IR 05000454/1990001

Final SALP Rept 50-454/90-01 & 50-455/90-01 for Nov 1989 - Mar 1990

ML20055J160
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	07/20/1990
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20055J153	List: IR 05000454/1990001 ML20055J152
References
50-454-90-01-01, 50-454-90-1-1, 50-455-90-01, 50-455-90-1, NUDOCS 9008010138
Download: ML20055J160 (6)

Text

-.

l -,

.

I Enclosure 1 l SALP 9 FINAL SALP REPORT U.S. NUCLI.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III i

!

l SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE j Inspection Report Nos. 50-454/90001; 50-455/90001 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 'l l

!

November 1, 1989 through March 31, 1990

,s,;,

9008010138 900720 ADOCK0500ig"g4

,

{DR

,

__

--

.

.' ,

.

L Enclosure 1 Byron Units 1 and 2 i

A. Summary of Meeting with Commonwealth Edison Company on June 22, 1990 The findings and conclusions of the SALP Board are documented in Report Nos.- 50-454/90001; 50-455/90001 and were discussed with the licensee on June 22, 1990,- at Byron, Illinois.  !

While the meeting was primarily a discussion between the licensee and NRC, it was open to members of the public as observers.

,

The following licensee and NRC personnel were in attendance, as well as the noted observers.

Commonwealth Edison Company B. Thomas, President C. Reed, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations  !

L. De1 George, Assistant Vice President i T. J. Maiman, Vice President, PWR Operations - i K. L. Graesser, General Manager, PWR Operations i M. Wallace, Manager of Engineering R. Pleniewicz, Plant Manager, Byron Other licensee personnel

Nuclear Regulatory Commission A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator, RIII W. L. Forney, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects, RIII

,

M. J. Farber, Chief, Section IA, Division of Reactor Projects, RIII'

L. N. 01shan, Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, NRR T. ri. Boyce, Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, NRR W. J. Kropp, Senior Resident Inspector, Byron R. N. Sutphin, Resident Inspector, Byron

,

!

Other NRC' personnel Other D. Chavez, DAARE/ SAFE R. Personette, Ogle County ESDA, Assistant Coordinator D. Lyons, IDNS, Springfield E. Hinton, Managing Editor, Ogle County News J. Henry, Intern, Ogle County Newsoapers

O

. . ,

.

B. Comments Received from Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company's response to the Byron Initial SALP 9 Report dated July 16, 1990, included a comment that has resulted in a minor revision to the Initial SALP Report. This change is listed in Enclosure 2 and the revised page is included as Enclosure 3.

The affected page of the Initial SALP Report should be replaced with the corrected pages included in Enclosure 3.

C. Regional Administrator's Conclusions Based on Consideration of Licensee Comments I have concluded that the overall ratings in the affected areas have not changed.

t

.

..

'

-

,

• ~ t

.- .

6 6 Enclosurej REVISION SHEET PAGE- LINE NOW READS SHOULD READ 25 24-31 Generic. Letter 89-10 the staff had to

.......... discuss the request additional issue, information after reviewin the ,

licensee s first two responses to Bulletin 88-04,

" Safety-Related Pump Loss." ;

Basis: Original statement was in error.

l

.

.

.

The licensee's approach to the resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint was generally good. The licensee generally demonstrated a clear understanding of the safety '

issues associated with the licensing and regult. tory requirements.

For example, the approach taken for the struccural design of the spent fuel pool racks was conservative. Thr. licensee's sponses to NRC concerns regarding the Detailed Control Room 1 D ign Review (DCRDR) demonstrated an understanding of, and )

co itment to, DCRDR policies.

,

Anoth weakness was identified in the resolution of excessive lea kage n two essential service water containment valves. The licensee a p to consider TS requirements for the repair of these val h. he licensee usually initiated sound and thorough corrective s for equipment problems and operational concerns ide in LERs, deviation reports and NRC inspection reports. The ot cause analysis, corrective actions and technical appro hes sed by the licensee were sound and reflected a conse e epproach from a safety and regulatory perspective.

,

The licensee's initia ponses to Generic Letters and '

Bulletins were usually itted on scheoule. However, some of 1 the submittals were too requirements of the NRC uest r $ and'it was not were being met.clear Forthat the example, Generic Letter 89-10, "Saf lated MOV Testing and Surveillance," required lice to respond within 6 months and provide justification if hedule or recommendations in-the Generic Letter could not b The licensee's response was submitted within the six-mon justification for not meeting the h)utprovided~no ule or recommendations.

