ML20154L463
| ML20154L463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1998 |
| From: | Grant G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Kingsley O COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9810190310 | |
| Download: ML20154L463 (22) | |
Text
e October 14, 1998 Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley -
President, Nuclear Generation Group Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Regulatory Services Executive Towers West lli 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove,IL 60515
SUBJECT:
NRC PUBLIC MEETING
SUMMARY
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
The NRC staff met with Comnionwealth Edison and LaSalle County Station management on September 15,1998. This management meeting was open to public observation. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss experiences and performance during the recent Unit 1 startup and plans for Unit 2 improvements to facilitate its future restart. Enclosure 1 contains the associated meeting summary. Enclosure 2 contains the handout provided to the NRC staff by Commonwealth Edison during the meeting.
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 its enclosures will be placed in NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, Original signed by Geoffrey E. Grant, Director Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos: 50-373;50-374 License Nos: NPF-11; NPF-18
Enclosures:
- 1. Meeting Summary
- 2. Licensee Meeting Handout See Attached Distribution:
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\LASA\\LASO9158. SUM To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box "C" = Copy w/o attacn/enci"E" =
Copy w/ attach /enci"N" = No copy OFFICE Rlli l ff Rill l8 Rlli l
l NAME Hills /mi Mk Lanksbury QPi-Grant,. 6;tC5(
DATE so-r7-43
\\o B W
\\b it4(Ju OFFICIAL RECORD COPt 9810190310 981014 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P
PDR p
.,n-
.gg.
O. Kingsley cc w/encis:
1 D. HeFulg, Senior Vice President H. Stanley, PWR Vice President C. Crane, BWR Vice President
' R. Krich, Regulatory Services Manager D. Greene, Licensing Director DCD - Licensing F. Dacimo, Site Vice President T. O'Connor, Station Manager
. P. Bames, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor R. Hubbard :
N. Schloss, Economist Office of the Attomey General State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Distribution:
i EN S. Collins, NRR w/encls E. Adensom, NRR w/encis B. Boger, NRR w/encls l
F. Miraglia, NRR w/encls L'. Gerke, OCA w/encls SAR (E-Mail)
RPC (E-Mail)
L Project Mgr., NRR w/enci l-J. Caldwell, Rill w/enci
- C.- Pederson, Rlll w/enci B. Clayton, Rlli w/enci l.
SRI LaSalle w/enci l
/
DRS (2) w/enci
/
/
Rill PRR w/enci -
\\
i.
L PUBLIC IF 01 enci 4
(
Docket File el
' GREENS IEO (E-Mail)
DOCDESK (E-Mail) a rCS
,nn u-
.m 4
<f
l
~,
ll-Public Meeting Summary LaSalle County Station l
September 15,1998 Manaaement Meetina l
Summary.
The licensee provided the NRC representatives with a handout (Enclosure 2) and discussed the information contained in the handout during the meeting. The discussion centered around the startup of Unit 1 and the status of activities related to Unit 2. The areas discussed regarding the Unit 1 startup included the power ascension activities, plant material condition, l
lessons leamed from the startup, human performance during startup, and the assessment of LaSalle's performance from the Nuclear Oversight orcanization. Topics discussed related to Unit 2 included the status of the Unit 2 Restart Plan, fne schedule of restart activities, and how l
the lessons leamed from the Unit 1 Restart Plan wero being applied to the Unit 2 restart effort.
The licensee specifically provided the following information:
The licensee discussed Unit 1 startup activities including the various testing evolutions, problems encountered, circumstances related to the manual scram which resulted from a feedwater transient, and other lessons leamed related to the operators' response to events.
The licensee discussed the effectiveness of material condition improvements as demonstrated by experiences during the Unit 1 startup.
A plant operator discussed his experiences related to plant performance during the i
startup and power ascension and to the material condition improvements. The operator indicated that the plant operated better than it had in the past arid the material condition improvements were effective. The operator also indicated that training, i
particularly on the simulator, and procedures had also improved.
