ML17256A811
| ML17256A811 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1982 |
| From: | Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204160442 | |
| Download: ML17256A811 (54) | |
Text
~BQ Pgzg go Docket No. 50-244
.h1AR 36 1882 Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation A1TN:
Hr. John E. IIaier Vice President Electric and Steam Production 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 Gentlemen:
Pg+C MI~
eel)a,
>gee~
@4EkT ~1 r 8lfqyg>
no~ >>e
Subject:
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
This refers to the SALP performed by this office on AuEIust 31, 1981 regarding the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power, Plant and to the discussions of our findings held with your staff on September 10, 1981.
That SALP covers the period of July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981.
The attached SALP report fo) your facility is being issued and distributed in accordance with recently established NRC policy.
Although this report was prepared under previous criteria, the results have been reclassified under present guidance.
No reply to this letter is required.
Your'ooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
SALP - Evaluation Report Original SigaeE)gy:
Ronald C. Haynes Regional Administrator cc w/encl:
Har'ry H. Voigt,, Esquire Central Records (3 copies)
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of New York J. Lyons, NRR, LPtt bcc w/encl:
p PDR Region I Docket Room (w/concurrences)
Chi f, Operational Support Section (w/o e 1)
(og g)
OFFICE SURNAME OATE R
'i's eiffel RI:
ner
($
RI: DPR Keimi DIIsl IP RI:
Sta P
R :REG:DEP'ADN /Ri:R II A11 Hain s
.........>l............
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
\\
'I t
s P 14
'I
RG%E '(Gipna)
)ALP Cycle II SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Ginna Unit I Region I PERFORMANCE EYALUATION Evaluation Period:
7/1/80 - 6/30/81 Board Date:
August 31, 1981
t
FOREWARD The Region I SALP Board performed this assessment prior to the decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revise the NRC's program of Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance.
An important change'n this revision was to retitle and redefine the performance categories.
This change affords better characterization of the staff's evaluations of licensee performance.
These revised performance categories were used for this report.
The SALP Board formally evaluated the licensee's performance before the revised guidance was available.
These initial rankings were subsequently equated with and converted to the new performance categories without formally reconvening the Board.
The performance categories are to be printed in the Federal Register within a few weeks.
Each functional area evaluated is characterized as being in one of the following categories:
~pl:
Rd dRRC I
yb pp pt Licensee management attention and involvement are aggressive R
and oriented toward nuclear safety; licensee resources are ample and effectively used such that a high level'of per-formance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
- b. ~C2:
IIC I
R Idb I
d levels.
Licensee management attention and involvement R're evident and are concerned with nuclear safety; licensee resources are adequate and are reasonably effective such that satisfactory performance with respect to operational
I 4
safety or construction is being achieved.
C~3:
hNRC dli ti h
1db increased.
Licensee management attention or involvement is acceptable and considers nuclear safety, but weaknesses are evident; licensee resources appear to be strained or not effectively used such that minimally satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construc-tion is being achieved.
In characterizing the licensee's performance in a functional area as being in one of -the Categories, performance=is evaluated against the following criteria:
a.
Management involvement in assuring quality, b.
Approach to resolution of technical issues from safety standpoint, c.
Responsiveness to NRC'initiatives; d.
Enforcement history, e.
Reporting and analysis of reportable events, f.
Staffing (including management),
and g.
Training effectiveness and qualification.
~
~
al RGSE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II R.
E.
GINHA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AHD ACTION PLAN August 31, 1981 LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OPERATIONS)
REGION I Facility:
R.
E; Ginna Licensee:
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Facility Information:
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance 50-244 DPR18/March 1, 1972 Reactor Information:
Unit 1 Unit Ho.
NSSS MMt WESTINGHOUSE 1520 Appraisal Period; July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981 Appraisal Date:
August 31, 1981 Review Board:
R.
R. Keimig for E. J. Brunner, Acting Director, Division of.Resident and Project Inspection, Region I T. T. Martin, Director, Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection, Region I G. H. Smith, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Operational
- Support, Region I R.
P. Snaider, Licensing Project Manager, NRR Attendees:
H. B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1C, DRPI R.
P.
Zimmerman, Senior Resident Inspector, R.
E. Ginna J.
M. Allan, Deputy Director, Region I
4
~ ~
RG8E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II PERFOfMNCE DATA A.
