ML20034G221
| ML20034G221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1993 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Beckman W CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034G222 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303090201 | |
| Download: ML20034G221 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000155/1993001
Text
-
,
.
.-
.
-
peMc?
t>NITED STATES
u
g
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtsslON
_y
t
g
nrcion :::_
^
j
E
?
7ee noostvcov noAo
ct(N ctLvu. stunois sou7
.g
....+
MAR 031933
Docket No. 50-155
Consumers Power Company
ATTN: William L. Beckman
Plant Manager
Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
10269 US 31 North
Charlevoix, MI 49720
Dear Mr. Beckman:
Enclosed for your review, before our scheduled meeting of March 18, 1993, is
the Initial SALP 11 Report for the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, covering the
period October 1, 1991 through December 31, 1992.
In accordance with NRC policy, I have reviewed the SALP Board Assessment and
concur with their ratings.
It is my view that your conduct of nuclear
activities in connection with the Big Rock Point facility was acceptable. One
of the organizational strengths identified across all SALP functional areas
was the experience and stability of the staff. Category 2 ratings were
retained in the areas of Operations, Radiological Controls, Security, and
Safety Assessment and Quality Verification. Ratings declined in several
areas.
Engineering and Technical Support declined from Category 2 to Category
3, Maintenance and Surveillance declined from Category 2 to Category 3 with an
improving trend, and Emergency Preparedness declined from Category I to
Category 2.
I note that in the areas of Engineering and Technical Support and
Maintenance, we are continuing to hold periodic meetings with you to monitor
your actions to improve performance.
In the Engineering and Technicai Support area, the Board concluded that the
weaknesses discussed probably existed in the past and were identified this
assessment period through the special, indepth inspections and evaluations
conducted by the NRC.
Weaknesses in performance were identified concerning
the lack of adequate analysis and trending, poor interdepartmental
commuaications, strained engineering resources, poor support for the motor
operated valve program, and deficiencies in the operator licensing
requalification program.
I support the Board's recommendation regarding the
need to improve engineering capabilities and involvement in operations and
maintenance activities.
In the Maintenance and Surveillance area, the Board concluded that a decline
in performance occurred early in the assessment period and that initiatives
implemented to '_,, rove performance had a positive impact by the end of the
period. Low corrective maintenance backlog and surveillance implementation
were identified as strengths.
Specific weaknesses that resulted in the rating
decline included excessive rework, shortcomings in the predictive and planned
maintenance program, lack of effective root cause analysis, and weaknesses in
f
.
9303090201 930303
ADOCK 05000155
f
g1
a
eor
,
.
..
I
L
MAR 03 B93
Docket No. 50-155
Consumers Power Company
- ATTN: William L. Beckman
Plant Manager
Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
10269 US 31 North
Charlevoix, MI 49720
Dear Mr. Beckman:
Enclosed for your review, before our scheduled meeting of March 18, 1993, is
the Initial SALP 11 Report for the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, covering the
period October 1, 1991 through December 31, 1992.
In accordance with NRC policy, I have reviewed the SALP Board Assessment and
concur with their ratings.
It is my view that your conduct of nuclear
activities in connection with the Big Rock Point facility was acceptable. One
of the organizational strengths identified across all SALP functional areas
was the experience and stability of the staff.
Category 2 ratings were-
retained in the areas of Operations, Radiological Controls,' Security, and
Safety Assessment and Quality Verification.
Ratings declined in several
areas.
Engineering and Technical Support declined from Category 2 to Category
3, Maintenance and Surveillance declined from Category 2 to Category 3 with an
improving trend, and Emergency Preparedness declined from Category 1 to
Category 2.
I note that in the areas of Engineering and Technical Support and
Maintenance, we are continuing to hold periodic meetings with you to monitor
your actions to improve performance.
In the Engineering and Technical Support area, the Board concluded that the
weaknesses discussed probably existed in the past' and were identified this
assessment period through the special, indepth inspections and evaluations -
conducted by the NRC. Weaknesses in performance were identified concerning
the lack of adecuate analysis and trending, poor interdepartmental
communications, strained engineering resources, poor support for the motor
operated valve program, and deficiencies in the operator licensing
requalification program.
