ML17264B048

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Insp Rept 50-244/97-201 on 970609-0815.No Violations Observed.Selected Sys Were Capable of Performing Design Basis Safety Functions.Some Discrepancies Re Adherence of Sys of Design & Licensing Basis Identified
ML17264B048
Person / Time
Site: Ginna Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 09/24/1997
From: Richards S
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Mecredy R
ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
Shared Package
ML17264B049 List:
References
50-244-97-201, NUDOCS 9710060293
Download: ML17264B048 (8)


See also: IR 05000244/1997201

Text

~gR 850(

(4

(~

0

t

p%

o

t

0

/p ,+>>*<<>>

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20555-0001

September

24,

1997

Dr. Robert

C. Mecredy

Vice President,

Nuclca.

OperatiorI~

Rochester

Gas

and Electric CorporatiorI

89 East

Avenue

Rochester,

NY

14649

SUBJECT:

R.

E.

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER

PLANT DESIGN

INSPECTION

(NRC

INSPECTION

REPORT

NO. 50-244/97-201)

Dear Dr. Mecredy:

During the period from June

9 through August 15,

1997,

the U.S. NiIclear

Regulatory Commissi-n

(NRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulati~

(NRH)

performed

a design

inspection of the

R.

E. Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant.

The

systems

selected

for review were the Safety Injection (SI) system

and the

Component

Cooling Water

(CCW) system.

The purpose of the inspection

was to

evaluate

the capability of the selected

systems

to perform the safety

functions required

by their design

bases,

and to evaluate

the adherence

of the

systems

to their design

and licensing bases,

including the consistency of the

as-built system configuration with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(UFSAR).

The results of the inspection

are contained

in the attached

report.

Overall,

the team found that the selected

systems

were capable of performing their

design basis safety functions.

Some discrepancies

were identified regarding

adherence

of the systems

to their design

and licensing bases.

For example,

the team found that: the

UFSAR had not been

updated to reflect changes

in the

peak clad temperature

calculated

to occur during

a design

basis accident;

certain safety related valves

were not being tested

to ensure functionality;

and instructions

in the Emergency Operating

Procedures

were not clear

regarding

the sequence

of steps

necessary

to insure

a successful

post-LOCA

switchover from injection to recirculation.

Also, the level of review of the

loss of coolant accident

analyses

was found to be insufficient,

as evidenced

by several

errors

and

in~'uns Istencies

identified by the team during the

inspection.

Notwithstanding the

above concerns,

recent initiatives taken to acquire

and

categorize

design

basis

information appear to have

been effective in providing

your staff with the tools necessary

to safely support

both current

and future

plant operations.

As with all

NRC inspections,

we expect that you will evaluate

the results of

this inspection,

and where applicable,

apply the corrective actions to other

technical

and programmatic

aspects

of the plant's operation,

including other

systems.

Please

provide us

a schedule,

within 60 days of the date of this

letter, for completion of your corrective actions for the items listed in

Attachment

1 to the enclosed

report,

so that

we can plan for re-inspection

and

close-out of these

items.

9rxoosoavs

970vz4

PDR

ADQCK 05000244

~II: II:IiittII:riiI@III;~ZV

I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIII

4

Dr. Robert

C. Mecredy

In accordance

with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's

regulations,

a copy of

this letter

and inspection report will be placed in the

NRC Public Document

Room.

Any enforcement

act'on result~~,

'r~m this inspection will be issued

by

the

NRC Region

I offi<< via

a

separate,e

car,.espondence,

Should you have

any

questions

concerning

the attached

inspection report,

please

contact

the

inspection

team leader

Mr. Jeffrey

B. Jacobson

at'(301)

415-2977.

Sincerely

f

Stuart

A. Richards, thief

Special

Inspection

Branch

Division of Support

Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 50-244

Enclosure:

Inspection

Report 50-244/9?-201

cc:

see next page

Dr. Robert

C. Hecredy

R.E.

Ginna Nuclear

Power Plant

CC:

Peter

D. Drysdale,

Senior Resident

Inspector

R.E.

Ginna Plant

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

1503

Lake

Road

Ontario,

NY

14519

Regional Administrator,

Region I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

475 Allendale

Road

King of Prussia,

PA

19406

Mr. F. William Valentino, President

New York State

Energy,

Research,

and Developme<<l

author'ty

Corporate

Plaza

West

286 Washington

Avenue Extension

Albany,

NY

12203-6399

Charlie Donaldson,

Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

New York Department of Law

120 Broadway

New York,

NY

10271

Nicholas

S.

Reynolds

Winston

5 Strawn

1400

L St.

N.W.

Washington,

DC

20005-3502

Hs,

Thelma Wideman

Director,

Wayne County Emergency

Hanagement

Office

Wayne County Emergency Operations

Center

7336 Route

31

Lyons,

NY

14489

Hs. Hary Louise Heisenzahl

Administrator,

Monroe County

Office of Emergency

Preparedness

111

West Fall

Road,

Room ll

Rochester,

NY

14620

Hr. Paul

Eddy

New York State

Department

of Public Service

3 Empire State

Plaza,

Tenth Floor

Albany,

NY

12223

J

Distribution:

Docket Files 50-244

PSIB R/F

FPGillespie,

NRR

SARichards,

NRR

DPNorkin,

NRR

CERossi,

AE33

GSVissing,

NRR

SLLittle,

NRR

Senior Resident

Inspector

Regional Administrators

Regional Division Directors

Inspection

Team

PUBLIC'CRS

(3)

OGr (3)

IS Distribution

SPSB,

NRR

PRAB,

RES

RAB,

AEOD

8