ML20204G631

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards,For Review & Comment,Draft NRR SALP Input for Period Jan 1983 - Apr 1984.Comments Requested by 840516
ML20204G631
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle, 05000000
Issue date: 05/08/1984
From: Bournia A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Eisenhut D, Mattson R, Speis T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20204G617 List:
References
FOIA-85-668 NUDOCS 8405180479
Download: ML20204G631 (11)
v • d • e


Text

, _ _ - . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,. pnm#@

  • #' UNITED STATES

[' h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION li  :: C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s- 'E

% . . . . . *#' MAY 8 1984 Docket No. 50-373/374 MEtt0RANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Technology Rooer J. tiattson, Director Division of Systems Integration l Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering Hugh L. Thompson, Director Division of Human Factors Safety Thomas M. Novak, Assista THRU: ctor for Licensing Division of Lice, ing FR0fi: A. Bournia, Project Manager ~

Licensing Branch No. 2 .

Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

DRAFT NRR SALP INPUT - LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 Enclosed for your review and comment are draft NRR inputs for the La Salle County Station evaluations covering the period from January 1,1983 to April 30, 1984. In accordance with NRR Office Letter No. 44, the evaluations are based on inputs received from the technical review branches who had provided SSER and amendment inputs during the reporting period. The l evaluations are also based on PM experience with the licensee for that period.

Inputs received for these evaluations were provided by DL (SSPB-D Hoffman);

DSI (ICSB-Calvo, Joyce and Kendall, RSB-Collins, CPB-Wu, Sun and Brooks, PSB-Chopra, RAB-Hinson, CSB-Eltawila, and ASB-Goel); DE (EQB-Lee, MTEB-Hum, SGEB-Chokshi, MEB-Terao, and CHEB-Eberly); and DHFS (HFEB-Froelich). The ratings for each of the inputs are tabulated in the enclosed evaluation .

matrices.

/ ~. ,- m (

,/  ? "&

(N$s1.8 9 'n 9 -

  1. I

/ ' .,

1 I

_. , , . . . . . ,... _ .... .. j

_. . = . = - . --- _ - - . . .-

Please provide any comments you may have by May 16, 1984, so that they can be reflected in the final reports.

(1. h,< css ~

A. Bournia, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

1. Draft La Salle SALP Evaluations
2. Evaluation Matrices (2) cc: w/ Enclosures C. Thomas 0. Parr F. Rosa V. Noonan B. Sheron B. Liaw .

C. Berlinger G. Lear it. Srinivasan R. Bosnak F. Congel V. Benaroya W. Butler V. Moore _

~~ ., .

e-

  • -
  • ___m

L I e

O 4 e

a l

I 1

l ENCLOSURE 1 G

NRR SALP INPUTS FACILITY: La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2 LICENSEE: Conmonwealth Edison Copany Reporting Periad: January 1, 1983 thru April 30, 1984 NRR PROJECT MANAGER: Anthony Bournia I. INTRODUCTION These reports present the results of the evaluations of the Connonwealth Edison Company, the licensee for La Salle County Station Units 1 and 2, in two major areas - licensing activities and licensing actions. The evaluations are separated into two areas, licensing activities and licensing actions because, during the specified period, La Salle Unit 1 was operating and La Salle Unit 2 received its operating license.

During the review time period, the staff prepared evaluation inputs.for SSER's Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8; Unit 2 was issued a low and Full Power License; and Unit I was issued four amendments to its license.

II.

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS u NRC Manual Chapter 0516 and NRR Office Letter No. 44 specify that each functional area to be evaluated be assigned a performance category based on a composite of a number of attributes. The single final rating should be tempered with judgment as t'o the significance of the individual elements.

Based on this approach, the performance of Commonwealth Edison Company, in the functional area of licensing activities, is rated Category 2 and for licensing actions, Category 1.

III. CRITERIA i Evaluation criteria, as given in Table 1 of Part 11 to the Appendix to I NRC Manual Chapter 0516, were used for these evaluations.

IV. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS The licensee's performance evaluations were based on consideration of

  • six of the seven attributes (enforcement history was not evaluated as part of licensing or licensing actions) as given in the NRC Manual.'

Chapter. For most of the licensing activities and licensing actions considered in these evaluations, only three of the attributes were of significance. Therefore, the composite ratings were heavily based on the following attributes:

Management involvement in assuring safety

-- Approach to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint.

-- Responsiveness to NRC initiatives With the exception of Enforcement History, for which there was no basis for evaluation, the remaining attributes of Staffing, Reportable Events and Training were judged to apply only to a few licensing activities and licensing actions.

