ML20058G069
| ML20058G069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1993 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Morris M CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058G079 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312090091 | |
| Download: ML20058G069 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000255/1993001
Text
_.
.
_ _ . _
.
_
. . _ .
_
. ,
-.
_
!
a
,
.
. h
N
'
!
Ogc 011993
l
i
1
h
Docket No. 50-255
!
!
Consumers Power Company
1
ATTN: Michael G. Morris
Executive Vice President
and Chief Operating Officer
1945 West Parnell Road
Jackson, MI 49201
Dear Mr. Morris:
.[
Enclosed for your review is the SALP 12 Report for the Palisadec Nuclear
>
Plant, covering the period April 1,1992 through October 30, 1993. As
discussed between D. Rogers of your staff and M. Parker of this office, a
!
meeting to discuss this report with you and your staff has been scheduled at
!
1:00 p.m. (EST), on December 14, 1993, at Lake Michigan College. During this
j
meeting you are encouraged to candidly discuss any comments you may have
!
regarding our report. While this meeting is considered a presentation and
,
discussion forum between Consumers Power Company and the NRC, the meeting will
be opened to any other interested parties as observers.
In accordance with NRC policy, I have reviewed the results of the SALP Board
Assessment and concur with their ratings.
While it is my view that your
>
conduct of nuclear activities in connection with the Palisades facility was
adequate, my conclusion is that your performance has declined significantly
i
over this past year. The decline is attributed in large'part to outage
,
activities.
The adverse events and conditions disclosed during the Summer
1993 refueling outage also appear to be indicative of long standing underlying
problems that were not previously recognized or fully understood by your
i
organization.
Careful attention to these issues on your part is needed to
ensure that performance will not decline further.
In addition, management
needs to ensure that their expectations are adequately conveyed to plant staff
3
and that the staff carries out these expectations.
!
Plant Operations and Engineering both received Category 3 ratings.
In the
Operations area, weaknesses were observed in operator performance and
,
intradepartmental communications in the conduct.of both normal and infrequent
- '
activities such as the excessive cooldown rate of the primary coolant system
and continued problems with the reactor vessel disassembly.
In the
1
Engineering area, the unavailability of some design information and an
I
incomplete understanding of plant design continued to have a negative impact
i
in the resolution of identified problems. A failure to resolve previous
occurrences of stuck fuel assemblies led to a third such event this SALP
i
period. Significant weaknesses were also noted in several plant
j
modifications.
9312090091 931201
PDR- ADOCK 05000255
f
,
O
/
e
a
.,
o
.
.
Consumers Power Company
2
You received Category 2 ratings in Maintenance and Plant Support reflecting
overall good performance in these areas; although, maintenance was previously-
a Category 1.
The condition of equipment was considered to be good with a few
notable exceptions.
Work planning and prioritization were also considered
good. However, the quality of maintenance work was inconsistent, primarily
'
due to continued problems with the control of contractors.
In the area of
'
Plant Support, early implementation of the revised 10 CFR 20 was excellent and
reflected strong departmental management support.
In addition, the source
term reduction efforts were good.
The implementation of the dry cask storage
project was a strength. A significant weakness was noted in the
nonconservative management decisions involving the chemistry analyses and the
'
radiation survey indications of failed fuel.
The decline in performance in several areas is significant and reflects poorly
on your overall self-assessment program, including your Quality Assurance (QA)
audit activities and your offsite review committee.
Problems were not
promptly identified and corrected. The QA organization lacked technical depth
I
in some areas.
Instances of ineffective corrective actions were noted across
1
the functional areas. Management involvement and oversight of ongoing field
activities were also not sufficient to prevent problems from occurring and
failed to detect where management expectations were not being met.
At the SALP Meeting you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and your
plans to address performance in the areas of Operations and Engineering,
)
including your reviews and conclusions regarding the apparent decline in these
i
two areas.
Additionally, you are requested to respond in writing within 30
days after the meeting, specifically addressing corrective actions planned to
improve your performance in the areas of Operations and Engineering.
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 SALP
report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning the SALP report, we would be pleased
to discuss them with you at the meeting on December 14, 1993.
Sincerely,
John B. Martin
Regional Administrator
Enclosure: SALP 12
Report No. 50-255/93001
See Attached Distribution
(see attached concurrence)
Rlli
Rlll
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
Orsini
Kobetz
M.McB
Hasse
Jorgensen
LaTorre
Rlli
R111
Rlll
NRR*
RII
RII
2
J{Ma
TMartin
Forney
Axelson
Dean
M Y
'n
- Concurrence by telephone
/2- /
/
/
.
. . - . - . - . . -
-
--
- . . -
.
-
___
_.
_ . _ _ _
_ -.
_ _ _
_ _
.
-
._
_.
.
-
!
c
,.
fjfC0i M
Consumers Power Company
2
You received Category 2 ratings in Maintenance and Plant Support reflecting
I
-
overall good performance in these areas; although,' maintenance was previously
a category 1.
