of the facility during
plant tours.
Results:
Of the six areas
inspected;
two items of noncompliance
weve identified in
two areas
(Failure to determine tritium concentration
in the reactor coolant system
on
a weekly basis-Paragraph
4.c; Failure to submit a thirty day written report of degraded
mode operation-Paragraph
S.b).
Bi i0060508 8i09jji -.
Region I Form li
ADaCK
0500024'4'Rev.
April 77) ~
Sq
~
1
I'
4
4
4
II
4
~
,W 1
4
St
Wg'*
1
~
~
ii
\\
4 I
'Fg) I
'If
4
II
~
4
14 ~
4
1
4
1
W,
4
't
E
'I
y)
4
1
1,,
4/Pf f $
1
~f
I
I
4
~
l
Pw
W
)
I
~ 4
lt
~
-'4)
II 141li)
EE
~
4
DETAILS
1.
Persons
Contacted
The below listed technical
and supervisory level personnel
were
among those
contacted:
E. Beatty, Operations
Supervisor
J. Bodine,
gC Engineer
L. Boutwell, Maintenance
Supervisor
R.
Wood, Supervisor of Nuclear Security
C. Edgar, I
E
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.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous
Ins ection Findin s
\\
(Closed)
Unresolved
Item (244/78-27-01):
The stem mounted limit switches
located
on the subject containment isolation valves are being evaluated
by the
NRC through
the review of environmental qualifications of electrical
components.
3.
Review of Plant 0 erations
a ~
General
The inspector
reviewed plant operations
through direct inspection through-
out the reporting period.
Activities in progress
included routine power
operations;
repair of a steam leak from the high pressure
turbine extraction
steam line to the No.
4B low pressure
on 8/12;
and replace-
ment of a faulty circuit card associated
with the electro-hydraulic control
system, following improper turbine control valve operation
on 8/30.
A similiar steam leak from the high pressure
turbine extraction
steam line
to the
No.
4A low pressure
heater occurred
on 7/21.
Both through-
wall leaks
were located near piping elbows directly beneath
the high pressure
turbine and apparently
were
do to steam erosion.
4
4
ld
~ th
=
i
I
4
,4 fl
rt
t
I.'
~
" tt
1
~
h
'I
t
t
II
I
I"'
it
e
Ibt
I
~ I I
I
ll
h
'0 fttf'. I
4 I
4
41
- ,
I'1
~
'
I
~ I
r,b't
t
'
th
tJ
I
4
hit
I
~ 'I
h
II
iU
4"
Ir
ti
4
II
I
I II
t
I
I
It
I
t 4
bf
r ~
d
I
d
~
p
~
I
~
~
Shift Lo s and 0 eratin
Records
Operating logs and records
were reviewed against Technical
Specification'nd
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
8/1/81 through 8/31/81
The logs and records
were reviewed to verify that entries
were being properly
made; entries involving abnormal
conditions provided sufficient detail to
communicate
equipment status,
deficiencies,
corrective action restoration
and
testing; records
were being reviewed
by management;
operating orders did not
conflict with the Technical Specification or reporting requirements;
logs
and records
were maintained in accordance
with Technical Specification
and
administrative procedure
requirements.
Plant Tour
Dur ing the course of the inspection, tours of the following areas
were conducted:
Control
Room
Auxiliary Building
Intermediate Building (including control point)
Service Building
Turbine Building
Diesel Generator
Rooms
Battery
Rooms
Screenhouse
Yard Area and Perimeter
2.
The following observations
resulted
from the tours:
a ~
Monitorin
instrumentation.
Process
instruments
were observed
I
j
m
~ ~
'
m
I
II
'I
~
~
I
~
I
I
~
~
II
ll
h
I
I
~
for correlation
between
channels
and for conformance with Technical
Specification requirements.
Annunciator Alarms.
Various alarm conditions which had been re-
ce ve
and ac
now edged
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 for
con ormance with 10 CFR 50.54 (K), Technical Specifications,
and
administrative procedures.
Radiation
rotection controls.
'Areas observed
included control
'oint operation,
post ng 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 verified
to
e
n t e posstion or condition required
by Technical Specifications
and plant lineup porcedures
for the applicable plant mode.