I support the Board's recommendation regarding the
need to improve engineering capabilities and involvement in operations and
maintenance activities.
In the Maintenance and Surveillance area, the Board concluded that a decline
in performance
c.urred early in the assessment period and that initiatives
implemented to .
.ove performance had a positive impact by the end of the
period.
Low corrective maintenance backlog and surveillance implementation
were identified as strengths. Specific weaknesses that resulted in the rating
decline included excessive rework, shortcomings in the predictive and planned
maintenance program, lack of effective root cause analysis, and weaknesses in
!
{
.
!
,
[Mfi 0 31993
Consumers Power Company
2
i
procedural adequacy and adherence.
I concur with the Board's recommendations
that you should continue with the implementation of the maintenance
!
improvement initiatives that you developed.
l
The decline in Emergency Preparedness was due to incomplete corrective actions
I
involving communications and coordination with the State identified during the
l
1992 exercise.
j
!
Although Operations retained its rating of Category 2, performance was mixed.
!
While strengths were noted in the stability and experience of the staff and in
l
the response to operational events, weaknesses were identified in the areas of
interdepartmental communications, procedural adequacy and adherence, and slow
!
implementation of Emergency Operating Procedures deficiency corrective
,
actions.
l
.
At the SALP meeting, you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and
!
your plans to improve performance in the area of Engineering and Technical
.
Support. The meeting is intended to be a candid dialogue wherein any comments
you may have regarding our report are discussed. Additionally, you may
provide written comments within 30 days after the meeting.
Your comments, a
summary of our meeting, and my disposition of your comments will be issued as
the final SALP Report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
'
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the Initial
SALP Report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning the Initial SALP Report, we would be
pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
,
,
Luc $M kTM
.
H o. )Thlhe
!
A. Bert Davis
cr
Regional Administrator
l
Enclosure:
Initial SALP 11
i
Report No. 50-155/93001
t
cc w/ enclosure:
David P. Hoffman, Vice President - Nuclear Operations
!
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
!
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, RIII
!
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
i
i
'
Tongue /ml
Phillips
Brown
Hasse
Shafer
Greenman
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
@ps'
Martin
Norelius
er
@
!
t
+
.-
.-
.
_-_ -
!
.
-
l
l
!
Consumers Power Company
2
fgAg glj gg3
l
excessive rework, shortcomings in the predictive and planned maintenance
-
'
program, lack of effective root cause analysis, and weaknesses in procedural
,
adequacy and adherence.
I concur with the Board's recommendations that you
should continue with the implementation of the maintenance improvement
!
initiatives that you developed.
j
The decline in Emergency Preparedness was due to incomplete corrective actions
involving communications and coordination with the State identified during the
1992 exercise.
Although Operations retained its rating of Category 2, performance was mixed.
!
While strengths were noted in the stability and experience of the staff and in
!
the response to operational events, weaknesses were identified in the areas of
interdepartmental communications, procedural adequacy and adherence,- and slow
implementation of Emergency Operating Procedures deficiency correctiva
actions.
!
I
At the SALP meeting, you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and
your plans to improve performance in the area of Engineering and Technical
t
Support. The meeting is intended to be a candid dialogue wherein any comments
you may have regarding our report are discussed. Additionally, you may
provide written comments within 30 days after the meeting.
Your comments, a
,
summary of our meeting, and my disposition of your comments will be issued as
the Final SALP Report.
,
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the Initial
SALP Report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning the Initial SALP Report, we would be
pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
A. Bert Davis
!
Regional Administrator
l
,
Enclosure:
Initial SALP 11
Report No. 50-155/93001
,
t
cc w/ enclosure:
David P. Hoffman, Vice President - Nuclear Operations
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
,
OC/LFDCB
!
Resident Inspector, RIII
$o
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
RII
Tongue /mi
Phillips
Brown
Hasse
Shafer
G
b
!
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
!
!
Martin
Norelius
Miller
Davis
+
>
i
_
.-.
-l
+
Consumers Power Company
2
UAR 0 3 B33
!
performance declined due to excessive rework shortcomings in the predictive
and planned maintenance program, lack of effective root cause analysis, and
,
weaknesses in procedural adequacy and adherence.
