ML20137H492: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[IR 05000255/1985024]]
| number = ML20137H492
| issue date = 11/21/1985
| title = Insp Rept 50-255/85-24 on 850930-1004.Violation Noted: Failure to Take Adequate Corrective Actions for Violations Re Overload Trip Device Maint,Procedure 5.03 & Trending of Corrective Maint.Confirmatory Action Ltr Issued
| author name = Hehl C, Madison A, Taylor T
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation =
| docket = 05000255
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = 50-255-85-24, CAL, NUDOCS 8512020406
| package number = ML20137H456
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 11
}}
See also: [[see also::IR 05000930/2010004]]
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:. .  - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _                                                .__  _ _ __  . _ _ . -
      -
l                .
!
!
i                                                        U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
4
                                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                                          !
]                                                                      REGION III                                          !
1
                Report No. 50-255/85024(DRP)
                Docket No. 50-255                                                          License No. OPR-20            l
1                                                                                                                          :
1
l'              Licensee: Consumers Power Company                                                                          j
                                        212 West Michigan Avenue                                                          .
l                                        Jackson, MI 49201                                                                l
                Facility Name: Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant
i                                                                                                                        ;
l              Inspection At: Covert, MI                                                                                !
):              Inspection Conducted:                      September 30 through October 4, 1985
                                                                                                                          I
1
                                                                                                                          l
                                                                                                                          i
i
                Inspectors: Aj L. Madison
                                                    /b&                                                                  i
                                                                                                                          j
                                                -
                                                      c-          <t
:                                            T. E. Taylor
                                                  &  L.) E/-%
J
              Approved By: Charles W. Hehl, Chief                                            /'/2' M                    i
                                                  Reactor Projects                          Date                        ,
!                                                  Section 2A                                                          !
I                                                                                                                        j
i
                Inspection Summary                                                                                      ,
i
                                                                                                                        !
!              Inspection on September 30 through October 4, 1985                                                      j
l
                (Report No. 50-255/85024(DRP))                                                                            ;
;            Areas Inspected: Special, unannounced inspection by regional inspectors of                                ;
j              licensee actions on previous inspection findings in the area of maintenance                              i
1              and Independent Inspection. The inspection involved a total of 68 inspector-                              ;
]              hours onsite by two inspectors, including eight inspector-hours onsite during                            I
}              off-shifts.                                                                                              !
,              Results: One repeat violation was identified (failure to take adequate                                    i
f              corrective actions). Some improvement was noted, however, the lack of adequate                            i
l              progress in the areas of trending and work order backlog was cause for concern.                          l
l              A Confirmatory Action Letter was also issued as a result of this inspection,                              j
l                                                                                                                          I
!                                                                                                                        r
i                                                                                                                        i
i                                                                                                                          l
1                                                                                                                          ;
3
:
                8512O20406 851127
l                  DR        ADOCKODOOf25
4
                                                                                                                          .
,                                                                                                                        .
1                                                                                                                        i
                                                                                                                          !
 
                                                                                  1
=
  .
                                        DETAILS
  1. Persons Contacted
    Consumers Fower Company (CPCo)
      R. Dewitt, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
    *J. Firitt, Plant Manager
    *J. Lewis, Technical Director
      G. Slade, Executive Director, Nuclear Assurance
    *R. Margol, QA Administrator
      R. McCaleb, QA Director, Palisades
    *H. Esch, Plant Administrative Manager
    *R. Rice, Operations Manager
    "D. Joos, Planning Director
    *R. Orosz, Engineering and Maintenance Manager
    *R. Vincent, Plant Safety Administrator
      J. Alderink, Mechanical Engineer and Maintenance Superintendent
      P. Bruce, Electrical Superintendent
    *R. Fenech, Technical Engineer
    *5. Johnson, Licensing Engineer
    *0. Fitzgibbon, Licensing Engineer
    *E. Dziedzic, Facility and Materials Superintendent
      R. Brzszinski, Instrument Maintenance Superintendent
      H. Tawney, Planning and Scheduling Superintendent
    The inspectors also contacted other licensee personnel, as necessary,
    during the performance of this inspection.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
      E. Swanson, Senior Resident Inspector
    *C, Anderson, Resident Inspector
    *E. Greenman, Deputy Director, Division    of Reactor Projects
    " Denotes those attending the exit interview on October 4, 1985.