The evaluation on licensing activities was based on a review of the following areas:

- Cable separation

- Standby control system

- Control systems failures

- CRD low pressure scram

- Equipment qualification

- Dynamic and LOCA loads on fuel

- Reactor water level reference lag Reduction of fast starts Rad / Chem technician ESF reset

- Inservice inspection Appendix R Heavy loads Masonry walls Hydrodynamic loads Emergency response capability Technical specifications A. Management Involvement in Assuring Quality Overall rating for this attribute is Category 2. There is evidence of planning and assignment of priorities and decision making seems to be at a level that ensures adequate management review.

Management within CECO was accessible which facilitated the reviews. Typical areas where management involvement was evident are in meeting the requirements of Appendix R, inservice inspection, technical specifications, cable separation and responding to the requirements of emergency response capability.

B. Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint Overall rating for this attribute is Category 2 with the performance rating for individual licensing activity generally falling into Category 1 and 2. However, in the technical area related to fire protection the licensee's performance was rated Category 3 because of perceived lack of understanding of the specific fire protection principles involved with the resolution of technical issues. Contrast to a rating of 1 in the area of inadequate core cooling where the licensee is commended to have taken the initiative to propose a concept design of reactor water level reference leg cooling for assuring accurate water level neasurement in the reactor.

1

  • O C. Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives Overall rating for this attribute is Category 2. The licensee has generally provided timely responses which are usually sound and thorough, e.g., reduction of fast starts for diesel generators. CECO has generally been aware of and sensitive to the needs of the staff to perform its review function with adequate lead time; however, some delays were experienced in receiving submittals to resolve licensing issues. The licensee has been responsive to meet with the staff on short-notice to resolve critical path issues.

D. Enforcement History There was no basis for an evaluation of this attribute.

E. Reportable Events Only two ratings were obtained for this attribute with an overall rating of Category 2. Events, generally, were reported in a timely manner reasonably identifying events. However, in the licensing activity related to ESF reset the reporting was not complete and as a result of a Region III inspection further review was performed to rectify the problem.

F. Staffing Only two ratings were obtained for this att'ribute with an overall -

rating of Category 1. The licensee has competent plant manager's -

- with nuclear experience. Most of the plant managers have worked'up through the organization and, therefore, acquired nuclear background.

The licensee has 23 R0's and 26 SR0's, all having Unit 1 experience. The staffing requirements-to operate the station are 36 licensed personnel and the licensee has a total of 49.

Therefore, the station is well staffed with operating personnel.

In addition, the licensee has the position which has the combination of an SR0/STA position.

G. Training Only two ratings were obtained for this attribute with an overall rating of Category 1. The licensee as a result of being committed to nuclear power has both a corporate training program which includes simulators for their plants and at each respective site for its site specific program. Training and qualification for Unit 2 was effectively implemented to provide sufficient numbers of licensed personnel for the operation of Unit 2. As indicated -

above, the licensee does not have any problems with respect to resources for manning the station.

The evaluation on licensing actions was based on the review of the following amendments to the Unit I license:

4

1. Reduction of fast starts on the diesel generators.
2. Incorporate the licensee's approved alternative Rad / Chem technical qualifications.

= , e e - -*w <*v-

3. Incorporate the provisions of Specification 3.0.4 are not applicable.
4. Reduction of level requirements for carbon dioxide storage tanks.

A. Management Involvement-in Assuring Quality Overall rating for this attribute is Category 1. CECO demonstrates a high.. degree of management control and involvement in achieving resolution of issues involved in license amendment requests.

Corporate management has made themselves readily available to discuss and resolve the issues under review. This positive attitude facilitated the timely and thorough reviews required and completed within an expedited schedule review on the technical specification change for the provisions of Specification 3.0.4 not-being applicable.

i B. Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint Overall rating for this attribute is Category 1. The approaches of the licensee to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint are technically sound. The licensee has demonstrated a clear understanding of issues involved in technical specifications where changes were sought and has provided adequate discussions of "no significant hazards consideration" for proposed amendments to the Unit 1 operating license.

C. Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives Overall rating for this attribute is Category 2. The licensee has generally provided timely responses which are usually sound. CECO

is generally aware of and sensitive to the needs of the staff to perform its review function with adequate lead time. However, some delays were experienced in receiving submittals to resolve licensing actions.

D. Enforcement History There was no basis for an evaluation of this attribute.

E. Reportable Events Overall rating for this attribute is Category 2. Corporate and l

plant management is aware of and sensitive to deficiencies and events that are reportable to the NRC. However, as a result of a Region III inspection, additional review is required to rectify the problem of ESF reset which was thought to have been completed prior to i the issuance of the operating license. This area is continuing to  ;

be a problem area since recently it was found that MSIV's do open )

on resetting the ESF signal. Final disposition is being pursued to I resolve this issue.  !