I concur with the Board's
recommendations that you continue with the implementation of the maintenance
,
improvement initiatives that you developed.
Although Operations retained its rating of Category 2, performance was mixed.
Where strengths were noted in the stability and experience of the staff and in
j
the response to operational events, weaknesses were identified in the areas of
'
interdepartmental comunications. procedural adequacy and adherence, and slow
implementation of Emergency Operating Procedures deficiency corrective
actions.
-
At the SALP meeting, you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and
your plans to improve performance in the area of Engineering and Technical
Support. The meeting is intended to be a candid dialogue wherein any comments
l
you may have regarding our report are discussed. Additionally, you may
j
provide written comments within 30 days after the meeting.
Your coments, a
summary of our meeting, and my disposition of your corxnents will be issued as
the Final SALP Report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the Initial
SALP Report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning the Initial SALP Report, we would be
pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
A. Bert Davis
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Initial SALP 11
Report No. 50-155/93001
cc w/ enclosure:
David P. Hoffman, Vice President - Nuclear Operations
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
DC/LFDCB
Resident inspector, Rlli
,RJll
16
RI
R(ll Rlli
RIII
V /,y y'e_/ml
-
"sl \\
,
TMg
Ph liips
rown
11&sse Shafer
Greenman
Rill
Rlll
Rlli
QR111
Martin
tj
Mqs
Miller
Da s
40>
.
-
t
i
.
'.
i
.
.
Consumers Power Company
2
p g g 7ggy
1
,
i
performance declined due to excessive rework shortcomings in the predictive
i
l
and planned maintenance program, lack of effective root cause analysis, and
i
weaknesses in procedural adequacy and adh?rence.
I concur with the Board's
i
recorsnendations that you continue with the implementation of the maintenance
!
improvement initiatives that you developed.
i
.
Although Operations retained its rating of Category 2, performance was mixed.
!
Where strengths were noted in the stability and experience of the staff and in
.
the response to operational events, weaknesses were identified in the areas of
I
l
interdepartmental communications, procedural adequacy and adherence, and slow
i
l
implementation of Emergency Operating Procedures deficiency corrective
l
actions.
!
!
!
l
1.t the SAlc meeting, you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and
!
your plans to improve performance in the area of Engineering and Technical
Support. Tre meeting is intended to be a candid dialogue wherein any comments
i
you m.ay have regarding our report are discussed. Additionally, you may
provide written comments within 30 days after the meeting.
Your comments, a
!
summary of our meeting, and my disposition of your comments will be issued as
,
l
the Final SALP Report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the Initial
!
SALP Report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
t
i
Should you have any questions concerning the Initial SALP Report, we would be
pleased to discuss them with you.
!
Sincerely,
,
i
A. Bert Davis
!
,
l
Regional Administrator
!
Enclosure:
Initial SALP II
Report No. 50-155/93001
cc w/ enclosure:
j
Cavid P. Hoffman, Vice President - Nuclear Operations
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB
.
Eesident Inspector, RIII
l
FJII
IIS
R3)
f,II
RJ
RIII
RIII
G4%{l
f? f)
Has\\
'
7Dffgtie/m
I"
llips
' Brown
6e Shafer
Greenman
RIII
RIII
RIII
afRIII
"'D
&N
hartin
Norelius
Miller
Davis
M
l
-
.
Consumers Power Company
2
g g 93 )gg)
performance declined due to excessive rework shortcomings in the predictive'
-
and planned maintenance program, lack of effective root cause analysis, and
weaknesses in procedural adequacy and adherence.
I concur with the Board's
recommendations that you continue with the implementation of the maintenance
improvement initiatives that you developed.
Although Operations retained its rating of Category 2, performance was mixed.
Where strengths were noted in the stability and experience of the staff and in
the response to operational events, weaknesses were identified in the areas of
interdepartmental communications, procedural adequacy and adherence, and slow
implementation of Emergency Operating Procedures deficiency corrective
actions.
!
.
At the SALP meeting, you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and
,
your plans to improve performance in the area of Engineering and Technical
'!