  2. Action on Previous Inspection Findings
    a.    (Closed) Violation (255/85003-01(DRP)).    Two examples of inadequate
          corrective actions were described.
          (1) The first dealt with an Open Item (255n8025-01) which identified
                the failure to perform preventive maintenance (PM) on the
                480/460 volt switchgear and motor control centers. At the
                time of the inspection the PMs were still not part of the
                licensee's PM program and had not been accomplished.
                The licensee has placed this equipment on the PM schedule,
                but, has performed PM on a small percentage of the subject
                equipment. This continued lack of management attention to
                assure adequate corrective actions is a matter of concern and
                                          2
 
  (--_. ._- - _- -._ - -                  _ - _ - . - - .. - - - -                  - -        . - - -
J
      -
              .
                                                                                                        f
  i
I
                                  is considered a Violation (255/85024-01A(DRP)) as noted in the        !
                                Appendix.
!
                            (2) The second example concerned the performance of biannual
                                procedure reviews. Through discussion with licensee personnel
1                                and review of all plant procedures, the inspectors determined          I
1                                that the biannual reviews were up to date and that adequate
j                                mechanisms were in place to assure continued compliance. No            i
!                                further actions are required.                                          '
;
;
                        b. (Closed) Violation (255/85003-02(DRP)): Measuring and Test
i                          Equipment (M&TE) Improperly Controlled.
:                          The licensee has revised the methods used to control M&TE and found
i                          them to be adequate. Through discussions with licensee personnel
i                          and reviews of selected records, the inspectors determined that M&TE
j                          is now properly controlled. No further actions are required.                ;
)                        c. (0 pen) Violation (255/85003-03(DRP)):    Failure to follow procedures.    ,
i
1                          (1) A review of the licensee's compliance to Procedure 5.03                  !
j                                " Preventive Maintenance Program" identified three instances            i
j                                of failure to follow procedures.                                        l
<                                                                                                      .
l                                (a) Procedure 5.03 required preventive maintenance trending            l
;                                      yet none was performed. The inspectors determined that PM
                                                                                                        {
                                        trending was still not scheduled or performed. This lack        l
j                                      of adequate management attention to ensure corrective            !
,
                                        actions is a matter of concern mi is considered a Violation      !
l                                      (255/85024-01B(ORP)) as noted in the Appendix.                  l
                                        Procedure 5.03 also required that a maintenance history be
                                        maintained on equipment and that trending be performed
                                        based on that history.
,
'
                                        The inspectors found that no machinery history was main-
                                        tained and, therefore, no trending was performed. The
                                        maintenance order forms were inadequate in format for use        '
,
                                        as a machinery history and were filed in numerical order
!                                      versus by equipment or system making them further useless
<
                                                                                                        '
                                        as a machinery history. The licensee has revised this
j                                      form and the revised form is very complete and contains
l                                      the information necessary to provide an adequate machinery
i                                      history. This form is computerized and thus provides
l                                      sufficient flexibility for trending. However, the                i
j                                      inspectors discussed trending with maintenance management        !
j                                      and determined that no plans had been formulated to perform      [
!                                      trending or for the necessary research to provide an
j                                      adequate data base from the old maintenance order system.
4
(                                      This lack of adequate management attention to ensure            :
j                                      corrective actions is a matter of concern and is
                                                                                                        f
i                                                                                                        .
i                                                                  3                                    >
l
l                                                                                                        f
                                                                                                        <
i
 
                                                                                                    _ _ . _ _ _ - _ .    _ _ _ - . ._
,
  .
    .
