ML18058A182
| ML18058A182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1992 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18058A183 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9202180039 | |
| Download: ML18058A182 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000255/1992003
Text
.' i _,
Docket No. 50-255
Consumers Power Company
ATTN:
Gerald B. Slade
General Plant Manager
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway
Covert, MI
49043
,,., .
~ .
J ',
,,.---..
.....,.
\\'.
'
\\,./
SUBJECT:
PALISADES NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT MODIFIED OPERATIONAL SAFETY
TEAM INSPECTION (50-255/92003(DRP))
Dear Mr. Slade:
This letter forwards the report of the modified Operational Safety Team
Inspection (OST!) conducted by Messrs M. Farber, W. Kropp, J. Hannon, R.
Leemon, D. Jones, K. Johnston, and D. Hartland from January 6 through 10,
1992.
The activities involved are authorized by NRC Operating License No.
At the conclusion of the inspection, the team discussed the findings
with you and the members of your staff identified in Appendix A to the
enclosed inspection report.
This inspection was performed as part of our efforts to monitor and evaluate
Palisades performance since the end of the last Systematic Assessment of
Licensee Performance (SALP) assessment period (SALP 9 - January 1, 1990,
through March 31, 1991).
The inspection reviewed problems and issues
discussed in the last SALP.
The primary emphases of the inspection were in
the areas of Operations, Maintenance and Surveillance, Safety Assessment and
Quality Verification, and to a lesser degree, Engineering and Technical
Support.
The team determined that the plant was staffed by competent, knowledgeable
personnel who executed their duties in a professional manner and were capable
of operating the plant safely. The team noted that significant changes have
been made in both the approach to quality assurance and to your design
engineering organization.
One significant change involved the formation of
Nuclear Performance Assessment Department, to implement a transition from
traditional quality assurance to the peer review concept.
The team could not
adequately assess the effectiveness of the peer review process since the
methods and procedures for these activities had not been fully established.
Another significant change was the formation of the Nuclear Engineering and
Construction Organization as the corporate entity with responsibility for
maintenance of plant d~sign. In view of the current level of inspection
effort in the design engineering area, the team generally limited its
assessment in the Engineering and Technical Support area to those activities
conducted by the station under the system engineer program.
As a result, the
inspection could not assess the effectiveness of the changes in your design
engineering organization.
~(
?j '/ (
r£:1~ 1 :-
0
- -L.
__
.
i*.*\\."""
Consumers Power Company
2
The Executive Summary, attached to the inspection report, provides an overview
of the inspection.
The report itself provides a more detailed explanation of
the inspection and related findings.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC
Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Enclosure:
1.
Inspection Report
No. 50-255/92003(DRP)
Distribution
cc w/enclosures:
David P. Hoffman, Vice President
Nuclear Operations
P. M. Donnelly, Safety and
Licensing Director
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, Riii
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan Department of Public Health
Licensing Project Mgr., NRR
Resident Inspector, Big Rock Point
Riil ,
F7rber
7-/ 1~1/<ti-
Riil
Riil
~sen~~
~\\O~l.
~~~
Sincerely,
~~,/~4/l~f *'* -~*~J.,.J' _ lYv0
!j ).,; .. -.,:t {!£:u/J'Vt*/ 1'-.- ~~
tefward G .- Gre:enman /-bi rector
Division of Reactor Projects
~
Riil
Rill
~(_
~ (_
Clayton
...f..s-v'Greenman
2fu/?v
i../1~/.9t-
Docket No. 50-255
Consumers Power Company
ATTN:
Gerald B. Slade
UNITED STATES .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION Ill
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
FEB 1
,. **7
L .~-~-
General Plant Manager
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway
Covert, MI
49043
SUBJECT:
PALISADES NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT MODIFIED OPERATIONAL SAFETY
TEAM INSPECTION (50-255/92003(DRP))
Dear Mr. Slade:
This letter forwards the report of .the modified Operational Safety Team
Inspection (OSTI) conducted by Messrs M. Farber, W. Kropp, J. Hannon, R.
Leeman, D. Jones, K. Johnston, and D. Hartland from January 6 through 10,
1992.
The act i v*i ti es involved are authorized by NRC Operating License No.
At the conclusion of the inspection, the team discussed the findings
with you and the members of your staff identified in Appendix A to the
enclosed inspection report .