Number and Nature of Noncom liance Items 1.
Noncom liance Cate or Unit 1 Violations Infraction Severity Level I Severity Level II Severity Level III Severity Level IV Severity Level V
Severit Level VI Tota s 2.
Areas of Noncom liance 0
1 0
0 0
5g 3
3 12 I
(Tabulated-on page 6).--.'.;;
B.
Number and Nature of Licensee Event Re orts Tabular Listin Type of Events:
A.
Personnel Error B.
Design/Man./Const. /Install. Error C.
External Cause D.
Defective Procedure E.
Component Failure X.
Other Licensee Event Reports Reviewed (Report Nos.):
Report No. 80-06/IT through 81-12/3L Unit 1 4I 0
0 12 1
Security Event Reports Reviewed - 8 total; 4 documented malfunctions of the computer system.
~,
H A
0 I r 1
vg I
I I
II
~ 't R
g 1
4
'P I
el RGaE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II F.
Ins ection Activities a ~
b.
SALP C cle 1 and C cle 2 Ga (5/3/80 - 6/30/80)
Regional-based specialist inspection. of.,quality assurance program conducted in June, 1980.
SALP C cle 2 One NRC resident inspector was onsite for the entire assessment period.
Total NRC man-hours of inspection were 1456.
G.
c.
Other Notewort Ins ections Institute of Nuclear Power Operations conducted inspection in September, 1980.
Investi ations There were no formal investigations during the assessment period.
C cle 1 and C cle 2 SALP Statistical Data Ga (5/3/80 - 6/30/80)
LERS Ga Unft 1 A.
Personnel Error B.
Design/Fab.
Error C.
External D.
Procedures E.
Component Failure X.
Other Licensee Event Reports Reviewed (Report No.):
Report No. 80-04/IT and 80-05/IT
I~
, tltU ll'it'll) 9')lf"f~'g',f'~ <i<~>>
RGSE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 2.
~C1 2
1 1
(J 13 1, 1919 - J 311.
19813 Four sets of common mode events were identified:
a ~
b.
C.
LER's 79-21 and 80-02 reported missed surveillance tests on safety-related equipment.
LER's 79-22, 80-03 and 81-09 reported steam generator tube leaks and crack indications.
LER's 79-16, 80-04, 80-05, 80-09 and 81-03 reported safety-related systems not properly aligned.
d.
LER's 81-02 and 81-05 reported malfunction of the tripper bar linkage in the Bus 16 circuit breaker closing circuit for the 'C'afety In-jection pump.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties:
None D.
Orders:
None Immediate Action Letters:
IAL 80-54 dated December 19, 1980 -
Subject:
Deficiencies in Emergency Prepared-ness identified during the Health Physics Appraisal t1ana ement Conferences Held E.
One meeting held on May 15, 1980 at the R.
E. GinnanNuclear Power Plant to discuss the results of the Region I, Cycle I SALP evaluation board.
Licensee Activities The plant operated at full power throughout the assessment period except for outages on ll/1/80 to 12/3/80 for steam generator maintenance, on 1/21/81 for replacement of a leaking 5B feedwater heater drain valve and on 4/17/81 to 6/20/81 for anriual refueling, maintenance and modification work.
Additionally, on 4/14/81, a turbine runback of,105 occurred following a loss of offsite power.
~ II >>
I,
~
II II 1 If II 1
1 U
lt I
R I
1 I
I
~ ii M"'l
'RI I'
1 II II 1
I I
II I'
f I
Il II I
RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II NONCOMPLIANCE AREAS Facility Name Ginna Functional Area Investigation 8 Inspection Manhours Snit 1
Noncompliances and Deviations Severity Level Classification I
II III IV V
VI Vio. Inf. Def. Dev.
1.
Plant 0 erations Re ue sn eratsons aintenance Surve ance 8
Inservice testin Personne I,- tra n ng
& lant rocedures Fsre protect on
& housekee in essgn c anges modifications Ra at>on protect>on, radiation waste management, trans ortation Envsronmenta Protect on 10.
Emer enc Pre aredness ecuri a e uar s
u its, rev ews, committee activities 13.