                                                  considered a Violation (255/85024-01C(DRP)) as noted in                                  *
                                                  the Appendix.
                                            (b) Procedure 5.03 required that preventive maintenance be
                                                  performed within the prescribed frequency. The inspectors
                                                  identified several instances where PMs were beyond their
                                                  required frequency (including a 25% allowable time
                                                  extension).
                                                  Through reviews of licensee records, the inspectors
                                                  determined that with the exceptions noted in (1) (a)
                                                  above, the licensee's PM schedule was now maintained
                                                  within the required frequencies.
                                            (c) Procedure 5.03 required that the reasons for failure to
                                                  perform preventive maintenance on schedule be documented
                                                  and provided to the Maintenance Superintendent. This was
                                                  not being done.
                                                  Through reviews of licensee documentation and interviews
                                                  of licensec personnel, the inspectors determined that,
                                                  when required, the procedural requirement was now being
                                                  complied with.
                (2) A review of the licensee's compliance to Procedure 4.03
                                            " Equipment Control" identified three instances of failure to
                                            follow p;rocedures.
                                            (a) Procedure 4.03 required monthly review of the Jumper,
                                                  Link and Bypass Control Log (JLBCL) which was not being
                                                  performed.
                                                  Throtgh review of licensee documentation and interviews
                                                  with licensee personnel, the inspectors determined that
                                                  mont'ily review of the JLBCL was now being accomplished
                                                  and that adequate controls were in place to ensure its
                                                  continuance.
                                            (b) Two other examples related to the installation of a
                                                  bypass (e.g. lif ted lead) installed longer than a fuel
                                                  cycle that had actually become a permanent modification.
                                                  The inspectors were concerned that timely actions had
                                                  not been taken to adequately resolve this issue.
                                                  The inspectors reviewed the licensee's actions and found
                                                  that adequate management attention was being directed to
                                                  this area and that final resolution of this issue should
                                                  be accomplished in a timely manner.                                Pending completion of
                                                  all licensee actions, this item will remain open,
      d.        (0 pen) Violation (255/85003-04(DRP)): Instructions provided on
                maintenance orders were not of sufficient detail for the type of
                activities being performed.
                                                                                                  4
        _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _                      _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ -
 
        _      _    _ . _ _ _ _    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _            _. - __ _ _ _ _  _
    -
      .
i
            The inspectors discussed the violation with licensee personnel to
            clarify the regulatory requirements. This violation remains open,              i
4            pending further review,
          e. (Closed) Violation (255/85003-05(DRP)):            Root cause for equipment
            malfunction not being documented.
            Through review of completed work orders and the revised work order
            administrative procedure, the inspector verified that the licensee's
            program now addresses documentation of root cause. The inspector
            also discussed with licensee personnel the terminology that should
            be used (i.e. identify component such as " worn impeller" rather than
            noting root cause as " normal use"). No further actions are required.
i        f. (0 pen) Violation (255/85003-07(DRP)): Calibration of level
;            transmitter (LT) required by Technical Specifications without a                [
  !
            procedure.
            The licensee has developed a " List of Maintenance Activities Within
            the Normal Skills of Repairman." The list is in error and does not
;          fully comply with Regulatory Guide 1.33. The licensee has agreed to
            further revise their procedures to comply. This item will remain
i            open pending completion of those revisions.
1
          g. (0 pen) Open Item (255/85003-10(DRP)):          Instrument calibration report
            for a digital multimeter (DMM) had a " final" adjustment criteria for
i
            the 1, 10, 100, 1000 VDC range less conservative than the "as found"
l            data.
l          Further investigation by the inspectors determined that the "as
            found" and " final" accuracies for the subject DMM were the same,
i            However, the licensee believes that other equipment may be subject
            to this discrepancy and is reviewing all calibrations to eliminate
            this concern. Pending completion of said reviews, this item will
            remain open.
