ML20202C097

Forwards SALP 14 Rept for Quad Cities Covering Period 971027 Through 971220.Rept Will Be Discussed W/Licensee at Public Meeting on 980217 at Plant

ML20202C097
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	01/30/1998
From:	Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Kingsley O COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20202C101	List: IR 05000254/1997001 ML20202C097
References
NUDOCS 9802120164
Download: ML20202C097 (7)

Text

. . - . ~ . - ~ - . - _ . . . _ _ . - _ _ - - . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . - ~ . _ - . - _ . - - _ . . - . . - -

. r y ,

t d a ne uNfTED STATES g

-8 y NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMM:CSION Q)

REGION ill i

g 801 WARRENVILLE ROAD LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532 4351

• • • • • January 30, 1998 a

Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley .

President, Nuclear Generation Group Commonwealth Edison Company 1

• ATTN: Regulatory fservices

• i Executive Towers West 111 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove,IL 60515

Dear Mr. Kingsley:

) Enclosed for your review is the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance r (SALP) 14 Report for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station covering the period October 27 L 19g6, through December 20,1997. This report will be discussed with you at a public meeting to be held at the Quad Cities Station on February 17,1998, at 1:00 p.m. During this meeting,

you are encouraged to candidly discuss any comments you may have regarding our report.

in accordanco with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy, I have reviewed the recommendations resulting from the SALP Board assessment and concur with their ratings. The i functional areas of Operations and Plant Support were rated as Category 2. The areas of ,

L Maintenance and Engineering were rated as Category 3. Although the ratings were the same as ir '9 ALP 13, it is my view that conduct of nuclear activities in connection with the Quad Cities i . facility declined from the previous assessment period. Improvement was noted in some areas;

, however, substantial problems were discovered involving implementation of the maintenance '

~ rule, procedures and analyses to achieve safe shutdown in the event of a fire, and the conduct of

, . hydrostatic testing of the reactor vessel. Aspec. , of each of these problems extended into each of the SALP functional areas. Further, insufficient oversight and support from both the

! - Commonwealth Edison Corporate Engineering and Quality and Safety Assurance organizations contributed to the problems.

~

l . In the area of conduct o,' plant operations, good performance continued from the last SALP

period and was evident ti

roughout this assessment period. Improvements which were sustained L included good performance standards, improved procedural adherence, and enhanced self-

! assessment of operations. There were, however, elements of several operational decisions L which did not reflect a strong safety focus. Conducting a pressure test after taking a unit critical rather than before, and operating without an approved shutdown analysis and supporting l procedures for coping with fires, were two of these decisions. Equipment problems that challenged operators were not resolved, in part, due to lack of aggressive action by operations to i

force resolution. There was also an increase in missed or late surveillances attributable to j- operations.

i improvement of the plant maten% undition continued, but a number of long term issues with plant equipment remained. - As an example, poor equipment performance resulted in operators F having to respond to plant transients or to manipulate reactor power levels in order to perform i repetitive maintenance. Poor implementation of the maintenance rule prevented rule-based 9802120164 980130 ADOCK 05000254 PDR O PDR ll ll llll Illi !Il ll ;/ O ps N J

___ m-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . . . _ . . . . - , , , .

O. Kingsley actions from contributing to improved equipment performance. A decline in performancs with regard to surveillances and inadequate hydrostatic test inspections on Unit 2 also contributed to a Category 3 rating in Maintenance.

Substantial weaknesses in engineering performance resulted in a repeat Category 3 rating in Engineering. While some_of the engineering support to the plant continued at an improved level from the last SALP, problems were experienced with surveillance acceptance criteria, understanding and application of the design basis, operability and 10 CFR 50.5g safety evaluations, and application of the Parts Replacement Program. Significant problems in several areas, including procedures for safe shutdown in the event of a fire, implementation of the maintenance rule, and residual heat removal service water pump testing, were surfaced through -

good problem identification efforts. However, the corrective actions to completely resolve these problems were not properiy and aggressively pursued, nor wore the actions comprehensive.

Extensive NRC intervention was required to ensure the significance of the issues was understood.

