ML20209B110: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[IR 05000461/1986005]]
{{Adams
| number = ML20209B110
| issue date = 04/21/1987
| title = App to SALP 6 Rept 50-461/86-05 for Sept 1985 - Aug 1986, Summarizing 861217 Meeting & Modifying Cetain Portions of Rept
| author name =
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation =
| docket = 05000461
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = 50-461-86-05, 50-461-86-5, NUDOCS 8704280364
| package number = ML20209B076
| document type = SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 6
}}
See also: [[see also::IR 05000461/1986005]]
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_
(
  .  .
  ,      .
    .    .
                                  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
i
            B. L. Siegel, Licensing Project Manager, NRR
;
            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
                                                                                                                                          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.
    \ \ '' .' ( .'                  *
i
                          '
                                          t
          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
                                                                                                                                        l
                                                                  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.          ,
                                                                                                l
                                                                                                l
                                                                                                ,
                                                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
4
                                    Maintenance Department; (panding the management of the4) consolida
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-
4
                                    implementation of its corrective action plan in this area.
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
.j                                                                      18
  _ __                    _    __          _ .__            _ . - _ .      -_ _ - _ _ _ _.          . . _ . -
}}

Latest revision as of 13:04, 19 December 2021

App to SALP 6 Rept 50-461/86-05 for Sept 1985 - Aug 1986, Summarizing 861217 Meeting & Modifying Cetain Portions of Rept
ML20209B110
Person / Time
Site: Clinton Constellation icon.png
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

i

B. L. Siegel, Licensing Project Manager, NRR

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

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.

\ \ .' ( .' *

i

'

t

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

l

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. ,

l

l

,

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

4

Maintenance Department; (panding the management of the4) consolida

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-

4

implementation of its corrective action plan in this area.

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

.j 18

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