IR 05000295/1987001

Corrected Pages to SALP Board Repts 50-295/87-01 & 50-304/87-01 for Oct 1985 - Nov 1986

ML20238A869
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	08/25/1987
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238A853	List: IR 05000295/1987001 ML20238A851
References
50-295-87-01, 50-295-87-1, 50-304-87-01, 50-304-87-1, NUDOCS 8708310248
Download: ML20238A869 (5)

Text

i T .

-

l 1

! SALP 6 Appendix SALP Board Report U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III l l

l l

I l

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance l

50-295/87001; 50-304/87001

'

Inspection Report N Commonwealth Edison Company Name of Licensee Zion Units 1 and 2 Name of Facility 8708310248 870825 PDR ADOCK 0S000295 G PDR October 1, 1985 through November 30, 1986 Assessment Period

'

,

o

\

\

_ _ - _ - _ _ _ -

l l *

1

.

!

1. Summary of meeting with Commonwealth Edison Company on March 25, 1987 The findings and conclusions of the SALP Board documented in Inspection Reports No. 50-295/87001; No. 50-304/87001 were discussed 1 with the licensee on March 25, 1987, at the Illinois State Beach .

Hotel, in Zion, Illinois. The licensee's regulatory performance  !

was presented and found acceptable in each functional area rate The following licensee and NRC representatives attended the meetin I Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)

B. Thomas, Executive Vice President C. Reed, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations D. Galle, Division Vice President, Nuclear Operations G. Plim1, Station Manager, Zion Station  !

and others of the CECO staff l Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety l M. Parker, Nuclear Safety Engineer R. Wright, Nuclear Safety Engineer l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator C. E. Norelius,-Director, Division of Reactor Projects J. A. Norris, Project Manager, Nuclear Reactor Regulation

,

'

M. M. Holzmer, Senior Resident Inspector, Zion Station and others of the NRC staff 2. Comments Received from Licensee The licensee had no written comment to make at this tim . Regional Administrator's Conclusions Based on Consideration of Licensee Comments

,

Based on the discussion at the SALP meeting with the licensee on March 25, 1 1986, the conclusions discussed in the SALP report remain applicable.

l l

l

---

_-______ _ __

. . .

,

.:

,

<

-DRAFT ,

~.

} .

S l

Errata Sheet Page! Line Now Read Should Read 1 32 -10 Seventy-three LERs were issued Eighty-nine LERs were issued i thru during this assessment period; during this assessment i 14 30 LERs were the result of period; 38 LERs were the result i personnel errors; 22 LERs of personnel errors; 27 LERs !

resulted from procedure; resulted from procedure  ;

inadequacies;"7 LERs were du inadequacies; 7 LERs were due to component / equipment failures; to component / equipment failures; 4 LERs were related to design- 8 LERs were related to design problems; and 10 LERs. fell problems; and 9 LERs fell into into other categories (i.e.,. the other categories (i.e., 1 '

unknown'...) unknown. . .-)

17 Personnel Errors 18 12 Personnel Errors . 25. 13 l thru Procedure Inadequacies 15 7 Procedure Inadequacies 16 11 1 Design / Construction 2'

'

19 2 Design / Construction 3- 5 23 Unknown Human' Errors 1 1 Unknown' Human Errors- .0 1-33 The frequency of occurrence of The frequency of occurrence o thru LERs was unchanged, since the LERs changed slightly since 39 previous SALP. During SALP 5 95 the previous SALP. _During SALP LERs were identified over-a 17 5, 95 LERs were identified-month assessment period or an over a 17 month assessment average of 5.3 per month period or an' average of 5.3 per compared to an average of month compared to an average of

, LERs per month during this 6.4 LERs per month during this l' assessment period. The assessment period. The l percentage of LERs which were percentage of LERs which were caused by personnel error caused by personnel error increased during this assessment increased during this assessment'

period from 32.7% to 41.1%. period from 32.7% to.42.7%.

