ML17191A825
| ML17191A825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Byron, Braidwood, Quad Cities, Zion, LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1998 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Kingsley O COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9808130136 | |
| Download: ML17191A825 (9) | |
Text
(
I
§P-..Z.37 k>f'f' /,2"517/zr..;
UNITED STATES 5t>,.-:Z'f7/~/f /373(;7r~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
WASHINGTON, Q.C. 20555-0001 August 6, 1998 Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley President, Nuclear Generation Group Commonwealth Edison Company A TIN: Regulatory Services Executive Towers West Ill 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, IL 60515
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
This letter pertains to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs review of a letter dated January 5, 1998, and the supplemental letter dated February 17, 1998, from you to the Executive Director for Operations of the NRC. These letters relate* to the NRC's January 27, 1997, request for information pursuant to 1 O CFR 50.54(f) regarding safety performance at Com Ed nuclear stations.
As stated in the NRC's May 27, 1997, letter, the staff reviewed ComEd's initial response dated March 28, 1997, to the request for information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f). On the basis of that review, the NRC concluded that ComEd's response provided a broadly based and reasonable set of actions that, if effectively implemented, should enhance the capability of Com Ed to operate, monitor, and assess its nuclear stations while sustaining performance improvement at each site.
Thus, the NRC determined that ComEd's response satisfied the NRC's January 27, 1997, request for information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f).
In the January 5, 1998, letter to the NRC, you described the strategic priorities and management processes that Com Ed had established for the Nuclear Generation Group (NGG), to focus that organization on necessary actions to improve ComEd's nuclear program. As described in the January 5, 1998, letter, these strategic priorities and processes, termed Strategic Reform Initiatives (SRls), were intended to support four overarching goals: Operational and Technical Excellence, Material Condition, Organizational Alignment and Workforce Engagement, and Effective Leadership and Management, which were considered by ComEd to be critically important to the success.of its improvement efforts. In addition, ComEd stated in the January 5, 1998, letter that an evaluation of the improvement efforts Com Ed committed to in its response to the January 27, 1997, 50.54(f) letter, would be conducted to determine the need for any changes, including modifications, enhancements, or deletions, to the original 50.54(f) commitments. By letter dated February 17, 1998, the.results of this evaluation were provided to the NRC.
As described in the February 17, 1998, letter, Com Ed determined that the effectiveness of the original 50.54(f) commitments had been somewhat limited and that they had not halted cyclic performanqe. ComEd further concluded that the 50.54(f) approach focused on discrete work activities rather than the broad, fundamental processes, effectiveness measures, and results which Com Ed views as necessary to drive improvement. Com Ed stated that the SRls are intended to address the root causes for the NGG's continued cyclic performance: (1) a primary
.~*
9808130136 9808~--.~-~
PDR ADOCK 05000237 P
- 0. Kingsley focus on specific actions, such as the 341 commitments by ComEd in response to the 50.54(f) commitments, rather than on performance and results; (2) improvement efforts that did not always focus on basic processes, including the fundamentals of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Support; (3) roles and responsibilities of the corporate organization that were not always clearly defined, including accountability for and rigor in implementation of programs; and (4) the corporate *organization and the sites were not sufficiently integrated, including oversight by corporate and lessons learned across the sites.
In its February 17, 1998, letter, ComEd confirmed that the SRls envelope each of the 50.54(f) commitments, with the exception of those commitments regarding the restart of LaSalle and Zion Stations. ComEd stated that for LaSalle Station, the 50.54(f) commitments detailing specific actions to address restart planning issues are included in the Station's Restart Plan. In the case of Zion Station, ComEd will only be implementing those 50.54(f) commitments necessary to place the plant in a SAFESTOR condition.
The NRC considers your letters of January 5 and February 17, 1998, to be responsive to the NRC's January 27, 1997, request for information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f).
Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, L. J seph Callan Exe utive Director for Operations Docket Nos.: 50-456*; 50-457; 50-454; 50-455; 50-237; 50-249; 50-373; 50-374; 50-254; 50-265; 50-295; 50-304 License Nos.: NPF-72; NPF-77; NPF-37; NPF-66; DPR-19; DPR-25; NPF-11; NPF-18; DPR-29; DPR-30; DPR-39; DPR-48 cc: See ne:xt page
-~
August 6, 1998 focus on specific actions, such as the 341 commitments by ComEd in response to the 50.~4(f) commitments, rather than on performance and results; (2) improvement efforts that did not always focus on basic processes, including the fundamentals of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Support; (3) roles and responsibilities of the corporate organization that were not always clearly defined, including accountability for and rigor in implementation of programs; and (4) the corporate organization and the sites were not sufficiently integrated, including oversight by corporate and lessons learned across the sites.
In its February 17, 1998, letter, ComEd confirmed that the SRls envelope each of the 50.54(f) commitments, with the exception of those commitments regarding the restart of LaSalle and Zion Stations. ComEd stated th~t for LaSalle Station, the 50.54(f) commitments detailing specific actions to address restart planning issues are included in the Station's Restart Plan. In the case of Zion Station, ComEd will only be implementing those 50.54(f) commitments necessary to place the plant in a SAFESTOR condition.
The NRC considers your letters of January 5 and February 17, 1998,Jo be responsive to the NRC's January 27, 1997, request for information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f).
Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
- Sincerely,
'0 1
- ~-
"'<'-'1:
d" lWlg.il.t1~ ~ligThs OJ
. JLO J. Canan.
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Docket Nos.: 50-456/50-457; 50-454;tS0-455;Y 50-237./50-249/50-373* 50-374*/
50-254f50-265; so-295;-50-304'
- License Nos.: NPF-72; NPF-77; NPF-37; NPF-66; DPR-19; DPR-25; NPF-11; NPF-18; DPR-29; DPR-30; DPR-39; DPR-48 cc:
See next page See Attached Distribution DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\5054(f).EDO To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box *c* = Copy without attachmenUenclosure "E" = Copy with attachmenUencl OFFICE Rill G Riii NAME DATE OFFICE NRR NAME DATE
J. Rowe e
- ..2-focus on specific actions, such as the 341 commitments by ComEd in response to the 50.54(f) commitments, rather than on performance and results; (2) improvement efforts that did not always focus on basic processes, including the fundamentals of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Support; (3) roles and responsibilities of the corporate organization that were not always clearly defined, including accountability for and rigor in implementation of programs; and (4) the corporate organization and the sites were not sufficiently integrated, including oversight by corporate and lessons learned across the sites.
In its February 17, 1998, letter, ComEd stated that, based on a review of the 50.54(f) commitments which confirmed that the SRls envelope each of the 50.54(f) commitments, the 50.54(f) commitments have been replaced by the SRI Work Plan action items, with the exception of those commitments regarding the restart of LaSalle and Zion Stations. Com Ed stated that for LaSalle Station, the 50.54(f) commitments detailing specific actions to address restart planning issues are included in the Station's Restart Plan. In the case of Zion Station, ComEd will only be implementing those 50.54(f) commitments necessary to place the plant in a SAFESTOR condition.
In addition to submitting the January 5 and February 17, 1998, letters to the NRC, ComEd described the SRls and discussed how they relate to the 50.54(f) commitments in a Commission meeting on June 30, 1998. As you know, the NRC currently has substantial regional and headquarters staff resources assigned to augment oversight for several of your nuclear stations.
The NRC intends to closely follow the implementation and results of the SRI work plans. The NRC will continue to monitor station performance individually and system-wide performance so that improvement initiatives at each station can be evaluated and negative safety /performance trends can be identified as early as possible. The NRC staff will also assess whether your staffs actions in response to plant events or issues. at one facility are impacting perfofmance at other ComEd facilities. ComEd's ability to manage improvement initiatives at one,station, without negatively impacting safety perfo_rmance at another station, is critical to ~n'esting cyclic performance. Based on the results of the NRC's ongoing inspection and performance assessment programs, the NRC will consider the need for further regtifatory action.