A mansstrat on,. Q,
- records, rocurement orrective actions
& re ortin Total 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3+ 1 0
(1) 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 j+ 2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
<5~
3 3
0 1
0 0
Total Noncompliances
=
12~
Note~~=
(
) includes an item not yet issued (inspection completed, report pending)
I,m I I I
I 4 e
r l4
'I I
tl II 4,
II I'
P f
I I
a I
4 Ifgt I
I 4 II I
It
~ t I
I
<4
RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II Functional Area l.
Plant Operations 2.
Refueling Operations 3.
Maintenance R.
E.
GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Unit No.
1 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
(Category Category 1-,
2--
1 X--
Category 4.
Surveillance and Inser vice Testing 5.
Personnel Training and Plant Procedures 6.
Fire Protection and Housekeeping 7.
Design Changes and Modifications 8.
Radiation Protection, Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation 9.
Environmental Protection 10.
Security and Safeguards 12.
Audits, Reviews, and Committee Activities 13.
Administration, gA, and Records 14.
Corrective Actions and Reporting
t I
Ph
~
I'
~ I 1
h Ih lf h
'I teal
[Ah ]
I hhh)Qef Qh lh
~ I' ft'I tw I
h
~ f RGSE (Gonna)
SALP Cycle II FUNCTIONAL AREA PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 8.
\\
l
>>'ll+
"~ ]i)9
%1 f $ F$
']Q"',
J
~I RGIIE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II
~Pi t0 ti a.
~Cele l One item of noncompliance was identified-failure to include a normally locked open valve in the procedure for control of locked valves.
b.
c ~
d, C cle I and C cle 2 Ga One item of noncompliance was identified-improper write over entries in the Officia 1 Record. (Deficiency).
~Cole 2
(412 hre.,
28%)
The resident inspector reviewed plant operations on a regular basis.
In general, the operations staff maintained a conservative attitude toward plant safety.
Ab-.
normal conditions, including equipment malfunctions, were quickly identified and corrective actions originated.
Two items of noncompliance were identified.
Severity IV - Failure to run the '8'/G continuously with the 'A'/G inoperable.
Problem stemmed from an improper licensee understanding of the term "operable".
Discussions between both IE and NRR with the licensee appear to have resolved the issue with no recurrent events noted.
Plant administrative procedures have been revised to reflect the Standard Technical Specification definition of "operable".
Severity IV - Failure to adequately verify isolation of a primary coolant leak.
Investigation into the indications of a primary coolant leak inside containment did not conclusively show that reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage did not exist or that it had been properly isolated.
'.Examination of the<'(.'A'eactor coolant pump bowl longitudinal welds was satis-factorily. accomplished. during the 3981 refueling outage.
Considerable effort Iwas expended.iii:developing)and implementing the NDE program.
'An-.'administrative form is used to document entry into Technical Specification action"'s't'atements including the required action.
Each form remains open until c
'-the respectiy'e action. statement was no longer applicable, at which time it is closed out; This system, along with the completion of routine shift surveillance logs, helps to provide positive control over Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation.
Conclusion
=:, Category 5 9 A, L
~
)1 I
Mg>>
RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 2.
Refuelin 0 erations a ~
b.
C.
~Cele 1
No items of noncompliance or specific comments were noted.
~Cele 2
(29 hrs.,
25}
Inspection of refueling operations was conducted by the resident inspector.
Core alterations were performed by experienced personnel in a competent, pro-fessional manner.
There were no items of noncompliance and no problem areas identified. It is felt that the prior experience with refueling operations at the plant provided a strong asset.
',.Scheduli'ng'of outage activities, including extensive steam generator work and,in=serve ice inspection of the 'A'CP, was well managed by several full
'time refueling"coo'rdinators.
Good communication between the coordinators and respective functional groups provided an efficient method for accomp-lishing necessary tasks.
Conclusion
'ategory 1
1 Af(
F
~I RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 3.
Maintenance a.
~Cc1e 1
No items of noncompliance or specific comments were noted.
b.
~Cele 2
(32 hre.,
2.5%)
The resident inspector observed ongoing maintenance activities du} ing routine inspections.
One regional-based specialist inspection of the maintenance program was conducted.
No items of noncompliance were i-dentified.
Trouble card forms have been improved to include a priority numbering system, thus creating a method to determine the order reported problems shoul'd receive attention.
A strong preventive maintenance pro-gram has been developed and implemented.
c.