The condition of equipment was considered to be good with a few
'
notable exceptions.
Work planning and prioritization were also considered
good. However, the quality of maintenance work was inconsistent, primarily due
,
to continued problems with the cont'rol of contractors.
In the area of Plant
i
Support, early implementation of the revised 10 CFR 20 was excellent and
reflected strong departmental management support.
In addition, the source
term reduction efforts were good. The implementation of the dry cask storage
project was a strength. A significant weakness was noted in the
nonconservative management decisions involving the chemistry analyses and the
radiation survey indications of failed fuel.
The decline in performance in several areas is significant and reflects poorly
on your overall self-assessment program, including your Quality Assurance (QA)
,
t
audit activities and your offsite review committee.
Problems were not
.
i
promptly identified and corrected.
The QA organization lacked technical depth
in some areas.
Instanccs of ineffective corrective actions were noted across
,
the functional areas. Management involvement and oversight of ongoing field-
l
activities were also not sufficient to prevent problems from occurring and
f
failed to detect where management expectations were not being met.
,
-!
At the SALP Meeting you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and your
!
plans to address performance in the areas of Operations and Engineering,
!
including your reviews and conclusions regarding the apparent decline in these
!
two areas. Additionally, you are requested to respond in writing within 30
,
days after the meeting, specifically addressing corrective actions planned to
improve your performance in the areas of Operations and Engineering.
'
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 SALP-
i
report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning the SALP report, we would be pleased
to discuss them with you at the meeting on December 14, 1993.
'
Sincerely,
l
John B. Martin
!
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
SALP 12
Report No. 50-255/93001
i
See Attached Distribution
(see attached concurrence)
l
Rill
RllI
Rlll
RIII
RIII
Rill
!
/% k h
Orsini
LK'obetz
M.McB
Hasse
Jorgensen
LaTorre
!
Rlli
RIII
RIII
NRR*
Rlli
Rill
!
du
Tlartin
Forney
Axel son
Dean
Miller
JMartin
- Con 9urrence by telephone
i
y&\\%
1
'I
-l
!
_ . , _
_ . - _
,.
_ _ . . _ . -
-.
- , _ - .
,
_.
-
. . .
-
. . . - .
. .
j
.
.
Consumers Power Company
3
Should you have any questions concerning the SALP report, we would be pleased
to discuss them with you.
>
-
Sincerely,
John B. Martin
Regional Administrator
.
Enclosure:
SALP 12
!
Report No. 50-255/93001
l
cc w/ enclosure-
David P. Hoffman, Vice President
i
Nuclear Operations
David W. Rogers, Safety
'
and Licensing Director
OC/LFDCB
i
Resident Inspector, RIII
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
Service Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
'
Palisades, LPM, NRR
SRI, Big Rock Point
,
i
The Chairman
Commissioner Rogers
Commissioner Remick
Commissioner de Planque
OEDO
T. E. Murley, Director, NRR
Associate Director for Projects, NRR
Director, Office of Enforcement
,
W. T. Russell, Associate Director for Inspection and
Licensee Performance, NRR
C. F. Holden, Jr., SALP Program Manager, DRIL, NRR (2 copies)
F. R. Allenspach, NRR
A. R. Blough, Director, Project Directorate III-I, NRR
DRP Division Directors, All Regions
C. D. Pederson, RIII
L. Cox, RIII
TSS, RIII
RIII files
RIII PRR
,c
n
V
i
il
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
RI"I,
>
!.
,pb> 4Nt?B
MNb
t
a
ajD
<
sink 4
tz
M.McB sy
RIII
RI'
RIII
g NRR*Hasse y>oy rgensen
'orre
RIII
RIII
,- s
hy*
Axe
ea
/N
Miller
JMartin
TMa tin
o
- Con rrence b
telephone
gg.h
4
>
-
-
.
.
.:+
.
mfGu
UNITED STATES
f
gi
k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtsslON
D
- ,"C
REGION til
%
res noostvtLT nono
&
GLEN ELLYN, ILLtNOIS 60 W
.....
t
DECGi1993
Docket No. 50-255
l
l
Consumers Power Company
!
ATTN: Michael G. Morris
}
Executive Vice President
l
and Chief Operating Officer
<
'
1945 West Parnell Road
Jackson, MI 49201
!
Dear Mr. Morris:
,
i
Enclosed for your review is the SALP 12 Report for the Palisades Nuclear
i
Plant, covering the period April 1, 1992 through October 30, 1993. As
discussed between D. Rogers of your staff and M. Parker of this office, a
.
l
meeting to discuss this report with you and your staff has been scheduled at
- '
1:00 p.m. (EST), on December 14, 1993, at Lake Michigan College.
During this
meeting you are encouraged to candidly discuss any comments you may have
j
regarding our report. While this meeting is considered a presentation and
-
3
discussion forum between Consumers Power Company and the NRC, the meeting will
!
be opened to any other interested parties as observers.