O 1

- . ~ . - - '

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

F. Staffing Overall rating for this attribute is Category 1. Personnel involved in licensing actions are knowledgeable and professional.

Approriate personnel are in attendance at meetings with the NRC _(

staff to make the meetings productive.

G. Training .

Overall rating for-this attribute is Category 1. More than sufficient number of licensed personnel has been maintained to operate La Salle, Unit I with all individuals qualified to operate La Salle, Unit 2.

V. Conclusion Based on the evaluation of Commonwealth Edison Company's performance for a number of significant activities in the functional area of licensing activities and licensing actions, an overall performance rating for licensing activities of Category 2 and for licensing actions, Category 1, are determined. The licensing activities represent a lower rating than was determined for the previous SALP evaluation period (January 1, 1982 to December 31,1983) and an equal rating for the licensing actions. This downward trend for the licensing activities may be due, in part, to management involvement in.both operating and constructing of plants.  ;

Management attention and involvement with matters of nuclear safety is evident, and staffing and training is highly regarded with- respect to the implementation and availability of trained personnel. The licensee's responses are usually, but not always, timely and the -

resolution of licensing activities and licensing actions are reasonably responsive although occasionally repeated attempts are necessary to gain resolution to technical problems.

2 l

l l

l

4~-n *_

. . . o D

d

  • e N

I ENCLOSURE 2

?

1

- e l

i i

i i

. 1 1

l 1

l

s ,

, -.,,,e>

, t% age,rn en h approcu h *'

In ve lue ,>>cn b Re.s.lu ht**

Responssven e s s k fr&Qlc y Yqsono d$

Evenkb ,7 cg,. Cabic

,, g separ Json 1 2 1 N/A N /A- U /4-w.w *e .,

cs, c3 ey.t x 2, z ^>ln h1+ A>fs c 1

',,"'!I s. ".,'s Nlh 2

  • a/n a/s- ^'In c.IIes %,.s . , , , , , 2 .1; E m t4 ca o tasa 3 L e,a ,- %m %- , d In- L M/* n/A pin 2

gy , . . cp .f.

A * *- Q.,d.fs+#, ,

  • z z 1 Al/4 AI/A N/A Dy ,,a , , c. 4 V ##/a 7.

Accaj.eL5,

. .a .

4 4/4 N/4 As/4 S""

es.a. u.s se ,eg r.r t.;

ga a.. -

n/A L 4 L n!+ " !A- ntar

"'t ** t kNwis rifa g. L aja upt ais R.J /ca,es .r d'"*"

T + .cnns 1' .

M/A z N/n yja 1 ,

II 1 a set 2 .2, .L- /V//1 N/A fn s e rv, c c.

Hu,n 2 ,L

[,, ,,,, p,. , 2, Nfg y/g y/n sa,J,y N/A 'A 'L G>e.1( A' %,

Wrfy N/A N/A 1 3 3 x 'V/A Hsav .)

GseI Leads Nl6 L L 11/A N/A /V/sq Cin ksl..te % son y~;

g gg, 11 / 4 z y g4 /A 14jg gfg styJ r.Jpa.u .

Terso g,,j, 3 y 3 g/4 ty pg ivjg t . ge-s:1 ry..l.cs, du c.,f .a ic.a,,,6, L L /V/4 N/4 /Y/4 Pr '

  • ~'" ~ a .,s,,a ,.t J L z-L z 1 L -

Tech .

~

H. N .,1 spec, .1 1. , .3 Ne ,-1. , 1 overo.II 2 um z U;1) z (1.1) ,z' . , &- .t. .

r~

., e ..

R

'2 *%

s t V .k T N H d w a t

x i

4 1 *

, h.

.R .

N k

tu . . ,s

. - u E Y ,

5 s t R s .ts $ e +8

<

  • s

-4.

w Q '

C

.o 4

d N o d 4 U T

W h dit ; s t k j h-d d

q. tu -

R- t -

M CE-s m

g s ,

m

-s

% 5 e

N y h .

i 1) 9 d -

S

~.

ti 5 G

~@ . -

e -

t 9 3 . m g 4  %

d S v

<C h2 M N m d t o 9

%F O o.e)g fl d C

+9 1

d *w a

4 53 t a C

d as 42 y 42 m H U 17 g >

C

  • EN l e- o .* -

r t4 E

.E r.? +A 2* C $

A o c 49 2;- I a, d s a. a

. e. - sa ;. ,. '$,3 2 4-oo q 4 g .c d e.  %

o F d WO

  • W.

t a n

h

,s .b' L

E

. I o

A c

o w 3 5 o

j $ $ .M O u

.-. -. ,-_, - , . . - , .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20204G631&oldid=3329296"