This inspection was performed as part of our efforts to monitor and evaluate
Palisades performance since the end of the last Systematic Assessment of
Licensee Performance (SALP) assessment period (SALP 9 - January 1, 1990,
through March 31, 1991).
The inspection reviewed problems and issues
discussed in the last SALP.
The primary emphases of the inspection were in
the areas of Operations, Maintenance and Surveillance, Safety Assessment and
Quality Verification, and to a lesser degree, Engineering and Technical
Support.
The team determined that the plant was staffed by competent, knowledgeable
personnel who executed their duties in a professional manner and were capable
of operating the plant safely. The team noted that significant changes have
been made in both the approach to quality assurance and to your design
engineering organization.
One significant change involved the formation of
Nuclear Performance Assessment Department, to implement a transition from
traditional quality assurance to the peer review concept.
The team could not
adequately assess the effectiveness of the peer review process since the
methods and procedures for these activities had not been fully established.
Another significant change was the formation of the Nuclear Engineering and
Construction Organization as the corporate entity with. responsibility for
maintenance of plant design.
In view of the current level of inspection
effort in the design engineering area, the team generally limited its
assessment in the Engineering and Technical Support area to those activities
conducted by the station under the system engineer program.
As a result, the
inspection could not assess the effectiveness of the changes in your design
engineering organization.
Consumers Power Company
2
The Executive Summary, attached to the inspection report, provides an overview
.of the inspection. The report itself provides a more detailed explanation of
the inspection and related findings.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2~790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC
Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
l:Ja/-
~
Edward G. Greenman, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
l~ Inspection Report
No. 50-255/92003(DRP)
Distribution
cc w/enclosures:
David P. Hoffman, Vice President
Nuclear Operations
P. M. Donnelly, Safety and
licensing Director
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/lFDCB
Resident Inspector, RIII
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan Department of Public Health
licensing Project Mgr., NRR
Resident Inspector, Big Rock Point
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INSPECTION REPORT SUMMARY PAGE ............................... 1
1. 0
INSPECTION SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES . . * . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . * .. . . 2
2.0
ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT *............*....*... 2
2.1 Support of Engineering to Operations
and Maintenance ...*........*.*.....*.*..*...... 2
2 .1.1 System Engineering .. . . * .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . * . . . .. . 2
2.1.2 Engineering Support to Maintenance ..* ~ ......... 3
2. 1 . 3 * Trending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . * . . . . * . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Temporary Modifications ........... ~ .............. 5
2.3 Design Change Program **.........................* 5
2.4 Safety Evaluations and Engineering Resolutions ... 6
2.5
Procure~ent Process and Spare Parts .............. 6
2.6 Support to BOP Activities ........................ 6
3. 0 MAINTENANCE ...... *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1
Post~Maintenance Testing .......................... 7
3~2 Predictive Maintenance Program ................... 8
3. 3 Maintenance Procedures ................ "'* .......... 8
3.4 Maintenance Backlog .........*.................... 9
3.5 Planning and Scheduling .......................... 9
4.0 SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND QUALITY VERIFICATION ............. 10
4.1
Management Oversight Activities and
Accountability ................................ 10
4.1.1 Scheduled Management Meetings ..**..*....***.... 10
4.1.2 Nuclear Performance Assessment Department ...... 10
4.2 Self-Assessment Capabilities ..................... 11
4.2.1 Audits ......................................... -11
4. 2. 2 Surveil 1 ances . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.3 Self-Assessments ............................... 12
4.2.4 Industry Experience and Assessments ............ 13
4.2.5 Independent Safety Review Meetings ............. 13
4.3 Corrective Action and Root Cause Analysis ........ 13
4.3.1 Licensee Event Reports *...........*......*...*. 14
4.3.2 Deviation Reports *............................. 15
4.3.3 Plant Corrective Action Review Board ........... 16 *
4.3.4 Trending ....................................... 16
4.4 Licensing Submittals ............................. 16
5.0 OPERATIONS ............................................. 17
5.1 Conduct of Operations ............................ 17
5.2 Shift Turnovers .................................. 18
5.3 Plant Material Condition ......................... 18
5.4 Safety System Walkdown - Auxiliary Feedwater ..... 19
5.5 Shutdown Risk Management ........... ~ ............. 19
5.6 Operations Control of Support Activities ......... 20
6. 0 EXIT MEETING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21