IR 05000454/1987001
| ML20215J780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J775 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-87-01, 50-454-87-1, 50-455-87-01, 50-455-87-1, NUDOCS 8705080244 | |
| Download: ML20215J780 (10) | |
Text
- . - . - . _ . - .
. .
4 APPENDIX SALP 6 SALP BOARD REPORT
!
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
] REGION III
,
l l
-
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE 50-454/87001; 50-455/87001 Inspection Report N Commonwealth Edison Company Name of Licensee
Byron Station Units 1 and 2 Name of Facility November 1, 1985 through October 31, 1986 l Assessment Period i 8705080244 870501 I PDR ADOCK 05000454 4 O PDR i \
l
_ _ . _- .. _- - - - - _ _ - . - _ . _ ._- ._
.___ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
. . Summary of Meeting with Commonwealth Edison Company on January 28, 1987 The findings and conclusions of the SALP Board documented in Inspection Report Nos. 50-454/87001; 50-455/87001 were discussed with the licensee on January 28, 1987 in the NRC Regicnal Offices in Glen Ellyn, Illinoi The licensee's regulatory performance was presented and found acceptable in each functional are The following licensee and NRC personnel attended the meetin Commonwealth Edison Company C. Reed, CECO, Vice President, Operations B. L. Thomas, CECO, Executive Vice President N. E. Wanke, CECO, Assistant Vice President, Nuclear Services j T. J. Maiman, CECO, Vice President K. L. Graesser, CECO, Division Vice President R. E. Querio, CECO, Byron, Station Manager W. J. Shewski, CECO, General Office Manager, QA l
R. C. Ward, CECO, Byron Station, Services Superintendent K. A. Ainger, CECO, General Office, Nuclear Licensing Administrator J. T. McIntire, CECO, RR Division Superintendent W. D. Pirnat, Ceco, Byron Station, Regulatory Assurance J. J. Pausche, CECO, Byron Station, Regulatory Assurance G. K. Schwartz, CECO, Byron Station, Assistant Superintendent Maintenance R. T. Vivian, CECO, Byron Station, Mechanical Maintenance General Foreman R. R. Lucas, Ceco, Byron Station, Security Administrator A. J. Chernick, CECO, Byron Station, Operational Engineer L. F. Gerner, CECO, General Office, Regulatory Assurance Superintendent K. J. Hansing, CECO, General Office, Director of W. J. Dean, CECO, Byron, Onsite Nuclear Safety Analyst i
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety B. Metrew, Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i J. G. Keppler, Regional Administrator A. B. Davis, Acting Regional Administrator l S. A. Varga, NRR Project Director L. N. Olshan, Project Manager, Licensing Branch 1 R. F. Warnick, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 1 W. L. Forney, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1A J. M. Hinds, Senior Resident Inspector, Byron R. M. Lerch, Project Inspector, Byron J. W. McCormick-Barger, Reactor Inspector B. Comments Received from Licensee By letter dated February 27, 1987, the licensee provided written comments on the SALP Report in accordance with the forwarding lette __
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . ..
. .
In regards to the comment relative to Section IV.H., Outages, we agree and the appropriate change is reflected in the attached errata shee This change has no bearing on the overall rating in this functional area and it will remain the same.
j In regards to the comment relative to Section IV.J, Licensing Activities,
! following further review with the NRC Licensing Project Manager and the CECO Nuclear Licensing Administrators, we agree with the facts as stated
, and appropriate changes have been made in the report as reflected in the attached errata sheet. This change has no bearing on the overall
' '.
rating in this functional area and it remains the sam Regarding the comment relative to Section IV.V., Training and Qualification Effectiveness, we agree with the facts as stated. Based j on the fact that the comment constitutes a statement of understanding, no changes are required and there is no effect on the overall rating in
'
this functional are C. Regional Administrator's Conclusions Based on Consideration of Licensee Comments Based on my review of the comments provided by the licensee and the resulting changes, I have concluded that the overall ratings in the affected areas have not changed.
4 In evaluating the overall operational and regulatory performance of the newer plants, Byron is rated as one of the most improved performers in Region III over this time period. The actions initiated in recent months by the licensee in response to weaknesses identified in the SALP report should result in continued overall improvements for the next assessment period.
I l
!
i l
.
_ _ . _ . . _ _ _ , _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ . - _ _ _ . . , _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ ,_
. .
ERRATA SHEET Page Line Now Reads Should Read 3 17 D. Surveillance 2 2 D. Surveillance 3 2 Basis - SALP 5 rating for Surveillance was erroneously listed in the SALP 6 report as Category 2 when it should have been listed as Category .... No. 454/85048). .... No. 454/86002).
Basis - The wrong inspection report was listed in the SALP repor ... action with regard to ... action with regard to thru the reported event. It was the reported events, however, 36 noted, however, that there five late reports lead us were 3 Immediate Notifica to conclude that the ....
tions of inoperability of the process computer, with subsequent loss of emer-gency assessment over a 4 day period with no followup report on cause or measures taken to correct deficiencie This and five late reports lead us to conclude that the
...
