IR 05000155/1980020
| ML19351G456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point, Palisades File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Stephen Burns, Heishman R, Jorgensen B, James Keppler, Mckee P, Parker M, Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351G455 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-80-20, 50-255-80-23, NUDOCS 8102230756 | |
| Download: ML19351G456 (18) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Reports No. 50-155/80-20; 50-255/80-23
Docket Nos. 50-155; 50-255 Licenses No. DPR-6; DRP-20 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201
'
Facility Name:
Big Rock Point and Palisades Nuclear Power Plants Meeting At: Holiday Inn Conference Room, Jackson, MI Meeting Conducted: November 24, 1980 NRC Personnel Present:
J. G. Keppler, Director, Region III R. F. Heishman, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch D. C. Boyd, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 4 B. L. Jorgensen, Senior Resident Inspector (Palisades)
G. C. Wright, Senior Resident Inspector (Big Rock Point)
M. E. Parker, Resident Inspector (Big Rock Point)
S. G. Burns, Office of the Executive Legal Directors P. F McKee, Reactor Projects Engineer, Division of sident and Regional Reactor Inspection e.
Approved By:
. lleishman, Chief
.
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
'
Meeting Summary Management Meeting on November 24, 1980 (Reports No. 50-155/80-20; 50-255/80-23)
Areas Discussed: Management meeting held at the NRC's request to discuss the regulatory performance of the activities at the Big Rock Point and Palisades Nuclear Power Plants as concluded in the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program.
Results: A summation of the' licensee performance evaluation was presented.
Areas of concern were discussed with corporate management. The utility's performance at these facilities was considered to be adequate; however, Consumers Power Company was informed that the regulatory performance in connection with Palisades warranted substantial improvement.
.
8102230754
-
- -..
.
- -.
-..
..
-.
-.
..
.-
,.
DETAILS I
1.
Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company R. C. Youngdahl, Executive Vice President R. B. DeWitt, Vice President Nuclear Operations R. W. Montross, Plant Manager, Palisades C. J. Hartman, Plant Superintendent, Big Rock Point D. P. Hoffman, Nuclear Licensing Administrator J. G. Lewis, Corporate Technical Staff F. W. Buckman, Director, Nuclear Activities Department 2.
Areas Discussed The background of the SALP program was presented, including the a.
development, the need for evaluation, the method of evaluation, and the purposes of the SALP program, b.
The results of the NRC's evaluation of each of the licensee's performance were discussed.
(A copy of the evaluation is enclosed).
c.
An analysis of each of the licensee's noncompliance data for the SALP period was presented.
Comparative data for the years 1975-1979 and for the first nine months of 1980 for all plants in Region III was presented.
d.
An analysis of the significance of the Licensee Event Reports (LER's)
submitted during the SALP period was presented. A comparison of the significance of these LER's with those submitted by other RIII operating plants was presented.
The NRC's new enforcement policy, including plans for implementation, e.
was briefly discussed.
3.
Licensee Comments
,
The licensee pointed out that, in their judgement, there had been a sub-stantial improvement in the regulatory performance at the Palisades Plant.
'
This was due, in part, to the recent major efforts directed towards review-ing and upgrading all safety related procedures, check lists, and plant drawings, and in-part due to recent organizational changes made at the Palisades Plant. The licensee also emphasized that safe operation of their plants has always been their policy and cited the numerous occasions where they had either shut down or remained down to correct items when not required to do so by the NRC.
The NRC acknowledged that the Palisades Regulatory Performance had shown indications of improvement over the past several months, but the NRC was withholding judgement until additional operation verified that this kind of improved performance was being sustained.
Enclosure:
Big Rock Point and Palisades Appraisal Reports-2-
.
-
..
__
__ _ _,
_
. _ _.. _
-, _
_
_
_
. -....
- -. -.
-
.. - --
_.
,
i.
- LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OPERATIONS
!
NRC REGION III t
Facility: Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant i
Licensee:
Consumers Power Company
.