1        h. (Closed) Violation (255/85003-11(DRP)):            Poor housekeeping. During
            tours of the facility the inspectors found several examples of poor
,          housekeeping and unsafe storage practices. The inspectors also noted
            that many roof leaks were allowed to exist for extended periods of
            time that allowed water to leak onto class IE cable and equipment.
            The licensee has completed extensive roof repairs and caulking of
,          ceiling / building joints. Also, the licensee has implemented a
1
            preventive maintenance program to ensure continued roof integrity.
            No examples of equipment or cables being threatened by water leakage
            were found.
                                  f
            The inspectors noted the overall improvement in general plant                  '
            appearance that had addressed the specific examples cited in the
            previous inspection and the underlying concerns expressed by the
                                                                                            r
                                                            5
                                                                                            t
 
    - - - -      .  _-    _ _ - - .. _. -            _- . -          __    .- -      --    _ - - - - -
    .
            .
)
                  inspectors. Much has been done and much more is planned. The
                  licensee has achieved adequate performance in this area and as such
'
                  this item is considered resolved.
              1.  (Closed)OpenItem(255/85003-12(ORP)):            Procedure 10.41 " Procedure
                  on Procedures" failed to establish that the reviewer not be the
                  originator of the procedure.
                  The inspectors reviewed Procedure 10.41 and verified that it had
                  been revised to incorporate this requirement. No further actions
                  are required.
              j.  (Closed) Violation (255/85003-15(DRP)): Failure to identify and                          l
                  control shelf life.        The inspectors had found two items controlled
,                  by " dummy" purchase orders which did not comply with shelf life
,
~
                  criteria. A further review by the licensee found additional items
                  that did not meet shelf life criteria,                                                  l
,                                                                                                          i
                  The inspectors reviewed the licensee's actions in this area and
                  found that the licensee had reviewed all " dummy" purchase orders for
                  shelf life criteria and had resolved all items identified as
                  discrepant. An inspection of the licensee's storage facilities
  }                did not identify any further violations.          However, the licensee's
  '
                  review did not address the additional concerns raised by the
                  inspectors concerning " dummy" purchase orders.                                          !
l                  On June 15, 1984 an " Acceptance Plan Worksheet" was implemented to
i
                  review products that were brought into the system under a " dummy"
  -
                  purchase order. This worksheet assured adequate review and
                  compliance with applicable regulations and standards. Prior to this
;                date no such review had taken place. It is the inspectors concern
,                that products exist in storage which may be used in safety-related
,
                  equipment that do not meet the required standards. The licensee
)                  agreed to review all open " dummy" purchase orders dated prior to
                  June 15, 1984.          To ensure that no parts are released prior to
J                  completion of this review the licensee has placed a " hold" on all
,
5
                  open " dummy" purchase orders prior to June 15, 1984. Completion of
                  this review will be tracked as an Open Item (255/85024-02(DRP)).
'
              k.  (Closed) Open Item 255/85003-16(DRP)): Storage of safety-related
                  piping and sheet metal. These items are confined to one row in the
                  warehouse and are bounded by two large, lo;ked gates. However, the
                  sides of the row were open and made these gates ineffective. The
                  licensee has since properly secured this area and as such, no
                  further actions are required.
'
              l.  (Closed) Open Item (255/85003-17(DRP)):          Storage of flammable
                  liquids. The inspector found that the licensee was not confining
  ,
                  all flammable liquids as required by ANSI 45.2.13(1976) specifically,
i                those liquids regarded as safety-related.
                                                                                                            :
  j                An inspection of the licensee's storage facilities verified that all                    ,
                  flammable liquids had been removed from the normal safety-related                        j
  ,
                                                        6
 
    --    ____          __    _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _    ______      __    -_      ._-    __ -__ __
      - .
                  storage area and confined as required. In addition, adequate
                  controls are now in place to assure continued compliance. No
  ;
                  further actions are required.
  '
                m. (0 pen) Open Item (255/85003-18(DRP)): Reduction of the number of
;                open work orders on control room equipment. The inspectors were
                  concerned that the number of outstanding work orders on control room
  '
                  equipment (greater than 150) had an adverse impact on the operator's
                  confidence in their instrumentation.