Basis - Through discussions between the licensee, the HQ Licensing Project Manager and Region III it was determined that the reporting requirements related to the inoperability of the process computer had been me Therefore, this statement is incorrect and is hereby withdraw l l
l l
l l
l
3
'
o
III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS A total of 13 Functional Areas were rated in this SALP. Lic see performance in four areas improved from Category 3 to Categ y 2 so that there were no Category 3's assigned in this SALP. Tw Functional Areas sustained Category 1 performance and five areas re ned at Category The Functional Area of Training and Qualif ation Effectiveness had not been used in prior a ssments a was rated a Category 2. As noted below, the Function Area of istruction which was also rated Category 2 is the combin n of con ruction Functional Areas used in prior assessments. These r were ombined due to limited activity and inspection in thi asse e perio Ra n t Rating This Functional Area eri / Period Trend Plant Operations 2 improving Radiological Controls 3 2
~ Maintenance 2 Surveillance '2 2 Fire Protection 2 2 Emergency Prepa s 1- 1 Security 3 2 improving Outages 1 (initial fuel load) 1 QualitM ro ralNb nd Ad nd Controls A ectin u ity 2 2 Licens ivities 2 2 raining d Qualification 2 f veness *
re ational Testing 2 2 truction **
. 2
Not r ted as a separate functional area in previous SALP ** Co truction during this assessment period includes the functional areas
-
Containment and Other Safety-Related Structures, Piping Systems and i upports, Instrumentation and Control Systems, and Electrical Power Supply and Distribution, which all received Category 2 ratings during the last SALP assessmen .
III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS A total of 13 Functional Areas were rated in this SALP. Licensee performance in four areas improved from Category 3 to Category 2 so that there were no Category 3's assigned in this SALP. Two Functional Areas sustained Category 1 performance and five areas remained at Category 2. The Functional Area of Training and Qualification Effectiveness had not been used in prior assessments and was rated a Category As noted below, the Functional Area of Construction which was also rated Category 2 is the combination of construction Functional Areas used in prior assessments. These areas were combined due to limited activity and inspection in this assessment perio Rating Last Rating This Functional Area Period Period Trend Plant Operations 3 2 improving Radiological Controls 3 2 Maintenance 2 2 Surveillance 3 2 Fire Protection 2 2 Emergency Preparedness 1 1 Security 3 2 improving Outages 1 (initial fuel load) 1 Quality Programs and Administrative Controls Affecting Quality 2 2 Licensing Activities 2 2 Training and Qualification 2 Effectiveness * Preoperational Testing 2 2 Construction ** 2 l
Not rated as a separate functional area in previous SALP ** Construction during this assessment period includes the functional areas l of Containment and Other Safety-Related Structures, Piping Systems and i Supports, Instrumentation and Control Systems, and Electrical Power Supply and Distribution, which all received Category 2 ratings during the last SALP assessmen l l
3 l l
.
. .
.
There were two security events reported to the NRC und 73.71(c) during the assessment period. These. reports re l
accurate; however, one of the two was late, resulti in a
'
l Severity Level IV violation. The first event occu ed in the !
beginning of the assessment period and involved t vital area access control problem which resulted in a Sever ty Level III violation discussed above. The second ev nt ined to a guard allegedly sleeping while performin c ensatory measure The licensee properly analyzed the two ve and initiated i appropriate corrective actio . Conclusion h
The licensee is rated Category 2 wi an improving trend in this area. The licensee was rated ategory 3 in this area in the last SALP. The improved rati is based on the licensee
! security staff's effectiveness reversing a trend of repeated access control violations and i establishing an effective security operation.
l 4 BoardRecommendationA I
!
Non ' Outages l Analysis Q-l Three major outages occurred during this assessment period; there were no ye' fueling outage activities. This functional area was examined in portions of five inspections conducted by resident nspectors. Activities covered included reviews
'
of outage p nagement, including scheduling of parallel path and non parallel path wor One Seferity Level IV violation was identified for failure to perfpts surveillance testing on a containment isolation valve following maintenance, due to the use of blanket out-of-services du/ing an outage (Inspection Report No. 454/85048). This violation was identified by the licensee in an LER and
/ correcthe actions were taken to prevent recurrenc /h g Management involvement has increased in this area with the h establishment of an Assistant Superintendent - Work Planning position in the production department. This individual
- coordinates the outage schedule and planning functions in
. one location; monitors outage performance against planned I schedule; and identifies critical path areas for increased management attention. A 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> outage schedule is continually updated to take advantage of any unplanned outag l
17
. - _ _ _ - - - _ _ . _ . - _ _ ._ _ .
. _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
. .
