ML20154S253

Trip Rept of 860303-07 Site Visit to Introduce Zwolinski to Key Personnel Throughout Util Nuclear Organization & to Observe Results of 3-wk around-the-clock Team Insp.Draft Summary of Insp Team Findings Encl

ML20154S253
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	03/26/1986
From:	Leech P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8604010018
Download: ML20154S253 (7)

Text

.

O O MAR 2g pggg Docket No. 50-293 LICENSEE: Roston Edison Company (RECo)

FACILITY: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS)

SUBJECT:

PLANT VISIT AND MEETINGS WITH LICENSEE, MARCH 3-7, 1986 During March 3-5, 1986, John A. Zwolinski, Director of RWR Directorate #1, and Paul Leech, Project Manager for Pilgrim Station, visited REco's Engineering Department in Braintree, Massachusetts, and Pilgrim Station near Plymouth, Massachusetts. The principal purpose of this visit was to introduce Mr. Zwolinski to the key personnel throughout RECo's nuclear organization and acquaint him with the status of Pilgrim Station. The-agenda included discussions of BECo's olanning and work flow processes, interactions between RECo and NRC, and a tour of the PNPS facilities.

Mr. Zwolinski and Mr. Leech also participated with Region I p0rsonnel in the SALP meetina with REco executives on March 3. Althouah REco received "1" ratings for licensing activities and refueling /outaae activities for the recent grading period, it received three "2s" and three "3s" for the other performance categories even though RECo apparently had exerted considerable effort to improve. Mr. Stenhen Sweeney, BEco's President, vowed to marshal whatever resources are necessary to achieve much better

. ratings in the future.

In addition', Mr. Leech remained at the station on March 4 and 5 as an observer of Region I's preparation and presentation of the results of its 3-week around-the-clock team inspection at Pilgrim Station. Attached is a copy of the draft summary of the inspection team's findinas. Overall, it indicates some improvement since the recent SALP grading period.

cv!;;c:::I s;;pa y Paul H. Leech, Pro,iect Manager BWR Pro.iect Directorate #1 Division of RWR Licensing

Attachment:

As stated cc: See next pace i DISTRIBUTION 7 Docket File;-

NRC PDR Local PDR BWD#1 Peading OELD EJordan RGrimes JZwolinski ACRS (10)

Pleech DRL:PD# DBL:PD#1 Pleech:tn JZwolinski 3 / 6 /86 S /tt./86 8604010018 860326 PDR ADOCK 05000293 a

PDR.

o- UNITED STATES f NMCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[:; .S .,,(#(N

^"i  ; WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

• March 26,1986 Docket No. 50-293 LICENSEE: Boston Edison Comoany (RECo)

FACILITY: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (FNPS)

SURJECT: PLANT VISIT AND MEETINGS WITH LICENSEE, MADCH 3-7, 19fl Durino March 3-5, 1986, John A. Zwolinski, Director of RWD Directorate #1, and Paul Leech, Pro.iect Manager for Pilgrim Station, visited RECo's Engineering Department in Braintree, Massachusetts, and Pilgrim Station near Plvmouth, Massachusetts. The principal purpose of this visit was to introduce Mr. 7wolinski to the key personnel throuchout RECo's nuclear oroanization and acquaint him with the status of Pilgrim Station. The agenda included discussions of RECo's olanning and work flow processes, interactions between BECo and NPC, and a tour of the PNPS facilities.

Mr. Zwolinski and Mr. Leech also participated with Region I personnel in the SALP meeting with REco executives on March 3. Although BECo received "1" ratinas for licensing activities and refueling / outage activities for the recent grading period, it received three "2s" and three "3s" for the other performance cateoories even though RECo apparentl.v had exerted considerable effort to improve. Mr. Stephen Sweeney, RECo's President, vowed to marshal whatever resources are necessary to achieve much better ratings in the future.

In addition, Mr. Leech remained at the station on March 4 and 5 as an observer of Pegion I's preparation and presentation of the results of its 3-week around-the-clock team inspection at Pilorim Station. Attached is a copy of the draft summary of the inspection team's findings. Overall, it indicates some improvement since the recent SALP grading period.

b Paul H. Leech, Pro.iect Manager BWR Pro.iect Directorate #1

' Division of RWR Licensing ^

l

Attachment:

As stated -

cc: See next pace -

g , _ . . . -

i Mr. William D. Harrington i Boston Edison Company Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station CC*

Mr. Charles J. Mathis, Station Mar.

Boston Edison Company RFD #1, Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Rox 867 Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Mr. David F. Tarantino Chairman, Board of Selectman 3 11 Lincoln Street

! Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 i Office of the Commissioner Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Quality Enaineering I

One Winter Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Office of the Attorney General 1 Ashburton Place 19th Floor l Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Mr. Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Program Massachusetts Department of Public Health 4

150 Tremont Street Roston, Massachusetts 02111 ,

Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. A. Victor Morisi Boston Edison Company ,

25 Braintree Hill Park l Rockdale Street *

• l Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 .

1

, )

l l

i

. ~ , . . _ . . . , . _ _ _ _ . , . . - _ _ _ , . . _ . _ . , _ . _ _ , . , , , _ , _ . _ , _ _ _ , _ _ , _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , , , . _ . _ . , _ _ _ . . , _ _ r .._,_ ., , _ , _ .

f~

'7Tkp S%in

! Inspection 50-293/86-01

SUMMARY

7] G Y<mdhyC qr%N trr  % D ^ 3 h \T> h i

em 1

.)Ic 1. NO EVIDENCE THAT PLdNT WAS OPERATED UNSAFELY.

l i 2. Development and implementation of management goals and

}

objectives and how are they understood and implemented at all

levels of the licensee's organization.