Departmental self-assessment activities and assessments by the Quality and Safety Assurance organization made some positive contributionsc Self assessments in Operations and Emergency L Preparedness stood out as being the most effective. However, in some cases, resolutions were

!) narrow or not promptly implemented.

l At the SALP meeting you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and your plans to improve performance in the areas of Maintenance and Engineering. Additionally, you are

> requested to respond in writing, within 30 days after the meeting, specifically addressing corrective actions planned to improve performance in these areas.

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, the SALP report, and your response will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions conceming the SALP Report, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.

j Sincerely,

/ t

]% %J

_ . Bill Beach Regional Administrator

- Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265

Enclosure:

SALP 14 Report No. 50-254/97001; 50-265/97001 See Attached Distribution 1

b

O Kingsley ,3, cc w/ encl: M. Wallace, Chief of Staff D. Helwig, Senior Vice President G. Stanley, PWR Vice President J. Perry, BWR Vice President D. Farrar, Regulatory Services Manager

1. Johnson, Licensing Director .

DCD - Licensing E. Kraft, Jr., Site Vice President D. Cook, Quad Cities Station Manager C. C. Peterson, Regulatory Affairs Manager Richard Hubbard Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attomey General State Liaison Officer Chairman, !!!inois Commerce Commission W. D. Leech, Manager of Nuclear MidAmerican Energy Company

O. Kingsley actions from contubuting to improved equipment performance. A decline in performance with regard to surveillances and inadequate hydrostatic test inspections on Unit 2 also contributed to a Category 3 rating in Maintenance.

Substantial weaknesses in engineering perlormance resulted in a repeat Category 3 rating in Engincsring. While some of the engineering support to the plant continued at an improved level from the last SALP, problems were experienced with surveillance acceptance criteria, understanding and apolication of the design basis, operability and 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations, and application of the Parts Replacement Program. Significant problems in several areas, including procedures for safe shutdown in the event of a fire, implementation of the maintenance rule, and residual heat removal service water pump testing, were swfaced through good problem identification efforts. However, the corrective actions to completely resolve these problems were not properly and aggressively pursued, nor wrs me actions comprehensive.

Extensive NRC intervention was required to ensure the signiWiu of the issues was understood.

Departmental seif assessment activities and assessments by the Quality and Safety Assurance organization made some positive contributions. Self assessments in Operations and Emergency Preparedness stood out as being the most effective. However, in some cases, resolutions were narrow or not promptly implemented.

At the SALP meeting you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and your plans to improve performance in the areas of Maintenance and Engineering. Additionally, you are requested to respond in wiiting, within 30 days after the meeting, specifically addressing corrective actions planned to improve performance in these areas.

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, the SALP report, and your response will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions conceming the SALP Report, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

/s/ A. Bill Beach A. Bill Beach Regional Administrator Cocket Nos. 50-254;50-265

Enclosure:

SALP 14 Report No. 50-254/97001; 50-265/97001 See Attached Distribution DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SALP\QUA97001.SLP SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE Rlli Rlll Rlli Rlli l Rlli l 0 RUls NAME RLerch:dp MRing RCapra JJacobson GGrant A8e8 DATE 01/ /98 01/ /98 01/ /98 01/ /98 01/ /98 01/30/98 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY N

[.

O. Kingsley  ;

i i actions from contributing to improved equipmerd performance. A decline in perfomance with regard to surveillances and inadequate hydrostatic test inspections on Unit 2 also contributed to a &;;-:-ry 3 rating in Maintenance.

l Substantial weaknesses in engineering performance resulted in a repeat Category 3 rating in Engineering. While some of the engineering support to the plant continued at an improved level i from the last SALP, problems were experienced with surveillance acceptance criteria,

, understanding and application of the design basis, operability and 10 CFR 50.5g safety - 1 l evaluations, and application of the Parts Replacement Program. Significant problems in several areas, including procedures for safe shutdown in the overd of a fire, implementation of the maintenance rule, and residual heat removal service water pump testing, were surfaced through good problem identification efforts. However, the corrective actions to completely resolve these problems were not property and aggressively pursued.

Departmental self-assessment activities and assessments by the Quality and Safety Assurance organization made some positive contributions. Ostf-assessments in Operations and Emergency l Preparedness stood out as being the most effective. However, in some significant cases, i resolutions were narrow or not promptly implemented.

