ML20033B593

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards IE Mgt Appraisal Insp Rept 50-295/81-04 (Pas) on 810420-0515
ML20033B593
Person / Time
Site: Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date: 08/11/1981
From: Moseley N
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Reed C
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20033B591 List:
References
NUDOCS 8112010551
Download: ML20033B593 (5)


See also: IR 05000295/1981004

Text

'

,

il

>

>-

,,

_

<

~-

~

~-??

  • - ~ ' !;'

-<-

t m;-ym,

p

V4;

^+

Je

' a*

c

.g

@

f

'

Enel CChTAi!G 10 0F2 2.703) m70NTEi

AUG 111981

-

.

Docket No. 50-295

Commonwealth Edison Company

ATTil: Mr. Cordell Reed

Vice President

P. O. Box 767

Chicago, Illinois 60690

Gentlemen:

Subject: Management Appraisal 50-295/81-04 (PAS)

This refers to the management inspection conducted by Messrs. D. G. Hinckley,

'el. Ang, J. L. Belanger, G. flapuda, and C. R. Oberg of the Performance Appraisal

Section of the Division of Program Development and Appraisal, Office of Inspec-

tion and Enforcement, on April 20 - May 1, and May 11-15, 1981, of activities

authorized by NRC Operating License DPR-39, for the Zion, Unit 1. Nuclear

Station at Zion, Illinois, and the Commonwealth Edison Company Corporate

Offices in Chicago, Illinois; and to the significant observations discussed

with you and others of your staff on May 1,1981, at the corporate offices and

on May 15, 1981, at the Zion station.

This inspection is one of a settes of management appraisal inspections being

conducted by the Performance Appraisal Section of the Division of Program

Development and Appraisal, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The results

of this inspection will be used to evaluate the performance of your management

control systems on a national perspective. The enclosed appraisal report

includes observations which may be potential enforcement findings. These

items will be followed by the IE Regional Office. The enclosed appraisal

report also addresses other observations and the conclusions made by the team

for this inspection. Section 1 of the report provides further infomation

regarding the observations and how they will be utilized. Appendix A to this

letter is an Executive Summary of the conclusions drawn for the ten functional

areas inspected.

Nine of the areas inspected were considered average and one area was considered

to be above average.

However, weaknesses were identified in all areas. You are

encouraged to review and evaluate these weaknesses and take appropriate actions

to improve your existing management controls over licensed activities.

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

Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, your facility security procedures are

exempt from disclosure; therefore, the pertinent section of the Appraisal

Report, Attachment ' A' will not be placed in the Public Document Room and will

receive limited distribution.

-

=>

. .- . .n , g.

..

.

.

. .. ~.

..... . .......

. . . ....

.

.....

.

.

-,

suaw m )

0112010551 010817

~

" '

'

' ' '

'

PDR ADOCK 05000295

"

  • >

0

. g. . . i . .

PDR,.

.

..

. . . . . .

.

.

.

, uwo ma-ama

NRC FORM 318 hO HCt NRCM O240

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

l

.

,

[

-

y

,

,

,.

,

,

,

,

s

,

,

Commonwealth Edison Company

-2-

AUG 1119S1

Attachment B to this report is a detailed listing of the persons contacted and

the documents reviewed during this inspection.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's

Public Document Room.

If this letter contains any infomation that you

believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary

that you:

(a) notify this office by telephone within ten days from the date

of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b)

submit within twenty-five days from the date of this letter a written appli-

cation to this office to withhold such information.

If your receipt of this

letter has been delayed such that less than seven days are available for your

review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be

established.

Consistent with section 2.790(b)(1), such application must be

accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which

identifies the document or part thereof sought to be withheld, and a full

statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the

information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further

requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed

in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incor-

porated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.

If we do

not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the

report will be placed in the Public Document Room.

If you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to

discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

6

Norman C. floseley, Director

Division of Program Development

and Appraisal

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

1.

IE Management Appraisal Report 50-295/81-04 (PAS)

Distribution:

2.

Appendix A

IE File

3.

Attachment A*

IE Rdg

4.

Attachment B

RFHeishman cy

JGPartlow cy

JMTaylor cy

NCMoseley cy

/

1

PAB:PDA:Ik

omcM

PDA:

D :P

Il y"

D:PDA:IE

"

"

""

" "

so - 4 WDS

er:pl hbtlow \\'

UfU y, [

fkbkh,,

,,

,,

~> E/.../81

.fu l . . /.81. .

. at, p j,81. .

8/f,/,, /81..

,

,

,

,,

,

,

NRLFORM 318110 t3OI N R C M O 2 4 0

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

sum %3-

6

.

.

-

.

.

-

.

,

Commonwealth Edison Company

-3-

Aug1;jgg)

,

Distribution:

(w/ Attachments A* and B)

Chairman Palladino

w/o Attachment A*

Commissioner Gilinsky

PDR

Commissioner Bradford

LPDR

Commissioner Ahearne

NSIC

Commissioner Roberts

~ OCA(3) '

TIC

RIII Reading Room

OPE

W. J. Dircks, EDO

State of Illinois

H. R. Denton, NRR

All Licensees

W. Haass, NRR

E. P. Wilkinson, INPO

S. H. Hanauer, NRR

D. Godard. Oregon Department

B. Burnett, NMSS

of Energy

G. W. McCorkle, NMSS

.

