ML20005D932

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Initial SALP 8 Repts 50-295/89-01 & 50-304/89-01 for June 1988 - Sept 1989.Areas of Plant Operations,Maint/ Surveillance & Radiological Controls Each Received SALP Category 2.Engineering/technical Support Rated Category 3
ML20005D932
Person / Time
Site: Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date: 12/15/1989
From: Davis A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Reed C
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20005D933 List:
References
NUDOCS 9001020283
Download: ML20005D932 (3)


See also: IR 05000295/1989001

Text

-

A

%-

p

gg

( i Q . ef

f

p["

b

a

>

I

f-

f:

DEC 151999

,

-1

J

.

1

Docket No. 50-295

-Docket No. 50-304-

t

^I

,

Commonwealth Edison Company

~'

ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed

Senior Vice President

Post Office Box 767

,

Chicago, IL 60690-

Gentlemen:

<

' Enclosed .for your review, prior to our scheduled meeting of January 4,1990,

'

is the Initial SALP'8' Report for the Zion Nuclear Plant, covering the period

.

June 1,-1988 through September 30, 1989.

,

In accordance with NRC policy, I have reviewed the SALP Board Assessment and

!

concur with their ratings.

It is my view that your conduc.t of nuclear

'

y

activities 'in connection-with the Zion facility is satisfactory. The areas.

of. Plant Operations, Maintenance / Surveillance, and Radiological Controls

each received a SALP Category 2, remaining at a -consistent- level of perform-

ance.

I- note that o)erations management still occasionally continues to

narrowly interpret tie Technical Specifications and does not routinely consult

the Final Safety Analysis Report for operability considerations, as: also noted-

in the previous SALP Report. As a result, non-conservative decisions' on

system operability have occurred on several occasions.

For example, the-

o)erations staff did not consider the containment, spray system inoperable

'

wien.the suction path to one train used during the recirculation phase was

inoperable. This resulted in the unit exceeding the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> LCO action

..'

statement. More recently, the operability of the Emergency Diesel' Generators

was not questioned when the ventilation system that serves a support function

was found inoperable..

Engineering / Technical Support continued to be rated a Category 3.

There

were many examples of deficient operational conditions where engineering

involvement was lacking. Weaknesses were observed in engineering support

for maintenance and surveillance activities. Specifically, weaknesses were

noted in evaluation of problem root-cause, response to industry information

and vendor recommendations,'and formulation of post-maintenance testing

requirements. This resulted, for example, in accepting repeated failures

g

of battery-to-bus circuit breakers and failure to adequately test the

.p t'< O\\

$

9001020283 891215

PDR

ADOCK 05000295

G

PNV

.

9

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

- - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - -

a,

..

'

Commonwealth Edison Company

2 DEC 151999

auxiliary feed water pump overspeed trip function.

In a number of instances,

oversight and management of contractor services were inadequate.

For example,

failure'to establish a correlation between Main Steam Safety Valve testing

methods performed by.a contractor resulted in the plant cperating outside the_

i

.{

design basis twice during this assessment period. Management oversight of

preparations for the licensed operator requalification exam was insufficient

and the station's requalification program was found to be unsatisfactory.

Finally, weaknesses were noted in performance of safety evaluations, in

technical quality of many licensing submittals, and in the completeness of

surveillance procedures. We recognize that actions have been taken to

address many of these weaknesses.

You should continue to give close

management attention to your engineering and technical support activities.

Security was rated a Category 2 with a declining trend compared to a Category 1

during the previous assessment period. The performance decline was apparent

in the failure to adequately evaluate the impact of the new service building

construction on security barriers, and in management weaknesses associated

i

with this and other security matters. The Regulatory Effectiveness Review

i

(RER) of the security program also indicated significant performance weaknesses.

Emergency Preparedness was rated a Category 2, a decline from the previous

assessment period. The decline was attributed to plant performance weaknesses.

We acknowledge your aggressive actions to correct these weaknesses and that

the exercise was challenging. A new functional area, Safety Assessment / Quality

Verification, was rated a Category 2.

On the positive side, I note that extensive programs are )resently in place

to address weaknesses identified during this period. Altlough it is too

early to assess the effectiveness of these programs, improvements have been

noted in the areas of housekeeping, material condition and station personnel

communication and cooperation.

At the SALP meeting you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and

your plans to improve performance. The meeting is intended to be a candid

dialogue wherein any comments you may have regarding our report are discussed.

Additionally, you are requested to respond in writing specifically addressing

corrective actions planned to improve your performance in the areas of

Engineering /T.echnical Support and Security. This response should include

specific actions and dates by which these actions will be taken.

Your written

response should be provided within 30 days after the meeting. Your comments,

a summary of our meeting, and my disposition of your comments will be issued as

the Final SALP Report.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2,

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the Initial

SALP Report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

f

!

_ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ .

.

_

. . .

.

.

.

'

,

. , 7 e)

'

l

..

q

.

Comonwealth Edison Company

3 m 1 5 1999

Should you have any. questions concerning the Initial SALP Report,'we would be

pleased to discuss them with you.

,

'

Sincerely,

Original .oinod b;/

1. Bert Davio

A. Bert Davis

Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Initial SALP'8.

. Report Nos. 50-295/89001;

-!

50-304/89001

cc w/ enclosure:

T. J. Maiman, Vice President,

1

PWR Operations

' T. Kovach, _ Nuclear

..

Licensing Manager-

T. Joyce,-Station Manager

i

DCD/DCB (RIDS)'

Licensing fee Management Branch

-Resident Inspector, RIII

Richard'Hubbard.

.J. W. McCaffrey,-Chief, Public

Utilities Division

Mayor, City of Zion

~J. M. Taylor, ED0

' T. E. Murley, Director, NRR

K. M. Carr,. Chairman

T. M. Roberts, Comissioner

K. C. Rogers, . Comissioner.

J. R. Curtiss, Commissioner

F.' Remick, Comissioner

C.'P..Patel, NRR,-Project Manager

J. W. Craig, NRR Director, Project Directorate III-2

J. Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement

E. M. McKenna, SALP Coordinator, NRR

J. F. Wechselberger, NRR

RIII PRR

State Liaison Officer, State of Illinois

INP0

L. A. Reyes, RII

L. R. Greger, RIII

M. J. Pearson, RIII

L..L. Cox, RIII

RIII Files

y

RIIIp5

RIII

RIII

esRII

RII

RIII

RITI

7

a oun/gd

s

P

n SW

Gre

n

N

1

l

RII

RIII

(y

/g/g

/2

fj

\\Mkr

h

nh3

Pa ti llo

% 14

"M

.