Unit Identification: Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20
'
Date of Issuance - Septembe. 1, 1972 Units - 1 i
i Reactor Information: NSSS - Combustion Engineering l
MWt - 2530 Appraisal Period:
September 1, 1979 to September 1, 1980
Appraisal Completion Date: November 13, 1980
,
- Review Board Members:
i D. C. Boyd, Chief, Projects Section 4 B. L. Jorgensen, Senior Resident Inspector J. K. Heller, Resident Inspector C. J. Paperiello, Chief, Environmental and Special Projects Section L. R. Greger, Radiation Specialist K. R. Baker, Chief, Nuclear Support Section 2'
K. R. Ridgway, Reactor Inspector J. F. Donahue, Chief, Security and Investigation Section.
j T. V. Wambach, License Project Manager, NRR
,
j J. A. Hind, Chief, Safeguards Branch.
i R. F. Heishman, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch W. L. Fisher, Chief, Fuel Facility Projects and Radiation Support Branch
..
^Either attended review boa d meeting on November 13, 1980 or provided written r
input to the evaluation.
a
i r
,
!
l '.
'
.
w t -i-vewre-et - -
,p= s se-v r-
-ee?*
T-t4r*-=-
- v er-v
==+ 3 y e e-*e
-, w e-w 1--e--,4?wr!-
ng e,y,
+c,ymw-wq.-.-
g-
,,,,,,
- w,e,,%,y-wr--
-
N
-++-
-
.
I'
DETAILS
-
1.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance Category:
Violations 2*
Infractions 26 (two repetitive)
Deficiencies 13 (two repetitive)
Inspection Area:
V I
D Points Operations / Nuclear Support 2*
6 394 Construction
0
0 Environment /Special Projects 0
0
Radiation Protection
6
72 Security and Safeguards
1
24 Totals 2*
13 510
- Currently under adjudication Inspection Reports Covered:
Reports No. 50-255/79-14 through No. 50-255/80-15 Evaluation of Noncompliance Items:
Operations - During the SALP period,16 inspections were performed in this area involving 2145 inspection-hours; two (2) violations,17 infractions and six (6) deficiencies were identified. Two items were repetitive, in-volving training program implementation and proper action for una
REGION III==
]
ACTION PLAN i
Facility - Palisades Appraisal Date - October 24, 1980 1.
ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ACTION None
.
2.
INSPECTION PROGRAM CHANGES (INCLUDE INCREASED OR DECREASED FREQUENCY)
Increased inspection scope,in the area of Plant Operations is a.
warranted to assure that recently upgraded operational procedures, training, equipment control and valve line up verification is effectively implemented.
b.
Increased inspection scope in the area of operational surveillance
]
is warranted to provide a broader base of information on which to
'
judge the adequacy of the licensee's corrective actions in response
to the November 9, 1979, order.
Increased inspection scope in the area of Health Physics is warranted c.
.
'
to assure that the items of concern identified'in the H.P. Appraisal are being properly corrected. A specific inspection in the middle of 1981 will be scheduled for this purpose.
!
3.
MANAGEMENT MEETINGS PLANNED i
A management meeting was conducted on November 24, 1980.
4.
STATUS OF ACTION FROM PREVIOUS APPRAISALS l
<
Not applicable due to first appraisal.
An u f A ~
Aff
'A
}
fdames G. Keppl'ed
'
Director, RIII i
l i
,
i
.
'
I
.
>
- w i--
- r eer--*w f r-r+re F--'s~6-w -w-w w w e--e**e,
-ert --mte*
w e r rm * *-s-n t-e*w*W-
- -*e*
a-en e r te se---
--we--
m--e'
.m.W-wr-=-
-
w---
+-*'+r mi e
.
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
.