In accordance with NRC policy, I have reviewed the results of the SALP Board
l
Assessment and concur with their ratings.
While it is my view that your
!
conduct of nuclear activities in connection with the Palisades facility was
,
adequate, my conclusion is that your performance has declined significantly
i
over this past year. The decline is attributed in large part to outage
!
activities. The adverse events and conditions disclosed during the Summer
j
1993 refueling outage also appear to be indicative of long standing underlying
'
problems that were not previously recognized or fully understood by your
j
organization. Careful attention to these issues on your part is needed to
!
ensure that performance will not decline further.
In addition, management
{
needs to ensure that their expectations are adequately conveyed to plant staff
!
t
and that the staff carries out these expectations.
Plant Operations and Engineering both received Category 3 ratings.
In the
Operations area, weaknesses were observed in operator performance and
intradepartmental communications in the conduct of both normal and infrequent
!
I
activities such as the excessive cooldown rate of the primary coolant system
and continued problems with the reactor vessel disassembly.
In the
,
Engineering area, the unavailability of some design information and an
incomplete understanding of plant design continued to have a negative impact
!
in the resolution of identified problems. A failure to resolve previous
j
occurrences of stuck fuel assemblies led to a third such event this SALP
.
period.
Significant weaknesses were also noted in several plant
!
modifications.
j
l
I
!
!
,
-
. - - - .
- - - - - - - - -
-
- - - -
-
-
-.--
-
_
-
_
. .
- ~.
!
t
..
!
>
MC011333
Consumers Power Company
2
i
!
You received Category 2 ratings in Maintenance and Plant Support reflecting
j
overall good performance in these areas; although, maintenance was previously
'
a Category 1.
The condition of equipment was considered to be good with a few
!
notable exceptions. Work planning and prioritization were also considered
i
good. However, the quality of maintenance work was inconsistent, primarily
!
due to continued problems with the control of contractors.
In the area of
[
Plant Support, early implementation of the revised 10 CFR 20 was excellent and
!
reflected strong departmental management support.
In addition, the source
- '
term reduction efforts were good. The implementation of the dry cask storage
project was a strength. A significant weakness was noted in the
i
nonconservative management decisions involving the chemistry analyses and the
radiation survey indications of failed fuel.
i
i
The decline in performance in several areas is significant and reflects poorly
l
on your overall self-assessment program, including your Quality Assurance (QA)
l
'
audit activities and your offsite review committee.
Problems were not
'
promptly identified and corrected. The QA organization lacked technical depth
,
in some areas.
Instances of ineffective corrective actions were noted across
the functional areas. Manafement involvement and oversight of ongoing field
activities were also not sufficient to prevent problems from occurring and
~j
-
failed to detect where management expectations were not being met.
t
-
At the SALP Meeting you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and your
f
'
plans to address performance in the areas of Operations and Engineering,
i
including your reviews and conclusions regarding the apparent decline in these
l
two areas. Additionally, you are requested to respond in writing within 30
l
days after the meeting, specifically addressing corrective actions planned to
improve your performance in the areas of Operations and Engineering.
l
t
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
t
'
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the SALP
i
report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
.
i
Should you have any questions concerning the SALP report, we would be pleased
to discuss them with you at the meeting on December 14, 1993.
,
!
>
Sincerely,
4
cL d
-
.
John B. Martin
Regional Administrator
'
'
Enclosure: SALP 12
'
'
Report No. 50-255/93001
See Attached Distribution
i
!
I
'
r
i
_, _ __.
.
.
.
. . .
_. _ _ - .
,
t
i
..
,
.;
I
'
. Consumers Power Company
3
[6C
2
'i
l
Distribution:
j
cc w/ enclosure:
f
David P. Hoffman, Vice President
I
Nuclear Operations
.{
Gerald B. Slade, General Manager
.j
David W. Rogers, Safety
and Licensing Director
l
OC/LfDCB
Resident Inspector, RIII
- l
James R. Padgett, Michigan Public
j
Service Commission
!
Michigan Department of
j
Public Health
Palisades, LPM, NRR
SRI, Big Rock Point
INFO
i
~l
'
The Chairman
Commissioner Rogers
Commissioner Remick
!
Commissioner de Planque
!
OEDO
T. E. Murley, Director, NRR
,
Associate Director for Projects, NRR
- !
Director, Office of Enforcement
!
W. T. Russell, Associate Director for Inspection and
'
Licensee Performance, NRR
.
.
'
C. F. Holden, Jr., SALP Program Manager, DRIL, NRR (2 copies)
F. R. Allenspach, NRR
A. R. Blough, Director, Project Directorate III-1, NRR
DRP Division Directors, All Regions
-
C. D. Pederson, RIII
L. Cox,-RIII
i
TSS, RIII
j
RIII files
RIII PRR
l
f
i
i
!
i
!
..
$
i
l
-
~.
..