This veri-
fication included control board indications daily and field observa-
tions made during routine plant tours.
E ui ment ta
in
.
Selected
equipment, for which tagging requests
a
een snstsated,
was observed to verify that tags were in place
and the equipment in the condition specified.
Fire
rotection.
Fire detection
and fire fighting equipment
was
o serve
for conformance with Technical Specifications
and admini-
strative procedures.
Securit
.
Areas observed for conformance with regulatory require-
ments,tt essite security plan and administrative procedures,
included
vehicle and personnel
access,
protected
and vital area integrity,
escort
and badging.
Plant housekee
in
controls.
Plant conditions were observed for
con ormance wst
a msn strative procedures.
Storage of material
and components
was observed with respect to prevention of fire
and safety hazards.
Housekeeping
was evaluated with respect to
controlling the spread of surface
and airborne contamination.
Con-
siderable
improvement
was
made in restoring the Auxiliary Building
to pre-outage
conditions.
Decontamination of equipment
used during
the recent refueling outage
was ongoing throughout the inspection
period.
The removal of a substantial
amount of debris
and trash
was
evident to the inspector.
l;)
~
fl ~
,;n
'I
I
h" 7
ll
Q
~
l
~
~
h
~
Wg
E
~
h
I
~ h
h
7 'll
I
l
W
I
llw7
l
i
~
h
~
I
~
II
h
i
W
'7
~
f
t
='lW
~
h
I y$
"
l
lt
I
Wf
l
'lhhhi f 'I
l
WW
f
II
7
h
~
il
h
~
~
"l
I
'*
f ~
t
1
fh,
t
'l f'high
1
~
l
I
f
~
I
P f,t
ill
"
'I
~
tt
I
II
Qi
4.
Ins ector Witnessin
of Surveillance Tests
a ~
The inspector witnessed
the performance 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
eemoval of the system from service; test
was performed
by qualified per-
sonnel;
the procedure
was adequately detailed to assure
performance of a
satisfactory surveillance;
and test results satisfied the procedural
accept-
ance criteria, or were properly dispostioned.
b.
The inspector witnessed
the performance of:
Periodic Test (PT)-3, Containment
Spray
Pumps
and
NaOH Additive
Systems,
performed August 18, 1981.
PT-2.2, Residual
Heat Removal
System,
performed August 19, 1981.
PT-20, Main Steam Isolation Valve Solenoids Trip Test, performed
August 20, 1981.
No items of noncompliance
were observed.
Sam lin
Review of Com leted Surveillance Test Results
a.
The inspector
reviewed surveillance test data
on a sampling basis to verify
that tests
required
by Technical Specifications
were available
and covered
by properly approved procedures;
test format and technical
content were
adequate
to assure
performance of a satisfactory surveillance;
and test
results satisfied the procedural
acceptance criteria, or were properly
dispositioned.
b.
The following surveillance test results
were reviewed:
Periodic Test (PT)-2.1, Safety. Injection System
Pumps,
performed August
12, 1981.
PT-2.2, Residual
Heat Removal
System,
performed July 28, 1981.
PT-2.4, Cold/Refueling Notor Operated
Valve Surveillance,
performed
June 23, 1981.
PT-2.5, Air Operated
Valves, quarterly Surveillance,
performed July 2, 1981.
PT-2.8,
Component Cooling Water
Pump System,
performed August 19, 1981.
PT-6.3.1,
Power Range Nuclear Instrument System
Channel
41, performed
August 18, 1981.
PT-ll, 60 Cell Battery Banks
"A" and "B", performed July 24, 1981.
4
HI
H
~
~
4
I
'I
lff
I
v
~
'.4
II
4
II
"
'
1 ~
H
~
4
4
4
H
]
14
1
~ Hf ll
v 4
J .
I
" ifff
I ~
H
~
1
~
~ I
4
I
lv
v
n
1
~
4
1
4
It'
4
gl I 4
4
4
II
H
4
lff
v
~
H.H
, '1
4
4
'
4
4
4
'I
H,ff ~
4
I
~
4
1
v
fft 4
~
4
c ~
PT-12.1,
Emergency Diesel Generator lA, performed August 10, 1981.
PT,-12.2,
1B, performed August 14, 1981.