Support. The meeting is intended to be a candid dialogue wherein any comments
!
you may have regarding our report are discussed. Additionally, you may
provide written comments within 30 days after the meeting. Your comments, a
!
summary of our meeting, and my disposition of your comments will be issutd as
i
the Final SALP Report.
[
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the Initial
l
SALP Report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
L
Should you have any questions concerning the Initial SALP Report, we would be
!
pleased to discuss them with you.
j
t
Sincerely,
!
A. Bert Davis
Region:.1 Administrator
!
Enclosure:
Initial SALP 11
l
Report No. 50-155/93001
!
cc w/ enclosure:
}
David P. Hoffman, Vice President - Nuclear Operations
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, RIII
l
l
I@
RI
II
RI
RIII
[
II[.
,
i}steS
)
-
-
l
et
Greenman
l
7 ges/ml
llips
rown
j
RIII
RIII
RIII
QRIII
,
'fY3
L
t
Martin
Norelius
Miller
Davis
l
!
i
!
.
.
- _ _ _ , _
-
- - -
.
.
.
.
,
t
!
Consumers Power Company
3
!
MAR 031993
l
!
'
Distribution Continued
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
i
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
j
Public Health
,
L. N. 01shan, LPM, NRR
SRI, Palisades
'
INP0
The Chairman
.
K. C. Rogers, Commissioner-
I
J. R. Curtiss, Commissioner
l
F. J. Remick, Commissioner
,'
E. G. de Planque, Commissioner
J. H. Sniezek, DEDR
T. E. Murley, Director, NRR
.
Chief, RPEB, NRR (2 copies)
-!
L. B. Marsh, Director, Project Directorate III-1, NRR
,
J. Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement
-!
C. D. Pederson, RIII
!
L. L. Cox, RIII (2 copies)
TSS, RIII
!
RIII Files
RIII PRR
,
l
!
I
i
,
t
I
!
?
__
,
l
i
~'
l
l
\\
'
.
Consumers Power Company
2
D JJ 833
{
procedural adequacy and adherence.
I concur with the Board's recommendations ~
that you should continue with the implementation of the maintenance
improvement initiatives that you developed.
I
,
The decline in Emergency Preparedness was due to incomplete corrective actions
l
involving communications and coordination with the State identified during the
1992 exercise.
!
l
Although Operations retained its rating of Category 2, performance was mixed.
'
l
k'hile strengths were noted in the stability and experience of the staff and in
l
the response to operational events, weaknesses were identified in the areas of
l
interdepartmental communications, procedural adequacy and adherence, and
-
actions to correct Emergency Operating Procedure deficiencies.
At the SALP meeting, you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and
your plans to address weaknesses we have identified.
The meeting is intended
l
to be a candid dialogue wherein any comments you may have regarding our report
I
are discussed.
Additionally, you may provide written comments within 30 days
!
after the meeting.
Your comments, a summary of our meeting, and my
disposition of your comments will be issued as the final SALP Report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the f4RC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the Initial
SALP Report will be placed in the tiRC's Public Document Room.
l
Should you have any questions concerning the Initial SALP Report, we would be
pleased to discuss them with you.
i
Sincerely,
$4c
~
v
j
A.
'>rt Davis
Reg onal Administrator
.
Enclosure:
Initial SALP 11
l
Report fio. 50-155/93001
j
cc w/ enclosure:
David P. Hoffman, Vice President - fluclear Operations
i
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, Rlli
'
t
.
,
Consumers Power Company
3
g4g g3 gg.j
,
-Distribution Continued
!
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
'
Michigan Department of
l
Public Health
!
L. N. Olshan, LPM, NRR
'
SRI, Palisades
The Chairman
l
K. C. Rogers, Commissioner
,
J. R. Curtiss, Commissioner
F. J. Remick, Commissioner
E. G. de Planque, Commissioner
l
J. H. Sniezek, DEDR
T. E. Murley, Director, NRR
Chief, RPEB, NRR (2 copies)
,
L. B. Marsh, Director, Project Directorate III-1, NRR
-
J. Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement
.
C. D. Pederson, RIII
'
L. L. Cox, RIII (2 copies)
+
TSS, RIII
RIII Files
RIII PRR
,
-
!
t
!
!
!
l
!
i
,
&
I
.