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

improve performance in the areas of Maintenance and Engineering. Additionally, you are requested to respond in writing, within 30 days after the meeting, specifically addressing

! corrective actions planned to improve performance in these areas.

\

! In accordance with Section 2.700 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of

Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, the SALP report, and your response will be placed in l the NRC's Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concoming the SALP Report, we would be pleased to discuss l them with you.

I Sincerely, j /s/ A. Bill Beach i' A. Bill Beach L Regional Administrator Docket No. 50-254 l Docket No. 50-265

Enclosure:

SALP 14 Report

No. 50-254/g7001; 3

50-265/g7001 SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES '

See Attached Distnbution DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SALP\ QUAG 7001.SLP To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without

, attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy l OFFICE Rlli l Rlli l Rlli l Rlli l Rlli l Rlli i NAME RLerch:dp MRing RCapra JJacobson GGran@le ABeach l DATE 01/ /98 01/ /98 01/ /98 01/ /98 01/hMV 01/ /98

~~

OFFICL4L RECORD COPY l

1

)

O. Kingsley of the maintenance rule prevented rule based actions from contributing to improved equipment performance. A decline in performance with regard to surveillances and inadequate hydrostatic test inspection on Unit 2 also contributed to a Category 3 rating in Maintenance.

Substantial weake. esses in engineering performance led to a repeat Category 3 rating in Engineering. While some of the engineering support to the plant continued at an improved level from the last SALP, problems were experienced with battery testing acceptance criteria, understanding and application of the design basis, operability and 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations, and applicatlon of the Parts Replacement Program fw the emergency diesel generator air start motors. Significant problems in several areas, including procedures for safe shutdown in the event of a fire, implementation of the maintenance rule, and residual heat removal service water pump testing, were surfaced through good problem identificatio,e efforts.

However, the corrective actions to completely resolve these problems were not properly and aggressively pursued.

Departmental self assessment activities and assessments by the Quality and Safety Assurance organization made positive contributions, particularly in the identification of problems. However, in some significant eases, resolutions were narrow or not promptly implemented. Self-assessments in Operations and Emergency Preparedness stood out as being the most effective.

At the SALP meeting you should be prepared to discuss our assessments and your plans to improve performance in the areas of Maintenance and Engineering. Additionally, you are requested to respond in writing, within 30 days after the meeting, specifically addressing corrective actions planed to improve performance in these areas.

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, the SALP report, and yout response will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions conceming the SALP Report, we would be pleawd to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

/s/ A. Bill Beach A. Bill Beach Regional Administrator Docket No. 50-254 Docket No. 50-265

Enclosure:

SALP 14 Report No. 50-254/97001; 50-265/97001 See Attached Distribution DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SALP\QUA97001.SLP To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE Rlli f Rlli F Rlli C Rlll , ( ,. - Rlli Rlli NAME RLerch:d6h6 MRincDfhl RCapra @di JJacobs% D GG- ABeach DATE 01/n/98 01/W/98 01/D/98 01M /98) V 01/ /98 01/ /98 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l

l O. Kingsley .3- .l l

1 cc w/ encl: M. Wallace, Chief of Staff D. Helwig, Senior Vice President G. Stanley, PWR Vice President J. Perry, BWR Vice President D. Farrar, Regulatory Services Manager

1. Johnson, Licensing Director DCD- Licensing E. Kraft, Jr., Site Vice President D. Cook, Quad Cities Station Manager C C. Peterson, Regulatory Affairs-Manager Richard Hubbard

.Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attomey General-State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission W. D. Leech, Manager of Nuclear MidAmerican Energy Company INPO '

Distribution Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commisslor.or Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan L. Callan, EDO J. Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement R. Zimmerman, Associate Director for Projects, NRR B. Sheron, Acting Associate Director for Technical Review, NRR E. Adensam, Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects lil/lV, NRR GALP Program Manager, NRR (2 copies)

DRP Division Directors RI, Rll, RIV

.J. Caldwell, Rlil R. Capra, NRR

. R. Pulsifer, NRR TSS, Rlli Docket File DRP PUBLIC IE-40 SRI Quad Cities CAA1 (E-Mail)

RillPRR Rill Enf. Coordinator DRS (2) '

DOCDESK (E-Mail)

_..