The L;,ensee was still concemed with improvements in daily support to operations and believed additional action was necessary to change the culture at LaSalle Station.
Lessons teamed from the Unit 1 startup included:
i Troubleshooting equipment problems was problematic, although the licensee recognized some successes in this area. The licensee believed improvements were needed in the ability to "fix problems dead."
[
Plant rework resulted from human performance problems, procedure deficiencies, and design issues.
I i
1 l
4 I
m
The on-line maintenance program was problematic, particularly immediately following startup. The licensee determined, through an assessment of the on-line maintenance process at LaSalle Station, that work was needed to improve the process and the licensee generated an action plan.
Continuous support to the operations organization to resolve issues proved to be successful.
Human performance at LaSalle was improving although sorr e events occurred that involved problems in this area. The licensee implemented corrective actions to address programmatic aspects of the human performance errors. Configuration control remained an issue of concem and was being addressed ' y station management.
u Operations performance during the startup was good. The operators conducted the startup in a deliberate and controlled manner. The licensee continued to reinforce the need for operators to demand that the support organizations at LaSalle Station resolve operational problems in a timely manner.
The scorecard program results indicated that improvement of the line managers in the operations department was warranted. The licensee implemented continuous management oversight prior to and during the startup. The licensee considered this a good tool for reinforcing performance expectations.
The issues identified by the Nuclear Oversight organization's assessments of plant performance were consistent with the issues addressed by plant management.
Howevs
'ie licensee emphasized the need to continue with the additional management oversight.
The Unit 2 plans were proceeding, although a schedule had not yet been completed.
The plans for separating the Unit 2 activities from Unit 1 activities were partially implemented, primarily in the actual physical separation of Unit 1 from Unit 2.
i Some Jessons leamed from Unit 1 restart activities included the need to stress quality, particularly in the engineering and design areas.
During the discussion, the NRC staff communicated the following questions or items for consideration:
The NRC staff further discussed the operators' impressions related to the training program, plant procedures, and the plant response during the startup.
The NRC staff was interested in the licensee's plans for continuing material condition improvements on Unit 1 while work was being completed on Unit 2. The NRC staff requested that the licensee discuss the backlog of maintenance activities on Unit 1 during a future meeting.
The NRC staff emphasized the importance of applying lessons leamed from the Unit 1 startup activities to the Unit 2 restart efforts. The licensee needed to evaluate material 2
condition improvements that were not completed on Unit 1, but in retrospect, would be beneficial to complete on Unit 2 to prevent problems during restart or to improve the ability to meet the goal of an uneventful run.
Broader issues related to the overall performance of LaSalle Station and the status of l
+
Unit 2 restart activities should be discussed during future public meetings. Specific l
topics for potential discussion during the next public meeting include the progress related to the management oversight of operations shift activities, the Unit 1 l
maintenance backlog status, Unit 1 operating experience over the operating period i
from startup to the meeting, and the plans for the Unit 2 outags includirig the scope of j
work that was planned.
J l
l
\\
Meetina Attendees i
l Nuclear Reaulatory Commission
'. Caldwell, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 111 l
J G. Grant, Directcr, Division of Reactor Projects, Region lli S. Richards, Director, Project Directorate lil-2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation R. Lanksbury, Acting Chief, Branch 2, Division of Reactor Projects, Region lll l
M. Huber, Senior Resident inspector, LaSalle, Division of Reactor Projects, Region lil D. Skay, Project Manager, Project Directorate ill-2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Commonwealth Edison O. Kingsley, President, Nuclear Generating Group D. Helwig, Senior Vice-President S. Perry, Vice-President of Boiling Water Reactor Operations J. Benjamin, Vice-President, Nuclear Oversight F. Dacimo, Site Vice-President, LaSalle T. O'Connor, Station Manager, LaSalle l
D. Farr, Operations Manager, LaSalle Unit 1 J. Amould, Operations Manager, LaSalle Unit 2 G. Heisterman, Maintenance Mr.nsger, LaSalle Unit 1 T. Dobbs, Unit 2 Restart Manager W. Riffer, Quality and Safety Assessment Manager, LaSalle P. Barnes, Restart Manager, LASE,Ile Other attendees from Commonwealth Edison were also present.