/~
Sincerely, 1/
L. Joseph Callan/
Executive Dire9t6r for Operations Docket Nos.: 50-456;A50-457; 50-454( 50-455/
/
50-237;/50-249; 50-373/S0-37 4;
/,
50~254;/50-265; 50-295; 50-304 _, / 1 License Nos.: NPF-72; NPF-77; NPF-37; NPF-66;
/
DPR-19; DPR-25; NP-f-11; NPF-'18;
/
See Attached Distribution DPR-29; DPR-30; DPR-z3; D. ~-48 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\COME0\\50~4, f).EDO
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box "C/-.Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE Rill I
,Rill I
NRR I
NRR I
NAME Mparker:nh*
1 Mdapas*
Srichards*
EAdensam*
DATE 07/09/98
/
07/09/98.
07/09/98 07/09/98
/
OFFICE NRR
/I Rill I
NRR I
EDO I
NAME BBoger*
I CPaperiello*
SCollins*
JCallan DATE 07713/98 I 07/10/98 07/15/98 071 /98
/
Ot-t-l~IAL ttC'-'V tD CO~Y
- t I
/
J.Rowe
- focus on specific actions, such as the 341 commitments by ComEd in response to the 50.54(f) commitments, rather than on performance and results; (2) improvement efforts that did not always focus on basic processes, including the fundamentals of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Support; (3) roles and responsibilities of the corporate organization that ere not always clearly defined, including accountability for and rigor in implementation of pro rams; and (4) the corporate organization and the sites were not sufficiently integrated, inclu
- g oversight by corporate and lessons learned across the sites.
/
1 In its February 17, 1998, letter, ComEd stated that, based on a review of the 5.54 commitments which confirmed that the SRls envelope each of the 50.54(f) rn' ments, the 50.54(f) commitments have been replaced by the SRI Work Plan action ~s ith the exception of those commitments regarding the restart of LaSalle and 90~ tations. ComEd stated that for LaSalle Station, the 50.54(f) commitments detailing specifi actions to address restart planning issues are included in the Station's Restart Plan. Jrf th case of Zion Station, ComEd will only be implementing those 50.54(f) commitments nece ary to place the plant in a SAFESTOR condition.
/
/
In addition to submitting the January 5 and February 17, J99sfetters to the NRC, ComEd described the SRls and discussed how they relate to t~e ~:54(f) commitments in a Commission meeting on June 30, 1998. As you know, the NRC cµfrently has substantial regional and headquarters staff resources assigned to augme.nt;*~~efsight for several of your nuclear stations.
The NRC intends to closely follow the implementat!,cm and results of the SRI work plans. The NRC will continue to monitor station performa11c~ndividually and collectively, as well as corporate performance, so that improvemenJ !Pitiatives at each station can be evaluated and negative safety performance trends can be identified as early as possible. The NRC staff will also assess whether your staff's actions iwfesponse to plant events or issues at one facility are impacting performance at otherComEd}~cilities. ComEd's ability to manage improvement.
initiatives at one station, without negatfvely impacting safety performance at another station, is critical to arresting cyclic performande: Based on the results of the NRC's ongoing inspection
/
and performance assessment prqgrams, the NRC will consider the need for further regulatory action.
