ML20148A900

Forwards Integrated Performance Assessment Insp Repts 50-317/88-01 & 50-318/88-01 on 880119-29 & Notice of Violation.Expresses Concern That Key Role of Sys Engineers Not Yet Fully Developed

ML20148A900
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	03/11/1988
From:	Kane W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Tiernan J BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20148A904	List: IR 05000317/1988001 ML20148A900 ML20148A906
References
NUDOCS 8803210232
Download: ML20148A900 (3)

See also: IR 05000317/1988001

Text

.- -- - . . - . . _ _ . - .- - _- .. . - . --

,

->

& MAR 111988

DOCKrjT/ LICENSE NOS.: 50-317/DPR-53-

50- 318/0PR-69

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

ATTN: Mr. J. A. Tiernan

Vice President, Nuclear Energy

Pcot Office Box 1475

Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Gentlemen:

Subject: Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-317/88-01 and 50-318/88-01

This. transmits the January 19-29, 1988 Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA)

inspection findings at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Lusby, Maryland.'

These findings are based on our observation of activities, interviews, and

document reviews, which were discussed with you on January 29, 1988, at the

conclusion of the inspection.

The IPA inspection findings indicate that your recent initiatives have been

responsive to those issues raised by NRC in the last Systematic Assessment of

Licensee Performance (SALP) report. In particular, the inspection team noted

the positive actions in progress to improve interfaces and communications

between departments. However, the nature and complexity of the issues dis-

cussed in the last SALP report, as further amplified by the . findings and obser-

vations daring this inspection, indicate that continuing managet ent attention

at all levels will be required to achieve sustained overall improved perform-

ance levels.

2

This inspection reviewed a number of functional areas with primary emphasis on  !

the interfaces between departments. The team found that. the interfaces were

generally functioning well, communications on emerging problems and the

coordination of daily activities were also generally good. Plant operators

were found to be knowledgeable and professional. Several recent initiatives on

your part appear promising including the. Safety System Functional Inspection

and the follow-up activities associated with it. Plant safety overview

functions provided by the Onsite and Offsite Safety Review Committees were also

found to be improving, as the result of recent initiatives. The team spent a

portion of its time looking at the management structure of your organization.

While there were only limited findings in this area, the information did assist

the team in understanding your organization and we have included our I

observations as Attachment 2 to the Inspection Report. j

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CIR CC 88-01 - 0001.0.0

03/12/88

/ 84[

_

880321092 880311

PDR ADOCK0500g7 , jf

0

, +

_ _.

i i

"

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 2

.

The team was concerned that the key role of the System Engineers was not yet

fully developed. It appeared that some of the issues ;dentified in the

Engineering area, such as, inaccuracies in Salt Water System surveillance

testing, could have been identified by a strong System Engineer function.

Routine maintenance activities appeared to be satisfactory but more ettention

to detail was needed in the troubleshooting and post-maintenance testing areas.

One violation was identified in the surveillance area involving temporary

changes to procedures and the lack of required reviews. Housekeeping including

cleanliness and plant material conditions was conddared to be poor in several

areas. The strengths and weaknesses observed during this inspection are listed

in Appendices B and C respectively. As a part of your response to this

inspection, we request that you reply in writing to the wea!.nesses identified

in Appendix C.

The apparent violation of NRC requirements is cited in Appendix A and categor-

ized under the NRC Enforcement Policy, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C. A reply is

required in accordance with Appendix A. The requirement that you reply is

exempt from clearance by the Office of management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

Your cooperation with us is appreciated.

Sincerely,

ggiral st;n: d E72

William F. Kane, Director

Division of Reactor Projects

Encl o<.u re s :

1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation

2. Appendix B, Licensee Strengths

3. Appendix C, Licensee Weaknesses

4. Combined NRC Region 1 Inspection Report Nos. 50-317/88-01 and 50-318/88-01

cc w/encls:

M. Bowman, General Supervisor, Technical Services Engineering

T. Magette, Administrator, Nuclear Evaluations '

Public Document Room (LPOR) l

Local Public Document Room (LPDR) l'

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector

State of Maryland (2)

l

l

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CIR CC 88-01 - 0002.0.0

03/11/88

l

.. _ _ . _ _._. ._.. _ __ . . _ . . . . -

. _ . . . . ... .... . _ . _ . . _ _ . . ._ __ ._

. i

'

' Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 3

g y yg.

.

bcc'w/encls:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

M. Perkins, Management Assistant, ORMA (w/o encis)

.

L. Tripp, Section Chief, DRP

. D. Limroth, Project Engineer, DRP

i; . T. Kenny, SRI.- Salem

S. McNeil, LPM. NRR

R. Bores, Technical Assistant, DRSS

,

9

!

't

l

'

I

s ) .

P R P df:DRP 31%/ $  !

N den /mjd L p t

JWiggins

3/ll/88 3/l[/88 3/II/88

3/f/88

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CIR CC 88-01 - 0003.0.0

03/11/88

,

s

!

- - - -- , - . . s . w~, w,,-. r,-, - - - . . . - - - - .

1. _._1 g m , y~.w ,.,,,.y---e y.y -m-a rw%,--, - , , y e, ,