OPERATIONS NRC REGION III Facility: Big Rock Point Licensee: Consumers Power Company Unit Identification: Docket No. 50-155 License No. DPR-6 Date of Issuance - August 30, 1962 Reactor Information: NSSS - General Electric (External Steam Separation)
MWT - 240 Appraisal Period: September 1, 1979 to September 30, 1980 Appraisal Completion Date: November 18, 1980
- Review Board Members:
D. C. Boyd, Chief, Projects Section 4 G. C. Wright, Senior Resident Inspector, Big Rock Point M. E. Parker, Resident Inspector, Big Rock Point W. Paulson, NRR, Licensing Project Manager J. Hind, Chief, Safeguards Branch J. Donahue, Chief, Security and Investigation Section P. Lovendale, Radiation Specialist, FF&MS Region III'
I. Yin, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Inspector D. W. Danielson, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support.Section R. F. Heishman, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch.
W. L. Fisher, Chief, Fuel Facility Projects and Radiation Support Section C. J. Paperiello, Chief, Environmental and Special Project Section
- Either attended review board meeting on November 18, 1980 or provided written or verbal input to the evaluation.
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance Category:
Number of Itemr Violations
Infractions
Deficiencies
Areas of Noncompliance:
Points Operations-0 FF&MS
Safeguards
Construction
Total
Inspection reports covered _by the review (Report Numbers): 50-155/7.9-13 through 50-155/80-13 Evaluation of noncompliance items:
Operations - During the SALP period nine (9) inspections were performed in the operations area. No items of noncompliance were identified during the inspections. The low number and the nature of items of noncompliance and reportable events suggest that good management control and operational discipline exists at this plant. The overall plant management attitude and attention toward regulatory matters is excellent. No trends were identified which would indicate a weakness in any particular operational area.
j The licensee's operational performance is rated as above average among Region 111 powe: reactors.
FF&MS - During the SALP period five (5) inspections were performed in the FF&MS area.
Two (2) items of noncompliance, infractions, were identified in the Health Physics area.
In addition to the two items of noncompliance, several other problem areas were identified. _These include:
incomplete training in regard to a previous Health Physics' inspection; significant upgrading required in the following areas; professional and technical health physics staffing, health physics training, off-shift health physics coverage, ALARA program defini-tion, personnel contamination control, airborne effluent control, and qualification of off-shift personnel in radiation protection procedures.
Based primarily_upon the special Health Physics appraisal findings the licensee's Health Physics Program is rated as below average among Region III power reactors.
-2-
. -
.
_
__
,
.
Confirmatory Measurments
In the area of Confirmatory Measurments the licensee's performance is
'
" average" based on a comparison made of the last set of split samples measured by the licensee and the NRC.
Emergency Planning In the area of Emergency Planning the licensee is rated as "above average"'
in that their development of an Emergency Plan and implementing procedures to meet new requirements is ahead of most other plants in the Region.
This includes the performance of a full scale exercise of the plan.
Environmental Monitoring In the area of Environmental Monitoring it is difficult to compare this licensee with others since their requirements are minimal as compared to the newer facilities.
The licensee is conducting an environmental program that exceeds the regulatory requirements.
Safeguards - During the SALP period two (2) inspections were performed in the Safeguards area. Five (5) items of noncompliance, two (2) infractions
,
and three (3) deficiencies were identified in the security area.
An inspection conducted October 29 - November 1, 1979 disclosed two items of noncompliance. Both items were equipment related. The. licensee failed to use portable search equipment when the explosive detector was inopera-tive. Additionally, two telephone system cabinets were not locked.
An inspection conducted April 14-18, 1980 disclosed three items of noncom-pliance. Two items pertained to failure to comply with procedures or plan commitments and one item pertained to relocating assessment aids. The
>
relocation of assessment aids issue has been forwarded to NMSS-and NRR for resolution.
The primary safeguards concern for this licensee pertains to one of several perimeter intrusion alarm systems, which has experienced numerous design i
and utilization problems. The operability of the system will be closely monitored by IE during future inspections.
Strong supervision at the site and close communication links' with corporate
'
'
security personnel are characteristic of this licensee.
Identified problems are resolved in a timely manner. Corporate security personnel are knowledge-able of problem areas and security plan commitments.
Based upon the above information.the;1icensee's Safeguards Program is rated as above average among Region III power reactors.
Construction - During the SALP period one inspection involving response to IE Bulletin response area was performed. Although no items of noncompliance
,
.