                  The inspectors found that the number of open work requests on
                  control room equipment still exceeded 100. Further, the inspectors
                  found that these work requests received no additional attention and
3                in fact may receive less because of the power restrictions required
                  for their repair.
                  The number of open work requests in the control room was reduced
J                  to 99 by March 18, 1985 by eliminating unnecessary or redundant
  I                requests and working those work requests that could be accomplished
                  at 100% power. However, on September 30, 1985 the number was still
                  high (100) because no additional prioritization had been given these
                  requests to expedite their reduction.      The inspectors are still
                  concerned that while the individual work requests are not
                  significant, their number negatively impacts on the operator's
1                  confidence in control room equipment. The licensee agreed to place
                  increased emphasis in this area.    This item will remain open pending
                  reduction of control room work requests to a more reasonable level.
3                See also paragraph 3.
,
"
                n. (0 pen) Open Item (255/85003-23(DRp)): No control of vendor
                  info rmation. Interviews with document control personnel and
;                maintenance planners indicated that the licensee had no formal
,
                  control system to ensure that vendor information used for maintenance
i                  or testing activities was the latest information available.
                  The inspector found that the licensee is in the process of
                  implementing a review of vendor technical information. This review
                  is in response to this open item and Generic Letter 83-28.        The
i
                  review is still incomplete and this item will remain open pending
!                  completion and full implementation of the control program.                      i
                o. (0 pen) Open Item (255/85003-25(DRP)):    No formal controls for                l
                  " blanket" work requests. The inspectors were concerned that without
                  formal controls over the usage of blanket maintenance orders,
                  inadequate maintenance and maintenance tracking / trending could be
l                  performed under their auspices.
!                  The licensee has revised their procedures to address "open"
i
                  maintenance orders and provide adequate controls in all areas except
                  security. The licensee has agreed to provide controls in this area.
,
                  This item will remain open pending implementation of these controls.
.
.
i                                                7
l
1
                            _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 
    _ __  _          _          _ _ . _ . _ _              _ _ _ _ _ _ -                        . _ _ _ _
!
!
!        .
  I
i
.
            p.    (0 pen) Unresolved Item (255/85017-01): Inadequate trending of
                    Corrective Actions. This item was concerned with trending of
;                  corrective actions as documented in Licensee Event Reports,
!                Deviation Reports, and other similar mechanisms.                                        i
1
)                The inspectors found that no fornal plans were in place to resolve                      ;
)                  this issue. The licensee proposed implementing programs by the end                      l
                  of the second quarter of 1986. This is not satisfactory in light of
'
                    the importance of this issue. The licensee has agreed to provide                        ;
                  more timely resolution of this issue.
                                                                                                            L
;          q.    (0 pen) Violation (255/85003-21(DTP):  Four instances of significant                  ,
I
                  condition adverse to safety that were labeled " Observations" instead                    !
                  of " Findings" thus not requiring response of followup to ensure                        l
]                corrective actions.
!
                                                                                                            i
{                  The inspectors discussed this item with members of the licensee's                        i
!                  staff. The licensee contended that these items did not represent                        '
~
l                "significant" conditions adverse to quality.            It was the inspectors
                  position that the licensee should have had little dif ficulty                            ,
!                  classifying the cases cited, in that, had these items been identified                    !
I                  by the NRC they would have been characterized as noncompliances.                        .
i                  This item will remain open pending further review of the licensee's                      !
                  program for identification and control of corrective action.
!
                  No other violation or deviations were identified.
i                                                                                                          r
,
        3.  Maintenance Backlog
i                                                                                                          i
                                                                                                            '
l            The licensee has made some effort to reduce the maintenance orders
l            backlog. In March 1985, the number of open maintenance orders was
            approximately 4000. That number is now approximately 2500              However, 50%          !
            of that reduction has been accomplished by elimination of unnecessary or                      j
;          redundant work requests through cancellation or combination. For the                          ;
            period of March through September 1985, the maintenance order backlog                          i
            has decreased by approximately 70 work orders per month. At that rate
            it will take several years to adequately reduce this backlog.              This is
}
            not acceptable.                                                                                l
!