C. Michelson, AE0D

H. Boulden, OIA

SALP Chairman

J. Kohler, NRC Senior Resident Inspector

J. H. Sniezek, IE

V. Stello, IE

H. D. Thornburg, IE

N. C. Moseley, IE

'

J. M. Taylor, IE

,

PAS Files

Regional Directors

Central Files

NRR Project Managers

SECY

.

n>

.

.

.

.

.

Appendix A

'

,

Executive Summary

A team of five NRC inspectors from the Performance Appraisal Section conducted

an announced inspection at the Zion Station. and Commonwealth Edison Company

Offices during April 20 - May 15, 1981.

Management controls in ten areas were

inspected.

Nine areas were considered average and one area was considered to be

above average.

A sumary of the results of the inspection is given below.

Committee Activities:

Average (Section 2).

Both the onsite and offsite

review and investigative groups were composed of qualified and capable

individuals.

The number of available participants and the practice of evenly

c

distributing review items enhanced the quality of the review effort.

The

principal weaknesses were the lack of a requirement to document the significant

items discussed or evaluated during the review process, the lack of provisions

for documenting minority opinions or differing viewpoints, and the failure to

routinely review QA audit reports.

Quality Assurance Audits:

Average

(Section 3).

The independent auditing by

offsite teams of the same treas audited by the onsite audit staff was a posi-

tive indication of the licensee's commitment to quality assurance. Management

supported the quality assurance function, and employees accepted QC and QA

activities and requirements.

Weaknesses included the lack of formal documen-

tation of the effectiveness of various program elements audited, the lack of

effective trending of audit findings, and the lack of a formal retraining

program for auditors.

Design Changes and Modifications: Average

(Section 4).

An effective program

for the control of facility design changes and modifications had been estab-

lished and implemented. Significant weaknesses were the lack of external

design interface controls and the lack of a system for correcting generic

design deficiencies.

Maintenance:

Average (Section 5).

A maintenance program had been implemented,

and all maintenance was required to be controlled and documented by the use of

maintenance work requests.

Weaknesses included the lack of control of vendor

technical manuals, the lack of a formalized preventive maintenance program,

and inadequacies in the work request system to keep shift personnel apprised

of maintenance activies.

Plant Operations:

Average _

(Section 6).

An effective program had been imple-

mented for the operation of the Zion station.

Personnel interviewed were

knowledgeable of their responsibilities, exhibited good morale, and had a

positive attitude toward plant safety.

Significant weaknesses included

inadequacies in the control of jumpers and lifted leads and the lack of a

method to ensure that all records, identified as being maintained in active

working files, were eventually transferred to Central Files.

Corrective Action System: Ab~oTe Average LSection 7).

A corrective action program

had been implemented.

Responsibilities were well defined for tracking and

closecut of identified problems.

Corrective action was timely.

Significant

weaknesi:es were the lack of a trending program, particularly for equipment

failures and malfunctions, and the lack of a comprehensive listing of

standards and guides to which the licensee was committed.

_

.

..

.

.

-

.

.

Appendix A (Continued)

-2-

Licensed Training:

Average (Section 8).

A strong replacement training

program nad ceen implemented.

The program emphasized safe plant operations.

The retraining program needed additional instructors to provide a balanced

work load, and there was a lack of training department administrative pro-

cedures.

Non-Licensed Training:

Average (Section 8).

Beyond general employee

training, non-licensed training was the r?sponsibility of the.various

departments. Training was being performed; however, a formalized program had

not been fully established inlsome areas, particularly maintenance.

There was

a need to identify personnel' qualifications and subsequent training require-

ments for each job classification. Management had recognized this need and

was taking action in this area.

Procurement: Average (Section 9). tianagement had established policies and

procedures to control procurement activities. One weakness in the program

covered the lack of direction for handling potential 10 CFR 21 items identified

by vendors or organizations outside of CECO.

In addition, safety-related

material storage did not conform with certain ANSI N45.2.2 requirements.

Management took immediate action to ccrrect these weaknesses.

Physical Protection:

Average (Section 10).

Strong management support, adequate

maintenance support, effective communications channels,.and properly maintained

security systems characterized the site security program.

Weaknesses included

the absence of trending of security deficiencies to identify recurring problems,

certain aspects of the training program-for the contract security ' force, and

understaffing within the corporate nuclear security office.

Summary:

The licensee had established written policies and procedures for the areas-

inspected.

Procedures identified those responsible for the various activities.

Personnel appeared to be qualified and knowledgeable in their areas of responsi-

bility.

The programs had been implemented and were being monitored by management

in most areas.

Some weaknesses, however, were identified in all areas. These

,

'

findings should be evaluated and appropriate actions taken to further enhance

the ef fectiveness of the overall management control system.

The apparent

major contributors to the existing overall effectiveness of the licensee's

management control system were corporate management's commitment to quality

assurance, their effective communications with station management, and their

continual monitoring of the status of corrective actions taken on audit

findings.

i

!

i

!

I

i

!

i