Conclusion
- .Category I
I
(
I
\\
II
~g~r~ seP
[
'\\
~
RG8f (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II Surveillance and Inservice Testin a.
~Cele I Two items of noncompliance were identified for inadequate supervisory review.of periodic test results.
b.
~C cle 2 (70 brs.,
5%)
Inspection of surveillance and inservice testing was conducted by the resident inspector during routine inspections.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Problems associated with supervisory review of periodic test results was not inspected in depth;
- however, based on a;limited;
- s'ampl.ing.of. test ""data't appears that some testing still'- receives marginal supervisory review.
c.
Conclusion
','ategory 2
12
0 I
I' le sl o
'I n
) t' i
Q.~,
alai fJ ~).jfll~,.rQ
RG8lE (Gonna)
SALP Cycle II 5.
Personnel<"Trainin and Plant Procedures a.
~Cele I One deviation was identified for failure to meet a commitment to the NRC to complete operator training for th'e revised SBLOCA procedures within the time frame committed.
b.
~Cele 2
('55 hrs....4%)
(>)'.'Personnel'rainin The resident inspector reviewed training during routine inspections.
One regional-based specialist inspection was conducted in this area.
One item of noncompliance was identified for failure to perform a ra-diation emergency drill within the required frequency (Severity V).
There are indications that training supervision does not satisfactorily track or adequately keep plant management aware of site administrative and NRC commitment dates and requirements.
Several individuals have been added to the training department complement in an effort to keep pace with a growing department workload.
1 (2) i Procedures'he resident. inspector reviewed procedures.
during routine inspectiorjs; I
One regional-based specialist"inspection was conducte'd in.this area.
c ~
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Surveillance and calibration procedures underwent extensive licensee review to ensure appropriate acceptance criteria were included in the procedures.
Plant procedure control, including reviews, revisions and proper dissemination, was well managed.
Conclusion
~Category 2
0 ~0' I
~ F 0I 0
9;I.:f~!'O'I ll I
~
~
~
II J'
I 1
~ 0 4 0 I II I
g I'
I' fl
~ I 4
I.t, 01, 0
I ~
.;"- I,")01:f.,))Ilkff B~;~II)I3.)0 fi, lII'I~f,- 'H)f,);>>'. f JF) )it"F,I:
)'I'FI A9i~J',)I)24'iff.'I'.3)'".f3.0
..')~a-. fSIH3'"IB'I'24F
~
QIfQf;")341PI'I)'
'i" ~l'l I*I
'I 0
0 II 0 I
~
'I I
~ 0 I
RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 3
I I
II rf II f
ti>
6.
Fire Protection and Housekee in I I 0
I a.
~Cele 1
Two items of noncompliance were identified for failure to take adequate protective measures during a welding operation; and failure to implement required fire protection modifications.
b.
~Cele 2
II42 hns.,
3%)
(1)
Fire Protection The resident inspector observed fire protection controls during rou-tine inspections.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Response
of the shift fire brigade to several small fires including a smolder-ing glove and wooden crate in containment, and, arcing of the fire storage tank booster pump motor in the main feed pump room has been satisfactory.
Fire, watch yequirements were adequately established where hot work was be'ing performed and -reflash fire.,watch -requirements'.
wer e satisfied upon"extinguishing the above fires.
An,extensive fire protectionsystem upgrade is in progress as required by the NRC's Fire t'ro'tectiori Safety-Evaluation for Ginna.
(2)
The resident inspector observed housekeeping controls during routine inspections.
One regional-based specialist addressed housekeeping during an inspection of the maintenance program.
One item of non-compliance was identified for failure to establish procedurtes for control of plant housekeeping and cleanliness (Severity V).
Plant management became heavily involved in maintaining proper house-keeping controls in containment during the recent outage, with positive results.
Refueling and post refueling housekeeping conditions in the Auxiliary Building required a dedicated effort to improve overall con-ditions; however, the effort did not receive high priority.
Overall plant housekpeeing during routine power operation has been satisfactory.
c.
Conclusion C'ategory, 2
14
l p!
r t
,"v II q.q c.
~. p rgb,*, ~,.~ >>
"~
p
~v
~ <<','> ice, r~~
jlrg~
mc '...
E
> fV>>
'-l)~I ~.".3 <<Ã
,"d ~hor=.3ezo
~')
lq)
> Jf I
- ifl90723"f iJA i II zC IJ I
RGImE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 7.
