ML17199T450
| ML17199T450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712020249 | |
| Download: ML17199T450 (3) | |
Text
I*
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos. 50-237 50-249 November 25, 1987 Mr. Cordell Reed, Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Reed:
SUBJECT:
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION AT THE DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION ON AUGUST 17-28, 1987 This letter forwards the report of the Diagnostic Evaluation performed by a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) evaluation team over the period August 17 to August 28,.1987, involving activities authorized by NRC Operating License Numbers DPR-19 and DPR-25, for the Dresden Nuclear Power Station. This evaluation was conducted by a team of NRC headquarters and regional inspectors, and team leadership and support was provided by the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD).
As you are aware, this is a new NRC assessment tool that is intended to provide an independent assessment of licensee performance, and as such, its principal focus is on safety performance and not compliance with regulatory requirements.
Following the conclusion of the onsite evaluation, the findings were discussed at an exit meeting with you and members of your staff on September 23, 1987.
Additionally, you and other Commonwealth Edison Company officials met with me and members of my staff on October 28, 1987 to describe your overall plans for improving the safety performance at Dresden.
The NRC effort involved an assessment of Dresden's performance including personnel attitudes toward safety, management involvement in station operations, and the effect of recent improvement initiatives on station performance and personnel attitudes; and to determine, to the degree possible, the fundamental or probable causes that may underlie performance problems.
Particular attention was directed on the conduct of operations and the interfaces between operations and the functional areas of maintenance, surveillance testing, operator training, quality programs, and radiological controls.* Additionally, the programs for assuring quality in these areas were reviewed to determine their effectiveness.
Despite past and present improvement programs, a number of major weaknesses were identified.
These included maintenance (particularly of motor-operated valves), inservice testing (IST), communication, and operator training.
Because of a history of poor maintenance and testing practices, the team concluded that wear, aging, and the resultant accumulation of equipment deficiencies could cause system/component unreliability.
Further, the team found that communication was poor across the organization and that the operator requalification program remains unsatisfactory.
In addition, an immediate
- 0712020249a7112s--
PDR ADOCK 05000237 p
(
Mr. Cordell Reed safety concern associated with excessive operator overtime was identified by the team, and corrective actions were promptly taken by station management.
Based upon the extensive team assessment, both onsite and through subsequent analysis, it was concluded that the fundamental or root causes of Dresden's frequently low and fluctuating performance history were:
(a) Dresden had not received strong and indepth corporate attention in the past, (b) an attitude and approach existed that had not been directed at achieving or maintaining a high standard of safety performance, and (c) past improvement initiatives had been largely a reaction to findings by INPO and the NRC, and had not been developed in a specific and complete way to overcome Dresden deficiencies.
In addition, major weaknesses in maintenance, inservice testing, communications and training were significant contributors.
The evaluation results which include: (1) major findings and conclusions, (2) specific findings and conclusions, and (3) root cause determinations are included in Section 2 of the enclosed report.
Section 3 of the report provides the detailed evaluation findings.
Some of these items may be potential enforcement findings.
Any enforcement actions will be identified by our Region III Office.
In summary, Dresden's performance is currently judged to be on the low side of average with a slowly improving trend.
However, confidence is not high that, without additional major corporate involvement, Dresden's performance will show significant and sustained improvement.
This view is due to Dresden's fluctuating past performance history, the weaknesses in the present improvement initiatives, a lack of improvement initiatives in several critical areas, and limited financial and human resources.
During the week of November 16, 1987, I met with senior NRC managers and discussed the results of this Diagnostic Evaluation as well as other current information concerning the regulatory and operational performance of Dresden.
During our discussions it became apparent that the overall results of this Diagnostic Evaluation substantiated NRC senior management concerns that the Commonwealth Edison Company needs to make a substantial commitment to additional improvement initiatives. These initiatives are necessary in order to assure significant and sustained improvements in Dresden's safety performance.
I request that you evaluate the enclosed report and, that within 60 days of the date of this letter, you provide my office with an integrated improvement program with schedules, goals, objectives, action plans with milestones, and tracking and assessment methods.
This program should not only address the major weaknesses and root causes identified by the Diagnostic Evaluation, but should also include provisions for identifying and correcting other probable causes that may underlie performance problems.
Given the numerous weaknesses identified with your current and past performance programs, your response should specifically describe your plans and methods for providing greater assurance that this program will result in a sustained overall improvement in the safety performance at Dresden.
Mr. Corde 11 Reed *, {
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this evaluation, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.
Enclosure:
Diagnostic Evaluation Team Report for Dresden Nuclear Power Station DistLibution Cw/encl) itilms~
AEOD R/F Distribution (w/o encl)
ELJordan CJHeltemes DOA R/F RLSpessard DEIIB R/F SDRubin HBailey RPerch RFreeman Rlloyd AHowell DAllison
. JTaylor JJohnson WMTroskoski OSP TEMurley ABDavis, RIII RMartin, RIV JMartin, RV NGrace, RII WRussell, RI
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Sincerely, rO'J:'igj.inal s.igned by Vict.Ol'. Ste:l.Lo, Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations OFC
- DOA:DEIIB
- DOA:DEIIB
- DOA:DEIIB
- AEOD:DOA
- AEOD
- AEOD NAME :RFreeman
- HBailey
- SDRubin
- RLSpessard :CJHeltemes
- ELJordan e
e I
DATE :11/5/87
- 11/5/87
- 11/ /87
- 11/5/87
- 11/ /87
- 11/5/87 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'1
'I