ML20209B110
| ML20209B110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B076 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-86-05, 50-461-86-5, NUDOCS 8704280364 | |
| Download: ML20209B110 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000461/1986005
Text
(
_
.
.
,
.
.
.
Attachment 1
SALP 6
Appendix
SALP BOARD REPORT
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
50-461/86005
Inspection Report
Illinois Power Company
Name of Licensee
Clinton Power Station
Name of Facility
September 1, 1985 - August 31, 1986
Assessment Periort
hk
0
-
- -
-
-
- . -
.
.
.
~.
'
1
l
Clinton Power Plant
A.
Summary of Meeting with Illinois Power Company on December 17, 1986
The findings ar.d conclusions of the SALP board documented in Inspection
Report No. 50-461/86005 were discussed with the licensee on December 17,
1986, at the Region III offices in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
The licensee's regulatory performance was presented in each functional
ared. Overall, the licensee's performance was found to be acceptable.
The licensee was found to have a high level of performance in the
l
Preoperational Testing assessment area. The areas of Quality Assurance
and Administrative Controls Affecting Quality, and Maintenance were
found to need increased licensee management attention due to multiple
weaknesses identified in controlling the turnover of systems from
construction to testing and operations, following procedures, identifying
and correcting problems, and in the area of maintenance of equipment.
All other functional areas were found to be adequate and represented a
licensee management team that was sufficiently staffed and appropriately
involved and concerned with nuclear safety.
The following licensee and NRC personnel attended the meeting.
Illinois Power Company
W. L. Kelley, Chairman of the Board and President
W. C. Gerstner, Executive Vice President
D. P. Hall, Vice President
J. S. Perry, Manager, Nuclear Program Coordination
,
l
J. H. Greene, Manager, Nuclear Station Engineering
l
R. E. Campbell, Manager, Quality Assurance
!
J. W. Wilson, Clinton Power Plant Manager
!
F. A. Spangenberg, Manager, Licensing and Safety
J. A. Miller, Assistant Power Plant Manager, Startup
R. D. Freeman, Assistant Plant Manager
,
Soyland/WIPC0
J. Greenwood, Manager, Power Supply
NRC
i
A. B. Davis, Deputy Regional Administrator
C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Reactor Projects
B. L. Siegel, Licensing Project Manager, NRR
i
P. L. Hiland, Senior Resident Inspector
R. C. Knop, Chief, Projects Section 18
F. J. Jablonski, Chief, Quality Assurance Program Section
J. Strasma, Public Relations
i
!
.
.
.
.
.
-
- - - - - -
_ .
,.
.
.
__. _.
_
_ _ _
_
_
_
.r t
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
B.
Comments Received from Licensee
,.
.
By letters dated December 30, 1986 and March 17, 1987, the licensee
-
i-
provided written comments on the SALP report and what steps were being
taken to: improve performance in the maintenance area and in quality
programs and ' administrative controls affecting quality.
,
With regard to the SALP the licensee stated on page 2 of 8 of the
December 30, 1986, memo that the NRC had incorrectly noted that IP had
committed to complete action in each area prior to exceeding 5% power.
The NRC's intent in the partgraphs was to have each area completed or
improved to the. extent necessary to permit licensing the plant for full
,
power. We have reviewed the projected completion dates and found them
acceptable. A change has been made to page 18 of the SALP report to
reflect the intent of our statement.
\\ \\
.' ( .'
t
i
'
o'
'
r
l'
,
s
(
l
<t
i
i
o'
- f
'
'
.
,
!
)
I
i
i
2
i
,
!
.-
-
-
-
. .
.
-
.
.
-
-
.
.
.
- ,
.
.
.
Errata Sheet
-,
Pare
Line
Now Reads
Should Read
18
10-12
A commitment was made by the A commitment was made by
licensee to implement the
the licensee to implement
corrective actions prior to
the corrective actions
the scheduled date.for oper- and/or show necessary
ation above 5% rated power,
improvements prior to the
scheduled date for oper
.on
'
above 5%'of rated power.
18
28-29
Because of the corrective
Because of the corretive
actions connitted to be
actions cornmitted to by the
,
'
completed prior to exceeding licensee above, correction
'
5% power, correction of ...
of ...
Basis for Change: The two phrases incorrectly implied that the licensee was
to have fully implemented their corrective actions prior
'
to exceeding 5% power. The NRC intended that the licensee
have each area completed or improved to the extent
necessary to permit licensing the plant for full power.
t
l
,
,
I
3
, _
_
_. . . _ _ .