Desi n Chan es and Modifications a.
~Cele 1
No items of noncompliance or specific comments were noted.
b.
C cle 1 and C cle 2 Ga One regional-based specialist inspection of the guality Assurance Program included design changes and modifications.
One item of noncompliance was identified for failure to timely provide drawing revisions to the control room (Deficiency).
c.
~Cele 2
~(15 hrs.,
1%)
The resident inspector reviewed the design criteria and associated safety analyses for various system and component modifications necessitated by TNI lessons learned.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
d.
Conclusions
+Category'2 15
L ~
d
s RGIIE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 8.
Radiation Protection Radioactive Waste Mana ement and Trans ortation a.
~Cele 1
(1)
Radiation Protection Three items of noncompliance were identified - failure to take air samples in work area; exposure reports not provided to individuals; whole body count results improperly evaluated.
,(2)
Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation Four items of noncompliance were identified:
unauthorized transport of licensed material; failure to identify licensed material to the carrier; internal audit finding not responded to by required due date; and failure to establish written procedures for packaging licensed mater ial.
b.
C cle 1'nd C cle 2 Ga
- Transportation One shipment of low level radioactive waste was inspected at the Barnwell, South Carolina waste burial site.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
~Cele 2
(411 hrs.,
28%)
(I)
Radiation Protection The resident inspector observed radiation protection controls during routine inspections.
Four regional-based health physics inspections were conducted, including the Health Physics Appraisal.
Three items of noncompliance were identified.
Severity IV - Failure to maintain adequate controls of respiratory protection equipment.
Specifics included inadequate inspection, maintenance and repair procedures; respirator facepiece/filter com-bination in use had not been approved by U.S.
Bureau of Mines/National Institute for Occupational Safety; and odor tests were not documented.
Severity IV - Failure to take an air sample during grinding operations in the B Steam Generator.
Severity VI - Failure to provide all exposure information to two individuals.
This item is recurrent.
The Health Physics Appraisal inspection considered the licensee's radiation protection program generally sound with several inadequacies noted primarily in the establishment and implementation of procedures.
16"'
~
I
~
~
II 1'47 4
ff
~
I I'
q, r 4
P I
II II
~
~
1 II
~ I 4
II
~
f Pt 1
4
~
II I
1 Il 4
~f*
II If I
f" qq II
RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II (2)
- However, two deficient areas were noted during the appraisal which resulted in the issuance of Immediate Action Letter 80-54.
Deficient areas requiring action included:
Proximity of the high range radiation monitor to the plant
- vent, as well as other possible sources of high radiation in an accident environment, was unacceptable in that a re-liable representation of the actual release rate would be inaccurate.
The monitor was required to be moved closer to the plant vent with sufficient lead shielding installed to mitigate the effect of high background radiation.
Procedure PC-23.3, "Estimation of Noble Gas Release Rates from the Plant Vent During Accident Conditions", required revision to provide more specific information regarding the technique employed.
Corrective actions have been reviewed and found acceptable.
Radioactive Waste Management and 'Transportation.
The resident inspector briefly observed radioactive waste controls.
A dewatered resin shipment was inspected prior to leaving the site on April 3, 1981.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
~ Three of the above regional-based inspections, including the Health Physics Appraisal, addressed rad waste management and transportation.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Inspection of the licensee's action in response to Bulletin 80-10, Contamination of Nonradioactive System and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored, Uncontrolled Release of Radio-activity to Environment, were not considered complete and a
, reevaluation of the bulletin including a revised response was requested..
d.
Conclusion Category 2
17
I A
RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 9.
Environmental Protection a ~
b.
~Cele 1
No items of noncompliance or specific comments were noted.
~Cele 2
(61 era.,
4%)
Two regional-based specialist inspections were conducted.
The NRC Mobile Laboratory was used during one inspection to allow splitting samples with the licensee and comparing data.
Good agreementg in results was found; however two items of noncompliance were identi-f1ede Severity VI - failure to take filterable dust samples.
Severity VI - failure to follow procedures addressing reagent shelf life.
c.
Conclusion Category2,
~
4
'le I'
g I
'lI
RGImE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 10.
Emer enc Pre aredness a.
~Cele 1
No items of noncompliance or specific comments were noted.
b.