i l-4
]
3 L
4 4
5 ENCLOSLIRE 2
)
i 4
4 1
J i
Licensee Meeting Handout i
m o
I EEEE l
LaSalle County NRC Public Meeting September 15,1998
=
LaSalle 1
4 i
i E E RIl Agenda 1
Introduction F. Lacimo Unit 1 Restart j
- Power Ascension Time Line D. Farr
- Material Condition D. Farr I
- Lessons Learned G. Heisterman
- Human Performance T. O'Connor 4
- Nuclear Oversight Review W. Riffer Unit 2 Restart t
i
- Restart Plan T. O'Connor j
- Project / Schedule T. Dobbs
- Unit 1 Lessons Learned J. Arnould LaSalle 2
E Ef LaSalle Power Ascension RCIC O/S Test Mn Turbine Test Condition RCIC (failed)
On-Line
- 1 Complete S/U Critical S/D S/U Operable Run O
O O
O O
O O
O O
8/l 8/l 8/2 8/4 8/7 8/9 8/l1 8/12 8/l7 IRM's RCIC RR RVDT T/C Manual Mn Turbine Test Condition Test Condition
- 2 Scram S/U On-Line
- 2 Complete 100 %
- 3 Complete o
O O
O O
O o
8/17 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/23 8/26 9/2 1A TDRFP i
LaSalle l
3 i--v-
-.,,-.-=,e,,..-.,_.y c%g,
,,,,,,,_,,y
WEEll Unit 1 Power Ascension l
Test Condition 1 (8/1-17/98) l
> RCIC turbine overspeed trip problems i
> Reactor recire RVDT feedback i
> 8/4 Shutdown to address Intermediate Range Monitors l
I l
l Test Condition 2 (8/17-23/98) l
> 8/19 Manual Scram: 1A TDRFP control card failure Test Condition 3 (8/23 to 9/2/98)
> 100% power @ 0606 on 8/26
> Released to Bulk Power Operations 8/27 LaSalle 4
l M MI Major Material Condition Issues I
l Reactor Water Cleanup Repiped suction, new pumps, isolation i
- System trips at low power valve replacements; no pump S/U & S/D cavitation
\\
l Electrohydraulic Control Rebuilt pumps, system flushing, electronic card refurbishment,
- Repetitive reactor trips (6) l complete system calibration / valve tuning i
Feedwater Level Control Refurbished electronics, added oil
- Feed pump controls fight filters, complete calibrations and 4
l each other; reliability poor tuning, both TDRFP in 3 element auto control LaSalle s
l
EEEll hfajor Material Condition Issues i
Heater Drain Controls Modified 11 & 12 heater
- Heater cascading in normal normal / emergency drain valves, l
drain control mode vs.
transmitter replacements, complete riding on emergency drains system integrated tuning i
l Control Room / Aux Electric New system: ductwork, supports, l
Room Ventilation insulation, complete flow balancing;
- Cooling and envelope system fully meets design /T.S.
pressurization requirements
- T.S. pressurization requirements not being met LaSalle 6
I
! EEMil Other hfaterial Condition Issues i
> 350 Modifications; > 13,000 Work Requests Control Rod Drives - modified CRD FCU cage design to eliminate flow oscillations i
l Fuel Pool Cooling - both FC emergency makeup pumps l
rebuilt with stainless casings i
Condensate / Condensate Booster - rebuilt pumps, new l
l impellers, new min-flow valve control system l
SRM/IRM - replaced cables to eliminate noise SBM Switches - > 1100 rer aced Klocaler-Moeller Relays - > 700 inspected; > 150 l
replaced l ^
LaSalle
~
7
.,w-iem
_e,-y,.civw_
1 4
l Unit 1 Power Ascension EEEIl Lessons Learned i
l Troubleshooting l
Rewori j
Transition from Outage to Online Scheduling 4
Planning for major activities
- Simulator Usage l
- Contingencies Support organization around-the-clock coverage Operations Capability LaSalle 8
-.,, I.,,_ _ _... _.,. __-......
]
l 1
1
! EEEIl Human Per ormance Station Event Free Clock 1
l Average Days Between Events 16 -
,o
/_.
- ~._.
12 10-i i
n l
8 8--
!Ie-Currently 24 Days Event Free o
2-l 0
A e4 eta
- t k
8 i
aA i
i k
i A
I LaSalle 9
N
-as-
'v-,--,
g
,-=ee--g,a%g%
,,._m.
i i
~
i Unit 1 Power Ascension i EEEIl Human Performance Observations i
Events i
- Failure to document temperature / pressure readings for a surveillance j
- Reactor Water Cleanup isolations i
- APRM flow converters set non-conservatively due to a i
calculational error l
- Swapped out-of-service cards on RBCCW pump Operations performance i
LaSalle 10
-..~.... _. _.. _,. _..,. _ _ _.. -.,.... - _. _. _
i Unit 1 Power Ascension EEEIl i
Nuclear Oversight Review 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> / day coverage Review at each test condition change Overall good performance Issues
> Troubleshooting
> Planning
> Lessons Learned Operations performance LaSalle 11
I;.,-
i l Egggl Unit 2 Restart Plan Revision 3 submitted to NRC on 9/14/98 Similar to Unit 1 Plan l
- Same Restart Issue Screening Criteria l
- Similar Restart Verification Process j
= System Readiness Reviews a Departmental Readiness Reviews l
= Restart Issue Review Committee (RIRC) Validation
- RIRC members same as Unit 1
= Nuclear Oversight Validation
= Corporate Nuclear Review Board Validation
= Nuclear Safety Review Board Review l
= Chief Nuclear Officer Certification LaSalle I'
12 L.
.1..
I J
4 i EEEIl mt 2 Restart Organization Q R Hensg Sena WeProsadert j
n I
1 Tony Dotts Rod Knch Fnsd Decco W4 2 Restut Manager We Proudert-Regulatory Sarwcas LaSone Sao We Pvusaient I
T Van Comts tmano Nien g
]
Protect Coreois Astren Assatant h
i
-Progect Budget Deelopment
- Omco Manager
~Financel Tradeng and Reparung
- Staff Calender
-Conn 2mt *. --
-Prope2 h Blar Ptsaate Q Trager Outage Menegar j
OfRce Support Manager Jan Ampuid Jrn Master et 2 Operatons W
-~
Una 2 Engmeermg W
-Syssarn Roadness Raume
- Design Engswmg-S&L
-Intagnated Temtag
- System Engmeenne
- SLPA Tesamg
- Systens M%
-Post 44mntthtxt Tesang
- System Turneers
-Out4-Serwoes
- Systern Reedmoes Rennens i
-Tech Spec Qirnplance
-Integreemd Temeng
-vertAmhamanon
- Equement Operamon
-we V2 Phyucal Separaban I
Pese Behop
-~
LJnt 2 Verk Control hennager Gary Helend L.Nt 2 Maantfuxss Manager I
- Anyteon
- Restart Sche &hng
- Car *Ed Muntenance
- Performance Reportrg
- Reactor Senaces
- Lbt 2 VWst 7.--
L-_
4
- Turtane Serwcas L--
- t-r W42RP W
-24 2 RPA Access
_.Jht 2 Decen
-l
__e C_t
-Qinterrimatcm Omtrcd LaSalle 13
-,.-..y..