PT-12.3, Security Emergency Diesel Test,
performed July 30, 1981.
PT-13, Fire
Pump Operation
and System Alignment, completed
May 2, 1981.
PT-17.1, Area Radiation Monitors Rl-R9, performed August ll, 1981.
Primary Chemistry (PC)-3, Tritium in Liquid Samples,
performed August 5, 1981.
During the review of PC-3, the inspector noted that although reactor coolant
samples
to allow for determination of tritium concentration
were collected
July 7, 14,
21
and 28, 1981; the samples
were not actually counted until
August 5, 1981.
Failure to determine the tritium concentration
in the
re-:.
actor coolant system
on a weekly basis is contrary to Technical Specifica-
tion 4.1.2 and is considered
an item of noncompliance
(81-15-01).
6.
Ins ector Witnessin
of Plant Maintenance
and Modifications
a ~
b.
C.
During the inspection period, the inspector
observed
various maintenance
and problem investigation activities.
The inspector witnessed
these
ac-
tivities to verify compliance with regulatory requirements,
including those
stated in the Technical Specifications;
compliance with administrative
and
maintenance
procedures;
compliance with applicable
codes
and standards;
required
gA/gC involvement; proper
use of safety tags;
proper
equipment a-
lignment and use of jumpers;
personnel qualifications; radiological controls
for worker protection; retest requirements;
and ascertain reportability's
required
by Technical Specifications.
In a similiar manner the implementa-
tion of design
changes
and modifications were reviewed.
Compliance with
requirements
to update
procedures
and drawings were verified and post mod-
ification acceptance
testing
was evaluated;
The inspector witnessed
the following activities:
Repair of steam leak on the high pressure
turbine extraction
steam
line to the No.
4B low pressure
performed August
12, 1981.
Inspection
and maintenance of sticking
B Containment
Spray
Pump
discharge
The activity was performed
on August 18,
1981 in accordance
with Maintenance
Procedure
M37.18H, Revision 1,
February 5, 1981.
During preliminary review of Maintenance
Procedure
M37.18 prior to start
of work on the Containment
Spray
Pump discharge
check valve, the inspector
noted that the procedure
did not provide for gC hold points although there
4
II
II
I
4
4
FAW
1
4
t"
I
4
4
4
~
~ F
W
4
~
I
~
'I 4
4 A - t'
~
E
1
~
~
4
A
II '
W
F
1W
il~
1
~
4
~
4
1 I
~
~ I
I
!
1
II
4 ~
~ ~
F
~
I
~
~ 1
~ ~"
I
4
~ )
1
Al
W
4
44
'
4
F
I,
1 ~
I
)
I I'
'
1'
4
11)
~
1
existed several
items that were eligible for independent
gC verification.
The inspector questioned
a representative
of the
gC department in order
to ascertain
the department's
plans for covering this job.
The
gC repre-
sentative
indicated that the department
had
been
made
aware of the impend-
ing maintenance
as required
by the maintenance
procedure.
Following dis-
cussions
with the inspector,
the
gC representative
decided to observe
the
maintenance
action.
Upon further review of the procedure at the job site, the inspector noted
that
a sketch required for completion of a step in the procedure
was not
provided.
The sketch
showed
an acceptable
bolting sequence
for the check
valve cover.
The necessary
bolting sequence
was obtained
and the
gC re-
presentative
observed that the required
sequence
was followed, and proper
bolt torques
achieved.
The Plant Superintendent
indicated that procedure
H37.18H would be revised to correct the problem associated
with the miss-
ing sketch prior to the future use of the procedure.
Notitems of noncompliance
were observed.
7.
Licensee
Event
Re ort
LER's
The inspector reviewed the following LER's 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 generic implications were involved.
The
inspector also verified that the reporting requirements
of Technical Specifica-
tions 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 facil-
ity was conducted within the Technical Specification limit.
81-13:
Leak in Immediate Borate Line - July 14,
1981
(Repeat
Event: 81-06).
5ursng
an operator tour, leakage
was observed
from the charging
pump suction
line from the immediate borate
system.
The leaking section of pipe has
been
temporarily patched.
The licensee
has fabricated
a replacement
section of line
to be installed at the next extended
cold shutdown.
Cause of the piping leak
appears
to be stress
corrosion cracking originating from the outside diameter
surface.
The licensee is considering
examination of the heat tracing cement
used
on the concentrated
boric acid lines for evidence of a possible
source of
chloride contamination.
The inspector will follow the licensee's
actions with
regard to inhibiting corrosion cracking in heat traced lines (81-15-02).
81-14:
Halon Fire Suppression
System inoperable - July 20, 1981.
The Helen fire
suppression
system for the Relay and Computer
rooms
vIas taken out of service to
permit modification of the fire protection system.
The system inadvertently re-
mained out of service for greater
than the fourteen day.notification limit due
to an inadequate
procedure
reference to Technical Specifications
and lack of
'
I'4
4
I
~
~
~ I
3
4
lF
)N
1,
1
'4
N
i
'1
I
1
4
4
~
~
h
V
Ih
li
~
tf
~ N
1 1
lh
I
~
I
I
/
'-"N
bv 1
~ lft
\\
4
F
l
Fl
3
I 13th
I
~
th
H
hh'
"
~,
- ,>> 1,'I,.
fl
I
~
~
~
I'3
3
4
>>
I F>>ff
4
- ,,l') 4th
I'
fh
,'
tt
3
'V, If,
'l,l
t
~
~
~ *1
$
3" ~
- ~
I
I I
1
4bb
~
4 1
, I
~
"I
'
4
>>
1
It
>>
,Vf
lt
~
4
'4 ~ I
4
I
I
~
~
ll
4
)
"tt 'T>>
~
,'I
"
I Ilt
I
~
~
'
~
1
f
f
f
~
N'
~,
>>JN
1
)
~ 3
1
I '
4
ll
Fi, T
1
1
)
>>N
>>
t
proper communication
between the responsible
project section
and the Operations
Department.
A continuous firewatch was assigned
to the Relay and Computer
rooms
during the entire period.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
8.
Review of Periodic
and
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 correc-
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.
Within the scope of the above, the following periodic reports
were re-
viewed by the inspector.
Monthly Operating Report for July, 1981.
Semi-Annual Effluent Report:
January-June,
1981.
No items of noncompliance
were identified associated
with the above reports.
b.
The Monthly Operating Report for June,
1981
(reference
IE Inspection
Report
81-13) contained
a listing of major maintenance activities performed during
the recent refueling outage.
The listing included reference to functional
testing of safety-related
with six hydraulic units found inoper-
able.
The inspector reviewed the test results
and verified that due to the
the sample size for testing
had
been increased
in ac=-
cordance with Technical Specification requirements.
The licensee
did not submit a thirty-day report on the above failures,
based
on the inoperable status
being determined
during cold shutdown
u(hen
the snubbers
were not required
by Technical Specifications
to be operational.
The inspector stated that since the failures could not be attributed to a
specific cold shutdown activity, prior plant operation
must
be considered
to have
been conducted in a degraded
mode.
Failure to submit
a report of
degraded
mode operation within thirty days of discovery of the above snubber
failures is contrary to Technical Specification 6.9.2.b.2
and is considered
an item of noncompliance.(81-15-03).
9.
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.
~
1
1
1
)
II
~
ll
I
1
~
7, *
N
$ I 'I
I
'I
I
7
~
1
7
1
I
II
1
I
~ 'Nl'
I
~ ~
~
I
If
P
II
f NP'hf
4
7
I
'll
>> I',,
"1
1
4 g
N
hl
'
~ .
II
'!
1
II
1
4
4
~
I 'M)M
1 j
~
t ~"
~
f
,I /
~
>>
~
I
"~
I
t
I
,Iv)
4
1'hu
1
1
~
4
'7>>
hl
~
1
1
I
7
7
7
.7 Iv>>
>> I7" "7;
~
f
~
'
t'
>>
'I
)
I
"I
g 'frt
I'
l
tl
II
il
Ef
1
f,;)
HIM
f
77
t 747l
1
~
~7'l
44
~
~
4
1
I
14
'I t
1
.>>D
I
tl
~
~
g
~
~
I
l >>
PP
MI
l 'I
7
4
7
1
f
I
1
N
1
I I'
4
ill
~ I)skit
I
)4
~
~