There were two security events reported to the NRC under 73.71(c) during the assessment period. These reports were accurate; however, one of the two was late, resulting in a Severity Level IV violation. The first event occurred in the beginning of the assessment period and involved the vital area access control problem which resulted in a Severity Level III violation discussed above. The second event pertained to a guard allegedly sleeping while performing compensatory measure The licensee properly analyzed the two events and initiated appropriate corrective actio . Conclusion The licensee is rated Category 2 with an improving trend in this area. The licensee was rated Category 3 in this area in the last SALP. The improved rating is based on the licensee security staff's effectiveness in reversing a trend of repeated access control violations and in establishing an effective security operatio . Board Recommendation Non H. Outages Analysis Three major outages occurred during this assessment period; there were no refueling outage activities. This functional area was examined in portions of five inspections conducted by resident inspectors. Activities covered included reviews of outage management, including scheduling of parallel path and non-parallel path wor One Severity Level IV violation was identified for failure to perform surveillance testing on a containment isolation valve following maintenance, due to the use of blanket out-of-services during an outage (Inspection Report No. 454/86002). This violation was identified by the licensee in an LER and corrective actions were taken to prevent recurrenc Management involvement has increased in this area with the establishment of an Assistant Superintendent - Work Planning position in the production department. This individual coordinates the outage schedule and planning functions in one location; monitors outage performance against planned schedule; and identifies critical path areas for increased management attention. A 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> outage schedule is continually updated to take advantage of any unplanned outag ,. .
(Incompleteness of the plant delayed issuance of the lice e until November 6, 1986.)
Management involvement and control in assuring qualit was satisfactory. The licensee's decision-making was us 11y at a level that ensures adequate management review. Th submittals needed to support licensing of Unit 2 were almost 1 ways timely, thorough, and technically sound. Howeve , as a result of the extensive effort involved in icensing it 2, some of the more routine items were not ubmitted a timely basi The licensee's overall approac o res ion of technical issues from a safety standpoi sati factory. The licensee understood the technical iss an onses were generally sound and thorough. Conser w generally exhibite Licensee responsiveness n atives was goo In the weeks prior to the issua Unit 2 low power license, the licensee responded to many C initiatives in a timely manner and proposed resolut that were acceptable to the staf In nearly all other i stances throughout the rating period, licensee responses NRC initiatives were timely, technically soun oug , and found acceptable by the NR Plant staffi sa Key positions are identified and responsibili es d thorities are well defined. The staff that will p 2 has extensive experience on Unit 1; shift advis f were needed on Unit 1, are not needed on Unit ticipated that the well-trained and experi n staff will provide a smooth startup of Unit ued smooth operation of both unit B th late Notifications and the Licensee Event Reports s the most part, that the Licensee took appropriate acti regard to the reported events. It was noted, however, hat there were 3 Immediate Notifications of inopera 111ty of the process computer, with subsequent loss of eme gency assessment, over a 4 day period with no followup repo on causes or measures taken to correct deficiencie and five late reports lead us to conclude that the ensee's licensing activities need more management attentio onclusion The licensee is rated Category 2 in this area. The licensee was rated a Category 2 in this area in the last SAL . Board Recommendation Non !
-_ - -. _ __ .-_-. __ _ _ . _ _ _ . - - -. - _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ - _ -
- -- - . .. . _ - _ _ _ _ _
,
. .
A
'
. (Incompleteness of the plant delayed issuance of the license until November 6, 1986.)
Management involvement and control in assuring quality was
satisfactory. The licensee's-decision-making was usually at a level that ensures adequate management review. The submittals needed to support licensing of Unit 2 were almost always timely, thorough, and technically sound. However, as a result of the extensive effort involved in licensing Unit 2, some of the more routine items were not submitted on a timely.
- basi The licensee's overall approach to resolution of technical
'
issues from a safety standpoint was satisfactory. The licensee '
understood the technical issues and responses were generally sound and thorough. Conservatism was generally exhibite Licensee responsiveness to NRC initiatives was good. In the weeks prior to the issuance of the Unit 2 low power license, the licensee responded to many NRC initiatives in a timely manner and proposed resolutions that were acceptable to the +
staf In nearly all other instances throughout the rating '
period, licensee responses to NRC initiatives were timely,
- technically sound, thorough, and found acceptable by the NR Plant staffing is ample. Key positions are identified and
,
responsibilities and authorities are well defined. The staff that will startup Unit 2 has extensive experience on Unit 1; shift advisors, which were needed on Unit 1, are not needed on Unit 2. It is anticipated that the well-trained and
) experienced Unit 1 staff will provide a smooth startup of Unit 2 and continued smooth operation of both unit Both the Immediate Notifications and the Licensee Event Reports suggest, for the most part, that_the Licensee took appropriate action with regard to the reported events, however, five late reports lead us to conclude that the licensee's licensing activities need more management attentio ; 2. Conclusion i
i The licensee is rated Category 2 in this area. The licensee was rated a Category 2 in this area in the last SALP.
i 3. Board Recommendation t
Non ,__ _ _ _ - _ -. _ . _ . ~ _ _. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _..