ML20133G873
| ML20133G873 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1992 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G876 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701160197 | |
| Download: ML20133G873 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1992001
Text
-
..- _.
.-.
__ .
.
-
_
-.
. ~ _ - - -
_
.
._
.
hM
]
h
+RWC
UNITED STATES
[0,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
,
[
Q
REGION lil
",
"f
$
% . . . . . * ',4
CLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
OCT
81992
Docket No.
50-237; 50-249
l Apd, M g
/
/
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed
Senior Vice President
Opus West III
1400 Opus Place
Downers Grove,
IL 60515
Dear Mr. Reed:
Enclosed for your review, prior to our scheduled meeting of October 20, 1992,
is the initial SALP 11 Report for the Dresden Nuclear Station, covering the
period August 1, 1991, through July 31, 1992.
In accordance with NRC policy, I have reviewed the SALP Board Assessment and
concur with their ratings.
It is my view that your overall conduct of
nuclear-licensed activities in connection with the Dresden facility was
adequate.
The last SALP report discussed a decline in station performance that was
identified late in that assessment period. This decline continued into the
current period. To accurately assess this decline, NRC conducted a number of
inspections to provide better insight into your performance. Based on these
inspections it is now apparent that this decline was a result of significant
weaknesses in your management systems and controls and that, in some areas the
l
ratings assigned last period were too high. We also noted that many,
l
weaknesses brought to your attention in the previous SALP had not been
'
resolved at the end of this SALP.
Poor personnel performance and material
condition at Dresden station also contributed to the overall decline.
You have undertaken a number of initiatives to improve performance. These
include significant corporate management involvement in Dresden station
activities and increased resources applied to the station.
Further,
management changes have been made at the station, and a Dresden station
improvement plan has been developed and implemented. At this time it appears
that these initiatives are beginning to have a positive effect on performance;
however, it is still too early to predict their long term effect.
'
With respect to the individual functional areas, the Emergency Preparedness
!
l
and Security areas again retained their Category I ratings, with excellent
performance in each area. The Maintenance / Surveillance area maintained a
Category 2 rating. Problems with post-maintenance testing were again
identified, but better control was observed over emergent work during the Unit
3 refueling outage.
i
I
160039
,
\\
9701160197 921008
ADOCK 05000237
G
__
.-.
._
. .
.-
_ _ _ . - . _-
-
_-
-
.-
.
.
.
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
3
,
The Plant Operations area declined from Category 2 to Category 3.
.
Contributing to this decline was a number of operator errors, indicating a
l
lack of management effectiveness in controlling day-to-day operation of the
plant.
Ineffective communications and procedure quality and adherence were
also identified as problems throughout the assessment period. However,
conservative operating decisions throughout the assessment period were
observed.
Although there are serious issues requiring strong management attention in
Radiation Controls, I have decided this area warrants a Category 3 rating with
an improving trend in recognition of management efforts which have resulted in
'
continuing station personnel dose reductions, reduction in personnel
contamination events, and reduction in station and site contamination and
stored waste. Strong performance in reactor water quality chemistry, low
effluent releases and qualified radiation protection, chemistry and radwaste
!
personnel continued from the past assessment period.
However, plant worker
performance, especially the lack of support for radiation protection practices
and policies by line organizations outside the radiation protection department
must be addressed.
This matter remains uncorrected from the last SALP period
i
and has been over the years a recurring problem at Dresden.
Progress in
addressing this issue will be considered in future SALP evaluations.
The functional area of Engineering and Technical Support was assigned a
Category 3 rating. As in the last assessment period, weaknesses were noted in
resolution of identified issues as evidenced by a number of long-standing
equipment problems. Also, experience levels of technical staff continues to
be a concern.
Last assessment period we identified the need for close
management involvement in li' ht of these problems.
It is disconcerting that
g
management oversight of the technical staff remained weak.
Failure to
effectively address previous concerns contributed to the decline in the
rating.
In a positive vein, we note increased corporate engineering presence
onsite in support of the station and consider your recent vulnerability
assessment to be a positive initiative.
Finally, the Safety Assessment / Quality Verification functional area declined
to a Category 3.
The problems with the corrective actions program and the
delays in management resolution of concerns were the primary causes for this
decline. An improving trend was assigned to this functional area because of
the management improvement programs put into place during this assessment
period.
At the SALP meeting, you should be prepared to discuss our findings and your
plans to improve performance in the areas of Plant Operations, Radiation
Control's, Engineering / Technical Support and Safety Assessment / Quality
Verification. The meeting is intended to provide a candid dialogue in which
we may discuss any comments you may have regarding our findings.
Additionally, you are requested to respond in writing specifically addressing
corrective actions planned to improve your performance in the above areas.
.)
.
-
_
-.
. - .
-.
. _ _ ,
. -. . - . . .
.
-
-.
_
_ _ _ . . -
~ . . .
. - . -
. _
.
OCT
8 1992
Commonwealth Edison Company
3
This response should include specific actions and dates by which these actions
will be taken. Making reference to a pre-established improvement plan-is
acceptable in this response.
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 in 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 Public Document Room.
,
Should you have any questions concerning the Initial SALP Report, we Would be
pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
j
A.Bertbavis
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Initial SALP 11
Reports No. 50-237/92001;
No. 50-249/92001
Distribution
cc w/ enclosure:
D. Galle, Vice President, BWR
Operations
T. Kovach, Nuclear Licensing
,
Manager
C. Schroeder, Station Manager
R. Radtke, Regulatory Assurance
Supervisor
R. Hubbard
J. McCaffrey, Chief, Public
Utilities Division
R. Newman, Office of Public
Counsel, State of Illinois Center
INP0
.
.
~ . . - .
- - -
. -
- - - -
.-.
. . .
.
.
OCT
8 1992
Commonwealth Edison Company
4
i
Distribution Cont.
The Chairman
K. C. Rogers, Commissioner
J. R. Curtiss, Commissioner
F. J. Remick, Commissioner
E. G. de Planque, Commissioner
J. H. Sniezek, DEDR
T. E. Murley, Director, NRR
State Liaison Officer, State
of Illinois
Chief, LPEB, NRR (2 copies)
R. J. Barrett, NRR Director, Project Directorate III-2
B. L. Siegel, Licensing Project Manager, NRR
J. Lieberman, Director, OE
C. D. Pederson, RIII
W. G. Rogers, SRI, Dresden
Resident Inspectors, Clinton,
LaSalle, Quad Cities
L. L. Cox, RIII (2 copies)
TSS, RIII
DCD/DBC (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB
RIII Files
RIII PDR
9
1
%
.
.