.//
Docket Nos.:
1
/
Sincerely, L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations 50-4 6; 50-457; 50-454; 50-455; 50 37; 50-249; 50-373; 50-37 4; 5 -254; 50-265; 50-295; 50-304 License Nos.: NPF-72; NPF-77; NPF-37; NPF-66; DPR-19; DPR-25; NPF-11; NPF-18; DPR-29; DPR-30; DPR-39; DPR-48 See Attached Distribution DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\COMED\\5054(f).EDO
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE Rill Rill NRR NRR NAME Mparker:nh*
Mda as*
Srichards*
EAdensam*
DATE 07/09/98 07/09/98 07/09/98 07/09/98 OFFICE NRR Rill NRR EDO NAME 880 er*
CPaperiello*
SCollins*
JCallan DATE 07/13/98 07/10/98 07/15/98 071 198
J.Rowe e
2 e
focus on specific actions, such as the 341 commitments by ComEd in response to the
.54(f) commitments, rather than on performance and results; (2) improvement efforts that
- not always focus on basic processes, including the fundamentals of Operations, Mainte ance, Engineering, and Support; (3) roles and responsibilities of the corporate organiza
- n that were not always clearly defined, including accountability for and rigor in implementatio of programs; and (4) the corporate organization and the sites were not sufficiently integrated, including oversight by corporate and lessons learned across the sites.
In its February 17, 1998, letter, ComEd stated that, based on a review oft 50.54(f) commitments which confirmed that the SRls envelope each of the 50.54 commitments, the 50.54(f) commitments have been replaced by the SRI Work Plan actio terns, with the exception of those commitments regarding the restart of LaSalle and ion Stations. Com Ed stated that for LaSalle Station, the 50.54(f) commitments detailing ecific actions to address restart planning issues are included in the Station's Restart Plan. n the case of Zion Station, ComEd will only be implementing those 50.54(f) commitments ecessary to place the plant in a SAFESTOR condition.
I In addition to submitting the January 5 and February 17, 1998, letters to the NRC, ComEd described the SRls and discussed how they relate to the 50.54(f) commitments in a Commission meeting on June 30, 1998. As you know, the NRC currently has substantial regional and headquarters staff resources assigned to augment oversight for your poorer performing nuclear stations. The NRC intends to closely follow the imp(ementation and results of the SRI work plans. The NRC will continue to monitor station performance individually and collectively, as well as corporate performance, so that improve ent initiatives at each station can be evaluated and negative safety performance trends can b identified as early as possible. The NRC staff will also assess whether your staff's actions i response to plant events or issues at one facility are impacting performance at other ComEd acilities. ComEd's ability to manage improvement initiatives at one station, without negatively mpacting safety performance at another station, is critical to arresting cyclic performance. B sed on the results of the NRC's ongoing inspection and performance assessment programs, he NRC will consider the need for further regulatory action to foster results.
Sincerely, L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Docket Nos.: 50-456; 50-457; 0-454; 50-455; 50-237; 50-24 ; 50-373; 50-374; 50-254; 50-2
DPR-19, IJPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, DPR-29;pPR-30; DPR-39; DPR-48 See Attached Distribu£on
~~i~~;P~~~~~~;i.~~~~~~~;~2~~~2*:t~~ attachme:~!:u~~~~~y~! ~~~:~~~;e~;~! copy OFFICE Rill I
I Rill I
NRR I
NRR I
NAME Mpark¢r:ph*
Mdapas*
Srichards*
EAdensam*
DATE 07109/f;JB 07/09/98 07/09/98 07/09/98 OFFICE NRR I
Rill I
NRR I
EDO I
NAME BBoger*
CPaperiello*
SCollins*
JCallan DATE 07/13/98 07/10/98 07/15/98 071 /98 OFFICIAL RECO tD COPY
-.. I JUL-16-1998 1s:05 NRC RI I I DRP 630 515 1102 P.05/07
- J.Rowe e the root causes for the NGG's continued cyclic performance
- (1) a primary focus on specific actions, such as the 341 commitments by ComEd in response to the 50.54(f) commitments, rather than on performance and results; (2) improvement efforts that did not always focus on basic processes, including the fundamentals of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Support; (3) roles and responsibilities of the corporate organization that were not always clearly defined, including accountability for and rigor in implementation of programs; and (4} the corporate organization and the sites were not sufficiently integrated, including oversight by corporate and lessons learned across the sites.