                                                                                                            '
j            The licensee accomplishes an average of 300 work orders per month which
;            corresponds to average figures at other nuclear power plants. Plant
:            staffing appears adequate to accomodate the normal workload such that
j            backlog numbers are not expected to increase. However, management needs                        t
j            to redirect resources in order to effectively resolve the backlog issue                        !
j            in a timely manner.                                                                            ;
i                                                                                                          >
!          The licensee is currently undergoing financial difficulties and, as a                          l
;'          result of pay cuts and pay freezes, has experienced approximately a 20%                        j
            turnover rate in personnel. This has reduced the level of experience in                        1
i            the maintenance department, and partially accounts for the slow turnaround
:            in addressing the backlog concern. The licensee is in the process of                          !
)            developing plans to attract new employees and provides incentives to
;            retain experienced workers.                                                                    '
,
,
;                                                8
l                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                            !
 
                  _    .  - _ - - . _ - . _ - - -
                                                  _.  - _ _ _ _ .  . _ _ _        _ _ _
  .  .
,
!
1
        No violations or deviations were identified,
i
;    4. Independent Inspection
'
        a.    The inspectors observed the performance of maintenance on
;            several occasions and noted the improvement in cleanliness
!            control and the reduction in the spread of contamination. The
              overall attitude of maintenance personnel has improved and is
I
              witnessed by the improvement of plant conditions and appearance.
!            However, several poor maintenance practices were observed and
;            these were reported to management. The inspectors noted in one
j            instance that maintenance personnel were performing work over
i            the fuel pool area without securing tools and equipment. A
              review of licensee procedures revealed that no formal
              prohibition existed to prevent this except during refuel
              operations. The licensee agreed to provide these controls.
              This will be tracked as an Open Item (255/85024-03(DRP)).
        b.    The licensee has recently implemented computerized tracking of
              Facility Changes (FCs) in order to maintain better control of
              these. The licensee intends to institute a similar tracking
              system for Specification Changes (SCs). Previously, it was
              very difficult to determine the status of FC's and many remained
'
              open a considerable amount of time af ter completion of work or
;            remained unresolved due to part or engineering issues for
j            extended periods.
j            This system will provide management the necessary tool to
]             better control FCs. However, no provisions have been made to                  i
!            provide assurance that any actions will be taken to adequately
j            and expeditiously resolve delays in closure.          Implementation of      ;
i            the tracking system for SCs and the addition of management
J            controls to assure timely closure and resolution will be                      ;
i            tracked as an Open Item (255/85024-04(DRP)).                                  '
]
l      No violations or deviations were identified.                                        l
    5. Confirmatory Action Letter                                                          l
        To ensure continued management attention concerning the reduction of                ,
        the maintenance work order backlog and development of adequate
        maintenance trending programs, a management conference was held                    i
        telephonically on October 15, 1985 between Mr. J. F. Firlit of your
        staff and Mr. E. G. Greenman of Region III. These issues were further
,      discussed during a management meeting held at the Palisades site on
        October 24, 1985 attended by Mr. J. Keppler and Mr. C. Norelius. The
j      provisions of the resulting Confirmatory Action Letter are:
!
        A.    Achieve a significant overall reduction in the current backlog of
!
              outstanding maintenance work orders (now is excess of 1700) by
.
              maximized staffing of the maintenance workforce during the upcoming
i            refueling outage. The reduction will be achieved through a program
j            which prioriti:es work according to its importance to safety with
j            priority given work that can only be performed during an outage,
i
!                                                    9
i.
h
 
    _ _ _    _          .    __- __      __      _ _ _ _      _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ . __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
          ~
            .
!