-3-
--,w
-
-,
,.
-
,,.,,
. ~.,
,,
e
--y-
-4-,,
e,.e-
,
, ww,
n---,----w-
.
.
-
-
_. __ -_ -
__
--- -
.
i sere identified during this ' inspection, several areas of concern were identi-
fied. These include: poor overall site management attitude toward hanger inspection program; information provided was not organized or systematically assembled relative to original design; site specific test data (torque values)
pertaining te anchor bolt testing was not available.
Based on the above concerns and the perception that the amount of work required of Big Rock Point versus other Region III Plants was small, the licensee's performance in the construction area is rated as below average.
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Licensing Project Manager The licengee's performance in those areas involving NRR, during this SALP period, bpve been accomplished with high quality and in a professional manner.
While some extensions in time were requested', which resulted in delayed responses, the licensee's performance is rated as above average in-this evaluation area.
2.
Number and Nature of Licensee Event Reports Type of Events Number of occurrences Personnel Error
3 Component Failures
Design / Fabrication /
Analysis Error Defective Procedure
Other
Total
Of the thirty LER's, fourteen (47%) involved an instrument drift vs. trip
~
level problem on Reactor,Depressurization System (RDS) Channel D, the problem was 2esolved by a Technical Specification change. Another five-(17%) LER's involved specific gravity anomalies on individual battery.
cells. There was only one personnel error, late performance of a surveillance test, and this resulted in a licensee identified item of i
noncompliance.
3.
Escalated Enforcement Action Civil Penalties: None Orders: All generic orders
,
a.
Confirmatory order issued on February 21, 1980,- to confirm Big Rock Point's commitment to install a. recirculation pump trip prior'to i
operation in calendar year,-1981.
b.
Order issued on August 29, 1980 requiring subnittal of all documen-tation pertaining to environmental-qualification of safety-related
,
electrical equipment.
Revised order issued on September 19,'1980 correcting the August 29, 1980 order.
i (
k-4-
_ _ _,. ~~
.. _. _, _ _... -,,...,.. -. _ _ _. - -
, _ _.. _. - - _.. _. _.. -. _ _,
.
4.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months
Annual Management Conference March 16, 1979.
5.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope (See Evaluation Sheets)
Operations The following MC 2500 modules have been placed on reduced frequency:
36700B, Organization and Administration 42700B, Procedures 56700B, Calibration 56701B, Calibration 61700, surveillance Health Physics Increased inspection scope is warranted in the Health Physics on significant HP appraisal findings and to assess the significant HP staffing changes made during the SALP period.
Emergency Planning Increased inspection scope is warranted in this area because of recent changes in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
This is applicable to other Region III licensee's.
6.
Other Observations Licensee Responsiveness The licensee's responsiveness to regulatory requirements is to be commended, especially in light of the unusually high demands made in these areas in recent months.
Technical Specification Upgrading Company management is encouraged to renew their efforts to upgrade plant technical specifications such that they more clearly reflect current industry standards.
t-5-L
. - _. =.
-
..
.
_-
.
-
-
. _ _ -..
-.
~
.
t BIG ROCK POINT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION j
i-Inspection Frequency and/or Scope
~
FUNCTIONAL AREA INCREASE NO CHANGE DECREASE i
1.
Management Control X
2.
Plant Operations X
3.
Refueling Operations & Activities X
'
4.
Maintenance X
5.
Surveillsace & Preoperational X
,
Testing i
!
6.
Training X
- 7.
Radiation Protection X
I 8.
Environmental Protection X
~
9.
Emergency Planning X
,
10. Fire Protection X
!
11 Security & Safeguards X
l 12. Design Changes & Modifications X
l 13. Reporting X
!
14. QA Audits X
15. Committee Activities X
i 16. Quality Control X
!
!
17. Procurement X
- Has been inspected under llealth Physics Appraisal-
-
' n3 t
t R. F. Heishman,: Chief-Reactor Operations andt
. Nuclear: Support Branch
,
l
//23T/-
Date'
!
!
'
6-
'
(
~