~Cele 2
(91 brs.,'!6%I The resident inspector reviewed this area through inspection of TMI lessons learned items relating to Emergency Preparedness, and witness-ing of the radiation emergency drill on February 18, 1981.
Licensee actions in response to the drill were considered satisfactory.
The Technical Support (TSC) was unable to fully participate in the initial response in that the plant process computer, the major source of plant parameter data to the TSC, was printing out actual full power data, and hypothetical scenerio parameter data was not const ucted for the drill.
The following areas of emergency preparedness were inspected during the Health Physics Appraisal:
organization, training, facilities, equipment and procedures.
Several deficient areas were noted during the appraisal, which resulted in the issuance of Immediate Action Letter 80-54.
Deficient areas requiring action included:
Inadequate provision to rapidly and accurately detect and measure environmental airborne radioiodine concentrations under field con-ditions in the presence of noble gases.
Modification of method used to project whole body and thyroid doses or dose rates to the general population to encompass the lower limits of the projected action guides adopted f'r use by the State of New Yor k.
Training/retraining of individuals assigned to various functional areas of the emergency organization was not in accordance with the schedule required in the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures.
Corrective actions have been reviewed and found acceptable.
The location of the Technical Support Center has been moved from the tem-porary location in the Service Building to a permanent location in a build-ing just finishing completion, adjacent to the Turbine Building.
Significant time and manpower has been expended in reviewing, revising and coordinating the emergency plan with the state and local authorities.
c.
Conclusion rCategory--2'9,"
IP VI V
V
~
~
P h
I V
V h
I l
1
'I V
t I
H lt V h
)
PP V II I
P
',3 V
RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II Securit and Safe uards a ~
b.
~Cele 1
Four items of noncompliance were identified:
failure to install required number of CCTV monitors; required number of guards not on duty; failure to control access to a vital area; and continuous radio communications not maintained.
The high attrition rate of guards was noted as having the potential for affecting the overall quality of secu}ity.
~Cele 2
(189 hrs.,
13K)
The resident inspector observed security plan implementation during routine inspections.
Three regional-based specialist inspections were conducted.
Two items of noncompliance were identified.
Infraction - Failure of admittance control hardware to annunciate in the required location.
Severity IV - Inadequate vital area barriers.
L Financial incentives have greatly reduced the'security-'guard-attr'ition rate.'
~
Conclusion Category 2
20
~
ii 4l
~ ~
I 4'
4 4 II
~
I' 4
4 i
~
~
l4
~
4
~
~
"~
I ~ II 4
4
$ 4'< ii
)
+
~
4 li 'I II 8
4 II v
J 444 Iilr '
1 i
II
~
~
I II 4
14 il
(
~
0 RGSE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 12.
Audits, Reviews and Committee Activities a.
~Cele 1
No items of noncompliance or specific comments were noted.
b.
C cle 1 and C cle 2 Ga One regional-based specialist inspection of the guality Assurance Program included implementation of the licensee's audit program.
No items of non-compliance were identified in this area.
c.
~Cele 2
(4 hrs...5%)
The resident inspector reviewed this area briefly during routine inspections.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Although review of corporate gA, findings was not performed, a substantial number of program-oriented audits were noted to be in progress.
d.
Conclusion
'-. Category 2
21'
P h
P h
~g
~
AI FI 4
II
~ ~
RG&E (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 13.
Administration, A and Records a.
~Cele 1
No items of noncompliance were identified.
The licensee committed to constructing a permanent records storage facility by October, 1980.
b.
C cle 1 and C cle 2 Ga One regional-based specialist inspection was conducted of the quality assurance/quality control program.
One item of noncompliance was iden-tified and is discussed under functional area 87, Design Changes and Modifications.
c.
~Cele 2
(15 hrs.,
15)
The resident inspector reviewed this area during routine inspections.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
The onsite gC department is small, and limited involvement in surveillance and maintenance activities has been noted.
The permanent records storage facility was complete and operational by the required date.
- d. "='onclusion P Category 2.
W g
II i
J 41 M
I
~
K~ulll II ~ll 4M 5
Jl/
'- RGSE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II 14.
Corrective Actions and Re ortin a ~
b; c ~
'~Cele 3 I
r'o items of noncompliance or specific comments were noted.