Instead, the licensee requested a et ig with the NRC to discuss the issue. Another example s the licensee's response to Bulletin 88-02, " Rapidly Propagati Fatigue Cracks in Steam Generator Tubes." It took more than a ar for the licensee to comit to the definition of " denting" de ribed in the Bulletin.

During the previous assessment period, the icensee's performance in resolving the Anticipated Tra ient Without Scram issue (10 CFR 50.62) was weak. This is e was finally l resolved during this period, although two more bmittals and.

additional conversations with the NRR staff were eeded.

In-general, the licensee appeared to be more cooper ive, informative, and timely when dealin with the issues hat'it deemed important to meet its needs such as spent fue ool.

expansionandseismicqualificationofdeepwells)than t was when responding to NRC generic concerns.

!

_ _

.

i l .

.

The licensee's approach to the resolution of't'echnical issues ,

from a safety standpoint was generally good. The licensee '

generally demonstrated a clear understanding of.the safety issues associated with the licensing and regulatory requirements.

For example, the approach taken for the structural design-of the spent fuel pool racks was conservative. The licensee's responses to NRC concerns regardi'a the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) demonstrated an understanding of, and commitment to, DCRDR policies.

Another weakness was identified in the resolution of excessive leakage on two essential service water containment valves. The licensee failed to consider TS requirements for the repair of these valves. The licensee usually initiated sound and thorough corrective actions for equipment problems and operational concerns identified =in LERs, deviation reports and NRC inspection-reports. The root cause-analysis, corrective actions and technical approaches used by the licensee were sound and +

reflected a conservative approach from a safety and regulatory perspective.

The licensee's initial responses to Generic letters and'-

Bulletins were usually submitted on schedule. However, some of

'

the submittals were too brief, and it was not clear that-the requirements of the NRC request were being met. For example, the staff had to request additional information after reviewing the licensee's first-two responses to Bulletin 88-04,

" Safety-Related Pump Loss." Another example was the-licensee's

'

response'to Bulletin 88-02, " Rapidly Propagating Fatigue Cracks.

in Steam Generator Tubes." It took more than a year for the i licensee to commit to the definition of " denting" described in the bulletin.

During the previous assessment period,'the licensee's performance in resolving the Anticipated Transient Without Scram issue (10 CFR 50.62) was weak. This issue was finally resolved during this period,.although two more submittals and

,

additional conversations with the NRR staff were needed. '

In general, the licensee appeared to be more-cooperative, informative, and timely when-dealing with the issues that it deemed important to meet its needs (such as spent fuel pool expansion and seismic qualification of deep wells) than it was when responding to NRC generic concerns.

.. , ,

- .. . . . .. .- --. __ - . - .

.,

.

• - ' - C mmin :ealth Edis n 1403 0 pus Place d Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 July 16, 1990

,

Mr. A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11I 799 Roosevelt Road .,

Glen Ellyn, Il 60137  :

i Subject: Byron Station Units 1 and 2

'

Response to the SALP 9 Board Report -

NRC Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 Reference (a): May 30, 1990, A. Bert Davis Letter to Cordell Reed Transmitting SALP 9 ,

Board Report No. 454/90001; 455/90001

Dear Mr. Davis:

!

Reference (a) transmitted the SALP 9 Board Report for Byron Station and summarized the station's performance rating for the period of November 1, 1988 through March 31, 1990. He appreciated the opportunity to discuss this report with members of the NRC Staff during the meeting held at Byron Station on June 22, 1990. The purpose of this letter is to provide Commonwealth Edison's comments.

He are pleased to receive the Category 1 rating in the areas of Plant Opersiions, Radiological Controls,. Emergency Preparedness, Security, and Maintenance /Survelliance. He are very pleased with the NRC's acknowledgement of the continued and dedicated efforts to achieve a high level.of excellence in performance by the management and staff at Byron Station. Every effort will be made to continue this high level of performance.

He appreciate the NRC staff's reconsideration of the Safety Assessments / Quality Verification comments relative to Generic. Letter 89-10.

In those areas that had exhibited weaknesses as identified by the NRC e staff and in our own self assessments, emphasis will be made to affect .

. appropriate improvements.

,

Please direct any comments regarding this response to the, Nuclear Licensing Department.

.

L.O. De1 George Assistant Vice-President

'

cc: NRC Document Control Desk Resident Inspector-Byron-Tom Boyce-NRR 4 ,. -

1 *

6 /sc1:ID105:1

'

N O 2U M h '

.

'JUL 1 g 1990

-