IR 05000244/1987026
| ML17261A673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1987 |
| From: | Cowgill C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17261A672 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-87-26, NUDOCS 8711300052 | |
| Download: ML17261A673 (12) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-244/87-26 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:
October 7, 1987 through October 16, 1987 Inspectors:
N.
S. Perry, Resident Inspector, Ginna T. J. Polich, Senior Resident Inspector, Ginna Approved by:
C.
.
Cowgi ll Chief, Reactor Projects Section No.
1A, DRP
~u'z. 20 lQ P Date
~ins ectio~nSummar:
Ins ection on October
1987 throu h October
1987 Re ort No. 50-244/87-26).
Areas Ins ected:
Announced inspection of equality Assurance Program Annual Review - Records Program, Document Control Program, Onsite Review Committee, and Personnel Changes.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
871 i300052 87l 124 PDR ADOCK 05000244 Q
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Rochester Gas and Electric Cor oration C. Anderson, Quality Assurance Manager
"J.
C. Bodine, Nuclear Assurance Manager
"D. L. Fi lkins, Chemistry 8 Health Physics Manager
"D.
R. Gent, Results and Test Supervisor P.
Kane, Central Records Clerk
- T. A. Marlow, Maintenance Manager
- T. A. Meyer, Superintendent Ginna Support Services K. Nassauer, Quality Control Engineer
"J. T. St. Martin, Station Engineer
- S.
M. Spector, Superintendent Ginna Production W.
R. Stiewe, Quality Control Engineer
~J.
A. Widay, Technical Manager
- Denotes persons present at E><it Meeting on October 16, 1987.
The controls established for records and record storage are described in the reference documents listed in Attachment A.
The inspector reviewed these documents and verified that:
the storage facility for records is described; a storage facility custodian is identified; the filing system used is described; provisions exist for governing access to files and maintaining record accountability; a clerk is authorized to dispose of records, and methods are established for correcting or supplementing information.
The inspector randomly picked several records (normal operating logs, surveillance test results, onsite review committee meeting minutes, personnel training and qualification records)
and verified that they were:
listed on an index; readily retrievable; protected in envelopes in cabinets, and retained for the required time period '
"
Based on the above review, the inspector found the records program to be adequate.
However, the inspector did note that prior to a few months ago, only records personnel refiled documents.
The policy was recently changed due to a lack of adequate records personnel staffing such that the person using the record is the one to refile
'it.
Although no problems have been identified with the new system, a concern was raised that less stringent-rules could result in future problems.
It 'was pointed out to the inspector that if a problem did occur, a
new master copy of the record could be obtained in less than one day.
The inspector had no further questions on this matter.
No violations'r deviations were identified.
3.0 Document Control Pro ram The inspector reviewed the procedure for control of documents Administra-tive Procedure (A)-603 CONTROL OF AS-BUILT DRAWINGS AND DESIGN DOCUMENTS, Revision 13 and held discussions with document control personnel to ascer tain if controls were established to provide drawings in a timely manner and control obsolete drawings and discrepancies.
Several proce-dures and drawings, listed in Attachment A, were reviewed to verify that consistent revisions exist in the control room, technical support center, and the document controls room.
Based on the above review, the inspector found the program to be adequate to control procedures and drawings.
One discrepancy was identified in that procedure A-61 was missing from the technical support center's copy of the administrative procedures.
The inspector pointed this out to the appropriate document control personnel, and later that day a copy of the late'st revision of A-61 was placed in the technical support center copy.
The inspector had no further questions on this matter.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.0 Onsite Review Committee The inspector reviewed the onsite review committee meeting minutes for the present year, particularly reviewing those meetings that discussed LERs.
The PLANT OPERATIONS REVIEM COMMITTEE OPERATING PROCEDURES (A-205, Revision 20) was reviewed and three onsite review committee meetings were attended by the inspecto '
The onsite review committee meeting minutes for the 1987 year indicate that the onsite review committee fulfilled its required functions.
Review of LERs and, in general, plant events appeared adequate.
The meetings attended by the inspector were conducted smoothly and professionally, with appropriate concern shown for items discussed.
Material was handed out to committee members in advance of the meeting to allow independent review before the meeting.
This practice appeared to help the meetings run more efficiently.
However, the inspector raised a concern to the committee chairman about the potential for the meetings to act more like a "rubber stamp" on decisions without the proper review by the entire committee.
The chairman indicated that he was sensitive to that concern.
Addition-ally, the inspector pointed out the practice of stating at the end of the meeting minutes that, "the committee has determined that no technical specification changes or violations were involved and there are no unreviewed safety questions,"
could be construed to mean that the committee did not review each item individually.
The chairman indicated that he would check into the concerns.
The inspector had no further questions in these matters.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.0 Personnel Chan es Changes in personnel over the past year in the plant Nuclear Assurance Department were reviewed by the inspector.
Through discussions with the Nuclear Assurance Manager, it was discovered that as of June 1,
1987 use of full-time contractor quality contxol (gC) inspectors was suspended.
This action resulted in the loss of several full-time gC inspectors, cutting the number of gC inspectors nearly in half.
Because of this reduction in staffing, the inspector looked to see what future plans are for hiring and what the status is of the department's surveillances of plant activities.
The plant Nuclear Assurance Department appears to do an adequate job of observing maintenance activities.
However, the department appears to look at very few of the activities in the Operations Department.
The gC inspectors observe survei llances done by the Results and Test Department, but observe extremely few performed by the Operations Department; in particular, it was noted that there has been no observation by plant gC inspectors of a diesel generator operability surveillance in the last year.
Though gC inspectors have been called in on backshifts and weekends as required, there are no scheduled backshift or weekends Nuclear Assurance activities.
The Nuclear Assurance Manager pointed out that use of contractor.gC inspectors was suspended due to the fact that they worked primarily with plant modifications, and the work load there has decreased drasticall '
In addition, he pointed outthat there are plans to hire a licensed person during the next year which will increase there observations of the Operations Department.
However, the inspector saw no written commitment toward this goal and was told that the Nuclear Assurance Department in general has no written goals or schedules for program improvement.
Additionally, the Nuclear Assurance Manager pointed out that typically recommendations to the plant superintendent are not put in writing. If plant QC inspectors observe few Operations Department activities, they have a very small chance of finding potential operational problems.
Additionally, if findings and department goals are'ot documented and committed to, there is less chance that these findings or goals will affect future activities.
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 thi's report does not contain information subject to
CFR 2.790 restriction '
ATTACHMENT A References A-1701 GINNA RECORDS, Revision ll A-1702 RECORD STORAGE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, Revision
.Procedures A-61 METHOD OF EVALUATION FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN BASIC COMPONENTS UNDER 10 CFR 21, Revision
M-7.2 SEAL WATER INJECTION FILTER REPLACEMENT, Revision
PT-16
.
AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM, Revision
S-4.2. 12 GAS ANALYZER OPERATION, Revision
T-27. 1 1A EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR PRE-STARTUP ALIGNMENTRevision
PT-12. 1 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR 1A, Revision
~Drawin s
IA 33013-1888 Original Issue DG 33013-1239 Revision
SW 33013-1250 Revision
FP 33013-1241 Revision
FP 33013-1242 Revision
2-24-87 3-17-87 7-08-87 3-19-86 1-16-85