                B.  Achieve a specific reduction (with a target of zero) of those                              l
                    outstanding control room maintenance work orders that:                                      '
'
                    (1) Directly affect the controls used by operators during emergency
                            situations, off-normal situations or routine operations.
                    (2) Results in information, relied on by operators to take action,
                            being inaccurate of indeterminate.
                                                                                                                1
'
                    (3) Results in an annunciated control room alarm that reflects an                          j
                            off-normal condition.                                                              !
                                                                                                              1
                C.  Develop and implement trending programs to aid in the
  ,
                    identification and assessment of root causes for system and
j                  equipment malfunctions, to validate the preventive maintenance
l                  program, and to determine the need for replacement or upgrading of
'
                    installed equipment. These programs at a minimum will address the                        i
                                                                                                              '
                    following areas:
                    (1) Corrective maintenance - this trending program will include the
  ,                        development of a machinery history data base of one year for                      l
l                          safety-related equipment and for those systems important to                        ;
                            safety.
.
1                  (2) Preventive maintenance - this trending program will include all
I                          safety-related equipment and systems equipment important to
l                          ssfety.
                                                                                                              !
j              0.  Meaningful performance objects / milestones are to be developed and a                      ,
,                  monthly progress / status report will be prepared and submitted to the                    i
'
                    NRC Region III office addressing progress with respect to Items A-C
l                  above.
l              We further understand that following the 1985 refueling outage:
f
                E.  The regular plant maintenance workforce will be augmented with
                    twenty (20) additional maintenance personnel plus supervisors. This
                    additional workforce will continue to reduce the work order backlog
                    to an optimal level.      This optimal level will be determined by the
                    licensee utilizing input from INp0, other utilities and Palisades
                    plant historical data. A report will be submitted to NRC six months
                    following the refueling outage defining the optimum backlog.
                F.  The machinery history addressed in item C above will be extended to
                    include three years of history data six months following startup
                    from the 1985 refueling outage.
                G.  A progress / status report will be submitted every two months to                          ,
                    review progress on reducing:
                    (1) Work Order Backlog,
i                  (2) Control Room Deficiencies.
!
,
1                                                      10
i
 
-  .
                                        .
  6.  Sumary
      The inspectors performed a broad spectrum inspection of all maintenance
      related areas as a followup inspection to the March 1985 Maintenance Team
      Inspection. The purpose of the inspection was to review the licensee's
      progress in resolving issues previously identified and to evaluate the
      current status of the maintenance program at Palisades. Several problems
      were discovered, as noted in the preceding paragraphs. The major areas
      of continuing concerns were: (1) inadequate corrective actions by
      management, (2) inadequate progress in reducing the maintenance order
      backlog, (3) inadequate progress in reducing the number of control room
      work orders, (4) lack of maintenance trending programs for corrective and
      preventive maintenance, and (5) lack of adequate trending program for
      corrective actions.
      The maintenance program at Palisades has noticeably improved in some areas.
      The system by which scheduling and planning of maintenance is accomplished
      has been revamped and provides much more timely resolution of new mainte-
      nance orders. The attitude of workers has improved significantly as
      witnessed by plant appearance and equipment condition. The maintenance
      order form has been revised to provide better tracking, greater flexibility
      and a machinery history. However, the maintenance program at Palisades
      overall continues to be progressing unsatisfactorily to resolution
      and immediate management attention is required to ensure continued
      safe operation.
  7.  Open items
      Open items are matters which have been discussed with the license, which
      will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action
      on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Open items disclosed during
      the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 2.c 2.d. 2.f. 2.g, 2.j, 2.m.
      2.n, 2.0, and 2.p.
  8.  Exit Interview
      The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
      on October 4,1985, and summarized the purpose, scope, ant' findings of
      the inspection. The inspectors also discussed the likely informational
      content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes
      reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not
      identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.
                                          11
}}

Latest revision as of 16:03, 25 September 2020

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20137H492&oldid=2945688"