. _ . _ - - _
_ - - . - _ - _ . - -
-
.
_
_ __
,
.
.
.__
.
.
-
.
,.
e
.
the cause of equipment failures identified during maintenanc
and failure to control material accountability and bolt
torquing.
Failure to follow procedures was compounded by
several levels of maintenance supervision who also failed o
!
follow procedures because they lacked knowledge of what
e
procedures required.
Subsequent to this assessment period, a management
ting was
held on September 19, 1986.
During the meeting, t
licensee
described corrective actions to improve the maint ance
program. A commitment was made by the licensee
implement
the corrective actions prior to the scheduled d e for
operation above 5% of rated power. These meas es included:
'
(1) improving performance in the areas of mai
enance work
request (MWR) planning, execution, review,
d scheduling;
(2) restructuring of the Maintenance Deger ent to split out
the planning responsibility from the e 3.
ion of work; (3)
expanding the management of the Maint
he Department; (4)
consolidating all maintenance planni
- 5) improving
communications within the Maintenag,q
partment; (6) ensuring
.
'
that prior to vaulting, the MWR wily e a stand-alone document
,
containing all pertinent data; (7)
veloping generic lists
for pre-approved expendable mai
ance items; (8) conducting
a " top down" procedure review g ssure that lower tiered
documents fully implement up gr ier documents; and (9)
expanding the field engine
iW group within the MWR planning
organization to ensure th
s receive an adequate review
prior to performance of w
Because of the corrective etions committed to be completed
prior to exceeding 5 '
r, correction of identified hardware
problems during the
inspection, and controls to insure
that additional ha
e problems would be identified during
completion of the
-maintenance testing and startup testing,
a license to load f 1 was issued.
2.
Conclusions
The licensee i rated Category 3 in this functional area.
This is based n the significance and number of violations
found during his assessement period and the failure to
identify to
causes of problems so that corrective actions
to prevent ecurrence could be initiated.
Licensee performance
J
was not r ted during the previous assessment period.
3.
Board
commendations
The oard recommends that the licensee diligently pursue
im ementation of its corrective action plan in this area.
)
e Board recommends that the NRC staff followup on the
j
icensee's corrective actions and provide increased inspection
coverage of this area during the first full year of operation.
,
,
18
1
.
. ..- -
--
.
. - . -
.
-
-
.
.-
.
.--
.
.
~.
.
.
..
.
4
Corrected Page
the cause of equipment-failures identified during maintenance;
and failure to control material accountability and bolt
torquing. Failure to follow procedures was compounded by
several levels of maintenance supervision who also failed to
follow procedures because they lacked knowledge of what the
,
procedures required.
Subsequent to this assessment period, a management meeting was
held on September 19, 1986.. During the meeting, the licensee
described corrective actions to improve the maintenance
program. A comitment was made by the licensee to implement -
the corrective actions and/or show necessary improvements prior
to the scheduled date for operation above 5% of rated power.
,
These measures included:
(1). improving performance in the
t
areas of maintenance work request (MWR) planning . execution,
review, and scheduling; (2) restructuring of-the Maintenance
Department to split out the planning responsibility from the
execution of work; (3) ex
Maintenance Department; (panding the management of the4) consolida
4
l
planning;-(5) improving communications within the Maintenance
j
Department; (6) ensuring that prior to vaulting, the MWR will
be a stand-alone document containing all pertinent data; (7)
'
)
developing generic lists for pre-approved expendable main-
tenance items; (8) conducting a " top down". procedure review to
assure that lovfer tiered documents fully implement upper tier'
documents; and (9) expanding the field engineering group within
the MWR planning organization to ensure that MWRs receive an
adequate review prior to performance of work.
Because of the corrective actions canmitted to by the licensee
above, correction of identified hardware problems during the
team inspection, and controls to insure that additional
hardware problems would be identified during completion of the
post-maintenance testing and startup testing, a license to load
fuel was issued.
2.
Conclusions
1
L
The licensee is rated Category 3 in this functional area.
This is based on the significance and number of violations
!
found during this assessement period and the failure to
!
identify root causes of problems so that corrective actions
to prevent recurrence could be initiated. Licensee performance
was not rated during the previous assessment period.
,
3.
Board Recommendations
The Board recommends that the licensee diligently pursue-
implementation of its corrective action plan in this area.
4
4
The Board recommends that the NRC staff followup on the
licensee's corrective actions and provide increased inspection
coverage of this area during the first full year of operation.
l
18
. j
_ __
_
__
.
. -
.
-
-
.
.
.
. -