ML17262A738
| ML17262A738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1992 |
| From: | Andrea Johnson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mecredy R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17262A739 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.155, RTR-REGGD-1.155 TAC-M68548, NUDOCS 9202050504 | |
| Download: ML17262A738 (9) | |
Text
(4~8 AECIj
~p'y np I
p Yg+p
~0
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 January 30, 1992 Docket No. 50-244 Dr. Robert C. Mecredy V'.ce President, Nuclear Production Rochester Gas
& Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Dr. Mecredy:
SUBJECT:
R.E.
GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STATION BLACKOUT ANALYSIS (TAC M68548)
The Station Blackout (SBO) Rule requires licensees to submit information as defined in 10 CFR 50.63 and to provide a plan and schedule for conformance to the SBO Rule.
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), provided responses to the SBO Rule regarding the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant by letters from Robert C. Mecredy on April 17, 1989, March 30, 1990, and July 10, 1990, to Thomas E. Murley; and on April 22, 1991, to Allen R. Johnson.
RG&Es responses were reviewed by the NRC Staff and by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under contract to the NRC.
The results of the review are documented in the attached Safety Evaluation (SE) (Enclosure 1) and the SAIC Technical Evaluation Report (TER) SAIC-91/6694, "R. E.
GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STATION BLACKOUT EVALUATION," dated October 30, 1991, (Attachment 1 of Enclosure 1).
RG&E calculated a minimum acceptable SBO duration of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> for the R. E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.
RG&E indicated that there will be no modifications necessary to attain this coping duration.
RG&E submitted its initial response in the SBO generic response format.
Based on our review of that response and subsequent submittals, we find that the R. E. Ginna plant does not conform with the SBO rule and the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.155, NUMARC 87-00, and NUMARC 87-00 Supplemental Questions/Answers and Major Assumptions, dated December 27, 1989 (issued to the industry by NUMARC January 4, 1990).
The areas of non-conformance are identified in the enclosed SE.
In addition, the following areas may require follow-up inspection by the NRC to verify that the implementation of any modifications and the supporting documentation which RG&E may propose as a result of this evaluation are adequate to meet the SBO Rule.
The staff is developing guidance for this follow-up inspection to verify the following:
a.
Hardware and procedural modifications,
~L'I>K CFi37P~ CSPV 9202050504 920130 PDR ADOCK 05000244 p
Pu'1 ay C
'- i,$~
( 'l
~
Dr. Robert C. Mecredy b.
SBO procedures in accordance with R.G. 1.155, Position 3.4, and NUMARC 87-00, Section 4, c.
Operator staffing and training to follow the identified actions in the procedures, d.
EDG reliability program meets, as a m'.nimum, the guidelines of RG 1.155, e.
Equipment and components required to cope with an SBO are incorporated in a gA program that meets the guidance of RG 1.155, Appendix A, and f.
Actions taken pertaining to the specific recommendations noted in the SE.
The guidance provided on Technical Specifications (TS) for an SBO states that the TS should be consistent with the Interim Commission Policy Statement on Technical Specifications.
The staff has taken the position that TS are required for SBO response equipment.
However, the question of how specifications for the SBO equipment will be applied is currently being considered generically by the NRC in the context of the Technical Specification Improvement Program and remains an open item at this time.
In the interim, the staff expects plant procedures to reflect the appropriate testing and surveillance requirements to ensure the operability of the necessary SBO equipment.
If the staff later determines that TS regarding the SBO equipment is warranted, RGSE will be notified of the implementation requirements.
A revised response to the SBO Rule which addresses the areas of non-conformance should be submitted for staff review within 60 days of receipt of this letter.
Subject to an acceptable resolution of the identified non-conformances, the issue of conformance to the SBO Rule remains open for the R.E. Ginna plant.
We consider the technical review under this TAC No. to be incomplete.
The SE contains 14 recommendations which include three requests for additional information (revised response) to be submitted for NRC review within the targeted 60 days.
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on January 28, 1992, NRC (Johnson) and RG&E (Wrobel), conformance with this schedule appears reasonable.
Please
- note, Reference 17 (Section 5.0) of Attachment 1 to the Enclosure does not apply to the Ginna Station.
Dr. Robert C. Necredy 3
If you have any additional questions with regard to schedule responses, please notify me.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer then ten respondents; therefore, OYB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
Sincerely, cc w/enclosure:
See next page Al en R. Johnso
, Project Manager P oject Direct rate I-3 Dz 'o eactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
A p
~
Dr. Robert C. Mecredy
~
3 January 30, 1992 If you have any additional questions with regard to schedule responses, please notify me.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer then ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
cc w/enclosure:
See next page Sincerely, Original signed by:
Allen R. Johnson, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NAME
- MRus DATE W
WW AW
~ I W
b
- AJohnson
- AM iola 2:
I /~ /92:
Sg92 ocumen arne:
~
W WWWO 0
~
>>0 WW0 W
~
N P
m h
t 1
ll t
Dr. Robert C. Mecredy Ginna CC:
Thomas A. Moslak, Senior Resident Inspector R.E. Ginna Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1503 Lake Road
- Ontario, New York 14519 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Ms. Donna Ross Division of Policy Analysis
& Planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 Nicholas S. Reynolds W'.nston
& Strawn 1400 L St.
N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 Ms. Thelma Wideman Director, Wayne County Emergency Management Office Wayne County Emergency Operations Center 7370 Route 31
- Lyons, New York 14489 Ms. Susan Perry Administrator, Monroe County Office of Emergency Preparedness 111 West Fall Road Rochester, New York 14620
a I
S DISTRIBUTION W ENCLOSURE:
oce re 4h NRC 5 Local PDRs PDI-3 Reading DISTRIBUTION W 0 ENCLOSURE:
arga W. Lazarus N. Rushbrook A. Johnson J.
Calvo W. Butler A. Nendiola G. Holahan S. tlitra R.
Rosa R. Jones C. NcCracken P. Gill J. Knight A. Toalston OGC ACRS (10) P-315 J. Linville, Region I R. Lobel 030098
~
~
II
~