,--g
,w
,,w..p.,_,
i I EMEll Unit 1 and 2 Separation l
Physical separation barriers between units i
Unit separation out-of-services Separate Unit 2 Ingress-Egress i
Separate Site Access Facility Green hard hats identify Unit 2 Construction l
Workers i
- Green hard hats cannot access Unit 1 without Operations permission 1
LaSalle 14
I l..
i EMEll Unit 2IntegratedSchedule Scope identification ongoing i
- System Readiness Review walkdowns l
- Design Change reviews i
- Work Request Backlog reviews
- Scope Control Committee makeup similar to Unit 1 i
j Integrated Schedule development
- Management review and schedule issuance in early
{
October l
LaSalle 15
,,,,._,-.,...,,m,
.,.,,,,,-,.--,--.,,,_~.-....-,<,.e,..,-.,-,,,-,,
....,.,--....-,,,v,vs,
-,, -e-,- _,,-,m e --
O ar l EEEIl Unit 1 Lessons Learned l
Continue to emphasize Quality i
l Early, comprehensive scope identification l
l
- Perform system readiness reviews earlier i
j
- Build system windows i
Dedicated Project Managers for key projects Improve Outage Management
- LaSalle 16
O. Kingsley.
i cc:
D. Helwig, Senior Vice President i
H. Stanley, PWR Vice President l
C. Crane, BWR Vice President R. Krich, Regulatory Services Manager
[
D. Greene, 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 K. Schwartz, Braidwood Station Manager W. Levis, Byron Station Manager P. Swafford, Dresden Station Manager T. O'Connor, LaSalle Station Manager W. Pearce, Quad Cities Station Manager T. Simpkin, Braidwood Regulatory Assurance Supervisor B. Adams, Byron Regulatory Assurance Manager F. Spangenberg, Dresden Regulatory Assurance Manager P. Barnes, LaSalle Regulatory Assurance Supervisor j
C. Peterson, Quad Cities Regulatory Affairs Manager R. Hubbard, MHB Technical Associates M. Aguilar, Assistant Attorney General State Liaison Officer State Liaison Officer, Wisconsin Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission W. Leech, Manager of Nuclear MidAmerican Energy Company Distribution:
NRR Project Mgrs. Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Quad Cities J. Caldwell, Rlll C. Pederson, Rlli G. Grant, Rill J. Grobe, Rill M. Dapas, Rlll R. Lanksbury, Rlli M. Jordan, Rlll M. Ring, Rlli B. Clayton, Rlil SRis Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Quad Cities DRP TSS l
DRS (2)
RlliPRR PUBLIC IE-01 Docket File GREENS
~
(
e a*
- u. o l
~
-w October 14, 1998 Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley President, Nuclear Generation Group Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Regulatory Services Executive Towers West til l
1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 1
Downers Grove,IL 60515
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
This letter confirms the discussion between members of our staffs to have a meeting at 1:00 p.m. (CST) on Tuesday, November 17,1998, in the Region ll1 office. The meeting is open to the public, i
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed) Nuclear Generation Group's performance as it relates to actions Comed has taken in response to the l
l NRC's January 27,1997,10 CFR 50.54(f) letter regarding safety performance at Comed's j
nuclear facilities.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please contact me at 630/829-9600.
Sincerely, 1
/s/ Geoffrey E. Grant l
Geoffrey E. Grant, Director i
Division of Reactor Projects l
l Docket Nos.: 50-456;50-457;50-454; i
50-455;50-237;50-249; 50-373;50-374;50-254, 50-265 See Attached Distribution i
4 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ comed \\com11178.wpd To receive e copy of this document. Indicate h the boa "C" - Copy without attachmentlenclosure *E* = Copy whh attachment / enclosure
]
"N" = No copy A
3 OFFICE Rill f/7f h
Rill 6
Rlli l
j NAME PPelke h r51' RLanksburyOb f GGrant CM
{
DATE 10/(c/98 10/f /98 10AW/98U ()
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i
.,.-..._.._