ML20038D113
| ML20038D113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1981 |
| From: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112160071 | |
| Download: ML20038D113 (2) | |
Text
I' g
?
.=
, as e ue
- R
,4e TO.m W
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION e 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y.14649
- cm t vu t a n a.
ou vict FatsicEst
- E*COM 346 2700 November 4, 1981r( Q-f
/*m s
/'N W -h_yI s
I i
A' yy y'A
- [{// jQ' Ul Mr. Ronald C.
Haynes, Director Ogg,'f y"O/4 Region I
,,, 7'%nN!
b-Office of Inspection and Enforcement 5
u dker EII U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ve 631 Park Avenue
('
d' M / l l.,. ($ @
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
/j,
Dear Mr. Haynee:
On April 14, 1981, Ginna Station experienced a loss of offsite power.
As required, an " Unusual Event" was declared and all appropriate notifications were made, including notifi-cation of the NRC Incident Response Center.
During the event, the plant remained at 100% power and all safety equipment functioned as designed.
Discussion of the event has been supplied in our letter dated April 14, 1981.
During the event, several situations developed in discussions between Ginna Station personnel and NRC Staff members in the Incident Response Center which we believe could be improved upon.
While these situations have been discussed with NRC personnel, most recently during the Cycle II SALP meeting at Ginna Station on September 10, 1981, we believe that it may be useful to docu-ment our experiences and suggestions for improvement.
Our purpose with this letter is to facilitate improved response by plant operators to events and improved communications between the licensee and the NRC.
During the initial notification by means of the " hot line", the Shift Supervisor was asked to remain on the line while additional NRC personnel were notified and/or assembled.
The Shift Supervisor remained on hold for approximately 10 to 15 minutes before being told that there were no questions for him.
A preferred approach would have been to permit the Shift Supervisor to return to his duties until additional discussions were requested by the NRC.
During several conversations between the Plant Superintendent and the Incident Response Center, the Superintendent believed he was being pressured to take specific actions.
This continued despite the iact that the Plant Operations Review Committee had reviewed s'veral courses of action, including the one suggested by the NRC, and had decided upon an alternate to the one suggested sf s gf D 8112160071 011104 g
I h gpr#
PDR ADOCK 05000244 il 0 F
PDR g
/
N
' ' )
ROCHESTER GAS E EECTRIC CORPORATION SHEET NO. 2 TO:
Mr.' Ronald C. Haynes DATE:
November 4, 1981 by.the NRC.
The discussion was concluded when it was reported to the Superintendent ~and the NRC that~the cause of the loss had been identified and offsite power would be reatored in.the following few minutes.
We suggest that NRC personnel address concerns in the form. "Have you,WoaMidered... " and not "You should be doing...".
In conjunctiM with_this comment, the Superintendent now has a greater appr9ciation for not only describing the actions being.taken but'also describing the alternatives that had be'en investigated and the logic used
-in reaching the specific course of action.
We trust that our expressing our concerns will enable both the NRC and us to fulfill our responsibilitics in any-future event.
Please contact us.if you have any questions.
Very truly yours, 2
J.VE. Maier xc:
Mr. V.
Stello, Jr.,
NRC Mr.
R.
DeYoung, NRC 5
1
. m m
m
--..m..
m
.m
. i
.