~Cele 2
(30 hre.,
23)
The resident inspector reviewed corrective actions and reporting re-quirements during routine inspections.
One item of noncompliance was identified for failure to submit a thirty-day report documenting op-eration in a degraded mode permitted by Technical Specifications (Severity Y).,Several Technical Specification',,'reporting requirements
~dealing wi.t'h degraded mode orp'eration's
.were mi,si~nterpreted; non=conser-
,vativelyy,,
by~ 1 i censee management.
The 1980 report of annual modifications, tests and experiments, sub-mitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, contained only a listing of procedure'changes rather than a description of actual hardware
- changes, tests and associated safety analyses.
The licensee has agreed to resubmit the 1980 report.
The inspector discussed these areas with licensee management to ensure proper understanding of reporting requirements.
The quality of responses and submittals to NRR (including generic letter responses, requests for information for SEP review, and Technical Specification changes) has been noteworthly.
The licensee pursued operational probl'ems in a timely fashion, and provided appropi"'iatei corrective actions.
The administrative handling of Corrective Action Reports (CAR's) and Preventive. Action Reports (PAR's) was well organized and implemented.
Conclusion t,Category 2
23
~ J J
If p
l l
\\ k
, J 4
I 4
7 tf 1
1
'1
)<
1 w
( 0.'c' gd'}'
')'(3 g ',I )V&<~V'"lf32~lll"~3"ilfOA o.~
l099G';~)'f'i'0f8 i '1-,r 'F95 fQQQfif9VGi'I
.>>.~.PAR'l3'P":afS f'I
'8k' L
~3>l,~~, /~A f '") '="'<<E"t"V~l n, i C
RGIEE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II Noncomp.
Inspection Number Date 80-10-01 7/6-11/80 NONCOMPLIANCE DATA Cycle II July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 Subject Failure of admittance control hardware to annunciate in the required location Re Sev.
Sec.
Plan Inf Area 81-01-01 1/12-16/81 Failure to establish procedures 10CFR50 5
for control of plant housekeep-Appendix B
ing and cleanliness 81-02-01 1/20-1/22/81 Failure to take environmental filterable dust samples T/S 81-03-01 12/1/80-1/31/81 Failure to perform radi ation drill within required annual frequency 10CFR 5
Appendix E
81-06 3/16-19/81 81-07-01 3/22-26/81'ailure to follow procedures T/S addressing chemical reagent shelf llfe Failure to maintain adequate 10CFR20 4
controls of respiratory protection equipment 81-08-01 6/2-5/81 81-08-02 6/2-5/81 81-08-03 6/2-5/81 81-10-01 5/26-29/81 81-10-02 5/26-29/81 Failure to submit 30-day report of degraded mode operation Failure to ensure 'B'/G oper-able with 'A'/G unable to per-form an intended function, and thus inoperable Failure to adequately verify isolation of primary coolant leakage Failure to take an air sample during grinding operation in the,'B'team Gener'ator.
Failure to provide all exposure information to two individuals T/S T/S T/S 10CFR20 4
10CFR20 6
14 81-12-01 6/22-26/81 Inadequate vital area barriers Sec.
Plan 4
,24,
'f 0 P
I I
ttt I
II
~ '
4 I
" ~ttf"I, tt tfht) h
'th 4
P
~,
I P
I 4
h P
h P
'I
'I
~
I
RGSE (Ginna)
SALP Cycle II INSPECTION HOURS
SUMMARY
Functional Area 1.
Plant Operations 2.
Refueling Operations 3.
Maintenance 4.
Surveillance and Inservice Testing 5.
Personnel Training and Plant Procedures 6.
Fire Protection and Housekeeping 7.
Design Changes and Modifications 8.
Radiation Protection, Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation 9.
Environmental Protection 10.
Security and Safeguards 12.
Audits, Reviews, and Committee Activities Ins ection Hours 29 32 7.0 55
,4'2 15 413.1 6j.
912 189 Percent of 1
Tota'1 Hours11 28%
2.5X
'5%
( -.4'g
<3 /o 285 13'A
. 5'5 13.
Administration, gA, and Records 14.
Corrective Actions and Reporting 15 30 Tota1 1456 2Ã 1005 l.
includes 320 inspection hours performed by the Health Physics Appraisal Team 2.
includes 72 inspection hours performed by the Health Physics Appraisal Team
+ ~
I ~