8 -- POLICIES ARE OFTEN VERBAL LEADING TO INCONSISTENT ,

PERFORMANCE.

3

-- Maint.

lack of admin. procedures. Lost MR's

-- HP: ROR's not completely filled out, i

$ POLICIES WERE SOMETIMES WEAKLY UNDERSTOOD OR ENFORCED

-- FP: reduction of firewatches, inop fire equipment

-- Friction in HP-OPS interaction evident.

-- Independent veri fication did not include tagging,

contrary to station policy.

4 b -- MANAGEMENT MEETINGS WERE SOMETIMES INEFFECTIVE.

-- 8:30 am meetings i g -- HOUSEKEEPING POLICY APPEARED TO BE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED. -

I

3. Planning and control of routine activities.

p -- PLANNING WEAKNESSES WERE EVIDENT IN OPS, MAINTENANCE, AND HP.

y .

1 PLANNING ,.,

6 5 -- OPS: RO Shortage, OPS Department support i i , .

! -- Maint.: lack of PM on breakers, 30 of 158 MR's l

! lost. l

. i

! -- HP: minimal ALARA planning for outage and for "A" l 1

1 i

. 6 i

t 2

priority RWP's i

_ CONTROL i

-- EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVE FIRST LINE SUPERVISOR INVOLVEMENT IN MOST CASES. .

}

j 4. Level of understanding and attitudes by workers and their i

supervisors of the potential impact of their day-to-day actions on nuclear safety.

? STRENGTHS 8 -- WORKERS AND THEIR SUPERVISORS CLOSELY FOLLOWED STATION,j PROCEDURES AND WERE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THEIR i j ACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SAFETY.

i i >& -- OPERATORS WERE KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE PLANT AND' CONDUCTED THEIR DUTIES IN A MANNER THAT STRESSED SAFETY.

i

, WEAKNESSES 87 -- HP: SUPERVISORS WERE EVIDENT IN THE FIELD, BUT LACKED GUIDANCE ON THEIR FIELD DUTIES.

i *k

-- OPS: WEAK POLICY ON ALLOWING RO's OUTSIDE THE PROTECTIVE AREA DURING SHIFT.

i

! i 1

) 5. Involvement by DECO senior management in the day-to-day j operation of the plant.

t I

yk -- SENIOR MANAGEMENT SEEMED TO BE INFORMED ABOUT PLANT 3 ACTIVITIES, BUT WAS DEFENSIVE ON SOME ISSUES.

i

_ STRENGTHS . .

I l

i watches

-- Senior management aware of problem DR's and *~_ fire i

t- ,.

WFAKNESSES

t 1

=

1

-- 8:30 meeting /

i i

I

,- ~ , .

-- fire protection problem resolution

-- RO st a f fi ng

-- OPS Department support

6. The effectiveness of training, direction, guidance, and supervision by first-line supervisors.

TRAINING

-- OPERATORS AND WORKERS WERE GENERALLY KNOWLEDGABLE.

30 -- WEAKNESSES IN OPS AND MAINTENANCE: RETS, B-20 4 Yb -- LACK OF FIRE WATCH TRAINING

_DIPECTION AND GUIDANCE 9C -- NO MAJOR PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED .3 3k -- SECURITY: ID BADGE INCIDENT

7. The adequacy of staf fing in light of planned accomplishments.

)R -- OPS STAFFING WAS-ADEQUATE TO OPERATE SAFELY, BUT ,

SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES WERE EVIDENT (RO STAFFING AND OPS SUPPORT).

Jt -- A SYSTEMS ENGINEER SUPPORT GROUP IS RECOMMENDED.

MAINTENANCE STAFFING IS CURRENTLY WEAK, BUT APPEARS TO '

BE IMPROVING.

O. The role of QA and DC in monitoring activ.itieseand how

• their reports are used by plant management. ,

.? 1

~

_STRENGiHS -

Ei --

SENIOR MANAGEMENT IS MADE AWARE OF PROBLEM DR's.' i i

p - WHERE USED, OA AUDITS AND SURVEILLANCES WERE *EFFECTIVE l IN IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS.

i

1 .

-- A FORMER LICENSED OPERATOR IS A DA AUDITOR.

! N -- THE TEAM DID NOT EXAMINE DR's IN DETAIL TO DETERMINE WHETHER'THE RESCLUTION OF PROBLEM DR's WAS TIMELY.

! WEAKNESSES

! N -- THE DA PROGRAM IS GENERALLY RESTRICTED TO MINIMUM NRC

! REQUIREMENTS, LIMITING ITS EFFECTIVENESS AS A MANAGEMENT j TOOL.

M -- LITTLE BACKSHIFT DA (NOT OC) INVOLVEMENT NOTED.

9. To deterinine the role of the licensee i n working with and overseeing contractor personnel.-

i i N CONTROL OF CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL WAS EVIDENT AND ,

i ACCEPTABLE.

l

10. The ef fectiveness of safety review committees.

[ ORC FUNCTIONED WELL DURING THE INSPECTION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SBLC MEETING (WOULD LIKELY HAVE APPROVED BENCH TESTING WITHOUT THE NRC PRESENCE).

i i

i k *

• i .

j .

4 ,

l i

- ,--r,- . , - - - , _ , - - , , - . , , - - , , - . . - , - - . , , . , . . ~,-, ~.-v,,--+-v,,,-,- .-p,-,n-nn-eng , - - , , --7,, , - ,.,.,-,-- - -, e--me, , , -e