ML18057A855
| ML18057A855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1991 |
| From: | Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9104230309 | |
| Download: ML18057A855 (2) | |
Text
. consumers Power PilW~illNli MICHlliAN"S PRDliRESS
- Palisades Nuclear. Plant: 27780 Blue Star M*amorial. Highway. Covert, Ml ~9043.
Apri116; 1991 Nuclear Regulatory c*ommi ss ion*
Document Control Desk
.. Washington, DC,* 20555
- DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT -
RESPONSE TO INITIAL SALP 10 REPORT G.BSl11de
. General Manager.
NRC letter dated March 7, 1991 transmitted the initial SALP 10 Report for the Palisades Nucl~ar Plant covering the period September 1,. 1989 through December 31; 1990.
On M~rch*22, 1991, NRC ~nd Constimers Power staff met to
. dis~uss its contijnt.
The following is our Writte~.~espon~e.
- In the areas of plant operat.ions, maint~nance/surveillance and security, a continued.effort will be made to maintairi the Category 1 ratings.
In the (ireas of radiological.controls and safety assessment/quality verification, we agree with the assessed Category 2 rating.and we plan to intensify our efforts to attain a Category 1 rating~
Although we are not satisfied with the results, we understand the Category "2 declining" assessment fn the engjneering/techriical support area.
The engineering/technical support area is being realigned by our April l,_1991 reorganization of the Nuclear.Operations Department arid will benefit from a new engineering management structure which eliminates two levels of previously
.existing duplicate management control and offers the opportunity for more direct control of the design, review and installation processes.
We expect a marked improvement will be evident in the SALP 11 results for both the engineering/technical support and the safety assessment/qualtty verification areas as a result of the reorganization.
. The Category "2 declining" assessment in emergency preparedness gives us some concern.
- We understand the change in assessment rating from a Category 1 to a Category 2 because of inadequate man*agement oversite of the training of appropriate personnel for the emergency.response organi~ation.. Action has been initiated to rectify:this situation and to assure it does not reoccur.
Improved retraining has already resul~ed becaule of the existence of*
/k/)(*.
9104230309 910416 PDR ADOCK 05000255 G!
~.~........ *-
~.,,.
~.. :
A CM5NERGYCOMPANY
/. (y#.*
- _rl
-j -
iricreased manigement involvement.
However, in_ view of the numerou~ positive areas you identified in the report. (i.e. identification of and resolution of*
technical iss_ues, timely resolution of _identified problems, respon_se to operational events and exercise performance),*je plan td meet further with the NRC Staff to understand their ~erspective on why they view our overall rating as "declining" bel6w a Category 2.
That way we can be confident that we are addressing all their concerns as we develop o~r plans to return to SALP -
Category I performance in emerg~ncy preparedness.
~
Gerald B Slade General Manager cc: Administrator, Region III, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector - Palisades