In its February 17, -1998, letter, ComEd stated that, based on a review of the 50.54{f) commitments which confirmed that the SRls envelope each of the 50.54(f) commitments, the 50.54(f) commitments have been replaced by the SRI Work Plan action items, with the exception of those commitments regarding the restart of LaSalle and Zion Stations. ComEd stated that for LaSalle Station, the 50.54(f) commitments detailing specific actions to address restart planning issues are included in the Station's Restart Plan. In the case of Zion Station, ComEd will only be implementing those 50.54(f) commitments necessary to place the plant in a SAFESTOR condition.
As you know, the NRC currently has substantial regional and headquarters staff resources assigned to augment oversight for your poorer performing nuclear stations. The NRC intends to closely foliow the implementation and results of the SRI work plans. The NRC will continue to monitor station performance individually and collectively, as well as corporate performance, so that improvement initiatives at each station can be evaluated and negative safety performance trends can be ic!entified as early as possible. The NRC staff will also assess whether ~ur staffs actions in response to plant events or issues at one facility are impacting performance at other Com Ed facilities. ComEd's ability to manage improvement initiatives at one station,,.'1ithout negatively impacting safety performance at another station, is critical to arresting cyclic performance.
/
/
Sincerely, L. Joseph Callan Executive Directer.
- for Operations Docket Nos.: 50-456; 50-457; 50-454; 50-455; 50-237; 50-249; 50-373; 50-374; 50-254; 50-265; 50-295; 50-304 License Nos.: NPF-74; NPF-77; NPF-37; NPF-66; DPR-19; DPR-25; NPF-11; NPF-18; DPR-29; DPR-30; DPR-39; DPR-48 See Attached Distribution DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\COMED\\5054(f).EDO To receive a co of lhis document. indicate in the bolC "'C" =Co without attachment/enclosure "E" =Co OFFICE NAME MParker:nh DATE 071 198 OFFICE NAME DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
,/
JCallan 071 /98
- 0. Kingsley cc:
M. Wallace, Senior Vice President D. Helwig, Senior Vice President G. Stanley, PWR Vice President
- J. Perry, BWR Vice President D. Farrar, Regulatory Services Manager I. Johnson, Licensing Director DCD - Licensing T. Tulon, Braidwood Site Vice President K. Graesser, Byron Site Vice President M. Heffley, Dresden Site Vice President F. Dacimo, LaSalle Site Vice President J. Dimmette, Jr., Quad Cities Site Vice President J. Brons, Acting Zion Site Vice President K. Schwartz, Braidwood Station Manager D. Wozniak, Acting Byron Station Manager P. Swafford, Dresden Station Manager T. O'Connor, LaSalle Station Manager W. Pearce, Quad Cities Station Manager R. Starkey, Zion Plant General Manager T. Simpkin, Braidwood Regulatory Assurance Supervisor D. Brindle, Byron Regulatory Assurance Supervisor F. Spangenberg, Dresden Regulatory Assurance Manager P. Barnes, LaSalle Regulatory Assurance Supervisor C. Peterson, Quad Cities Regulatory Affairs Manager R. Godley, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor R. Hubbard, MHB Technical Associates N. Schloss, Economist, Office of the Attorney General Mayor, City of Zion State Liaison Officer State Liaison Officer, Wisconsin Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission W. Leech, Manager of Nuclear MidAmerican Energy Company
- 0. Kingsley DISTRIBUTION:
SAR (E-Mail)
NRR Project Mgrs.
Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Zion, Quad Cities C. Paperiello, Riii J. Caldwell, Riii B. Clayton, Riii SRls Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Quad Cities, Zion DRP TSS DRS (2)
Riii PRRI PUBLIC)Bfi_
Docket File GREENS IEO (E-Mail)
DOCDESK (E-Mail)
I