Although,this percentage is not Although this percentage is not

~

.

considered excessively high, considered excessively high, the J l the number of LERs issued is... number of LERs issued is... j Basis - The number of LERs to be addressed in this SALP Report was erroneously listed ,

I as 73 instead of 89. This revision is reflected accordingly in the above -j

'

change !

!

l .;

-

l

7  ;

,

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

N ,,_.

w-wt .

[ .

)

A Review of Licensee Event Reports and 10 CFR 21 Reports

.

G.

r by the Licensee _ Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

f

) Unit 1 ,

Docket No.: 50-295 thru 860 . l 85040, 85042 thru 85047, and 8600 LERs Nos.:

l Unit 2 l Docket No.: 50-304 hr 860 85026 thru 85029 and 86001 l

-

LERs Nos.:

i sessment period; Seventy-three LERs were issued dur r , 22 LERs resulted 30 LERs were the result of perso nel r ue to component /

Rs from procedure inadequacies; 7 at o design problems; equipment failures; 4es, LERs and owere er). rand 10 LERs fell into the o human errors, external ca i _1_ Unit 2 CAUSE 1~2

Personnel Errorsqu te 15 7 Procedure In 2 2 Design / Con ru ton 0 1 i

External u 1 t 6 Compone t/E uip 5 2 Other 1 1 Unk wn Hum Er ors NOTE: The ove formation was derived from reviews of ent Reports performed by NRC Staff and Licens may not ompletely coincide with the unit or cause In assign nts which the licensee would mak d on, this table is based on assigning one cause ,

cd for each LER and does not necessarily correspond j t the identification of LERs addressed in the erformance Analysis Section (Section IV) where multiple cause codes may be assigned to each LE ll

'~

J kevious frequency of occurrence of LERs was unchang SAL month assessment period or an averaga of 5.3 per month compared to an The average of percentage of LERs perinonth LERs which during this were caused assessment perio by personnel error increased Although during this this percentage is notassessment perio from 32.7% to 41.1%.

considered excessively high, the number of LERs issued is high and improvements in both statistic is warrante .

'

w L jf o;'  : DRAFT 4-  ;

/ _ }

G. A Review of' Licensee Event Reports and 10'CFR 21 Reports Submitted by the Licensee Licensee Event Reports'(LERs)

i Unit 1 Docket No.: .50-295 l ,

LERs Nos.: 85032 thru 85047 and 86001 thru 86039 y

Unit 2 )

Docket'No.: 50-304 LERs Nos.: 85018 thru 85029 and 86001 thru 86022 l

Eighty nine LERs were issued during this assessment period; j

.38 LERs were the result'of personnel errors; 27 LERs resulted 1 from procedure inadequacies; 7 LERs were due to component / {

equipment. failures; 8 LERs were related to design problems; ,

and 9 LERs fell into the other categories (i.e., unknown ~ human' 1 errors, external causes, and other).

CAUSE UNIT 1 UNIT 2 Personnel Errors 25 13 Procedure Inadequacies 16- 11 Design / Construction 3 5 External Causes- 0 1 Component / Equipment 6 1 Other 5 2 l Unknown Human Errors 0 1 l- NOTE: The above information was derived from reviews of Licensee Event Reports performed by NRC Staff.and ,

may not completely coincide with the unit'or cause .j assignments which the licensee would make. In-addition, this table is based on assigning one cause i code for each LER and does not necessarily correspond to the identification of LERs addressed in the Performance Analysis.Section (Section IV) where multiple cause codes may be assigned to each LE The frequency of occurrence of'LERs changed slightly since j the previous SALP. During SALP 5,-95 LERs.were, identified  ;

l over a 17 month assessment period or.an average of:5.3 per 1 month compared to an average of.6.4~LERs per month during this assessment period. The percentage of LERs which were caused by personnel error increased:during this assessmen period from 32.7% to 42.7%. Although:this~ percentage is not .l considered excessively high,'the number of LERs issued is l high and improvements in both statistic is warrante I

j l

!

-- -_- _ _

$