ML20209B110

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
Issue date:	04/21/1987
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20209B076	List: ML20209B072 ML20209B110 U-600803, Responds to NRC & SALP Rept 6 for Sept 1985 - Aug 1986 U-600860, Provides Updated Status of Improvements Made in Areas of Maint & Quality Programs & Administrative Controls Affecting Quality,Per SALP Board Rept 6 Dtd 861128,
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

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