ML20210N311
| ML20210N311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/27/1994 |
| From: | Capra R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Zimmerman R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210N243 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-178 NUDOCS 9708250180 | |
| Download: ML20210N311 (1) | |
Text
September 27, 1994 4
MEMORANDUM TO:
Roy P. Zimmerman Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation e
THRU:
Jack W. Roe, Director Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Robert A. Capra, Director Project Directorate 111-2 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION BRIEFING BY COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of Commonwealth Edison Company's (Comed) request to arr nge a meeting between its officers and the Commission, and to obtain the concurrence of the NRR Executive Team (ET) to proceed to schedule the meeting.
On January 25, 1994, the NRC sent a letter to Mr. James J. O'Connor, Chief Executive Officer of Comed, informing him of the results of the Senior Management Meeting (Attachment 1).
The NRC's evaluation of the performance of the Comed plants ranged from maintaining Dresden on the watch list to recognizing Byron as a good performer.
The letter also stated, "In view of the abov9 concerns and inconsistent plant performance, we believe that a meeting among senior NRC staff, you, and your board of directors would be appropriate."
A Commission meeting was held on February 28, 1994.. There was no participation by the staff; only Comed and the Commission were at the table.
The meeting covered presentations and discussions of Comed resources, plant performances, plant challenges, and strategies for improvement. The Chairman, in his closing remarks, stated that he hoped that Comed would return in about a year and report on the results of their efforts (Attachment 2).
Mr. O'Connor indicated that Comed would like such a meeting.
Comed, through its licensing group, has contacted me about arranging the next meeting; preferably during the first week of January 1995. With the concurrence of the ET, I would like to proceed with scheduling the meeting.
Attachments: As stated DISTRIBUTION Central File PDill-2 r/i JRoe JZwolinski RCapra GDick CMoore DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\ET.MEM h
Tc receive a copy of this document indicate in the boa:
'C' = Copy without enclosures
- E' = Copy with enclosures *N* = No copy 0FFICE LA:PDill-2 l PM:PDill-2 l D:PDill-2 l
ADR3:DRPW l D:DRi%
l NAME CMoore r w GDick:rc s~
RCapra v JZwolinski A JRoef" DATE 09/m /94 09k.9 /94 09/27/94 09/ /94
+or 09/Af/94 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 9708250100 970814 PDR FOIA PARADIS97-178 PDR
f.cjl.) C -
'n
~'. W h > m.::=."
3.p-l p,.
pom%
.k UNITED STAT 18 l
g
.g W
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
y,p 5
namotow. 9.c. mmmari l
- e,.*
January 25, 1994 i
Docket Nos. 50-137,50-24g 50-154, 50-145 l
50-373, 50 374 l
50-454, 50-455 Mr. James J. O'Connor Chief Executive Officer Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. O'Connor:
On January 11-12, 1994, NRC senior managers met to evaluate the nuclear safety 1
performance of operating reactors, fuel fact 11 ties, and other saterials licensees. The NRC conducts this meeting seelannually to deterufne if the
{
safety performance of the various licensees exhibits sufficient weaknesses to warrant increased NRC attention or if it is trending adve att
- and requires 4
that steps be taken to communicate concerns to the util hy's.>esident or board of directors.
In addition, at this meeting, senior managers identified specific plants that have demonstrated a level of safety performance that deserves formal recognition. At the January 1994 Senior Management Meeting, i
Dresden. Quad Cities, LaSalle, and Byron Stations were discussed.
i l
Dresden Station Units 2 and 3 continue to be categorized as requiring close NRC aonttoring. Plants in this category have been identified as hav< ng 2
weaknesses that warrant increased NRC attention untti the licensee demonstrates a period of improved performance. A summary of NRC discussions related to the Dresden station follows:
The NNC s inspections and, overview activities have confirmed that i
the performance of Dresden Station is leproving, although very i
slowly.1 significant improvements in the condition of the plant equipment have been made. Progress in thg; areas of self-assessment, engineering, and operations has.been slow, and much j
remains to be done. Attention is still noeded in the areas of j
personnel errors, radiological protection' and engineering work.
1 t i
Based on these considerations, the NRC plans to continue to closely monitor j
the programs and performance at Dresden Station to assure cc.. tinued prograss.
The Commission has sy gested that, during these meetings, NRC senior managers i
also identify those p ants whose performance is trending adversely and that steps be taken to communicate concerns to the utility's corporate president or i
board of directors. We are advising you that the Quad Cities and ta$alle plants are trending adversely.
l y
l N q g hi7
.N.T ?.!.E CENTR? COPY.
2 p q
,.p.
9..
f*..
t ;'..
IP
' Mr. James J.(O'Connor January 25, 1994
}
Recent adverse performance trends and safety significant events at Quad Cities Station have raised concerns requiring comprehensive actions. The staff concerns are best described in the November 17, 1993 Diagnostic Evaluation Team reoort. Among the major issues are poor plant material condition, ineffective self-assessment, and failure to complete previns plant improvement plans. We recognite that you have formulated a new action plan.to address problems at Quad Cities Station. We urge that you execute this plan and adjust it as necessary to effectively solve the probless at Quad Cities Station.
The NRC senior managers are further concerned about adverse performance trends at LaSalle Station. The major issues are poor performance by radiological workers and poor radiological work practices in general. We are also I
l concerned about the declining plart sattrial conditions and personnel i
performance. We recognize that in November 1993 you performed your own assessment of LaSalle Station, but we are concerned that the root causes must be pursued and resolved effectively.
in contrast to our concerns with safety performance at Dresden, Quad Cities.
,and LaSalle Stations, the NRC senior managers identified the Byron Station as having achieved a high level of safety performance and, as a result, met the criteria for formal recognition of its performance.
I as pleased to note that
-Byron Station has been identified as a good performer. We urge you to provide suffletent attention and support for Byron Station so that this good performance can be maintained.
In view of the above concerns and inconsistent plant performance, we elleve that a meeting among senior NRC staff, you, and your board of directces would be appropriate. Mr. John B. Martin, the NRC Regional Administrator, stil be ccntacting you to arrange for a mutually agreeable time and location for the
- meating, if you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely, ;,,,.,g,,l,,.*tg James M. TahiES Executive Director for Operations cc: Ses' next page D11191Effintt, Jetnleast,1F E21 JA2mellenkt, is als j:
Centret intet @
Ideetman.1F E21 JEDyer, is 31 PDt Aleterm, F M5 Jf ttag, is 61 Y.
BPtB I.F.
Elteckjeed,ett00F treetet, is et IDo R.f.,
1F G21 ELJereen sM1 attesy, Jr., is 31 stCY. 16 stl vttmeell,12818 etAue, is 01 cPA, I ES EGGrearman, till GC2 ech CCA. 17 f 2 JWBen. 13 f4 Etiett De t se e RfC 4Delettill pormet praat reo \\
M 10 annectintjp rJuttaglie treurtoy Jeteyter }
h patt P0tt Ott' /k
/
196 ti/21/M i
/
[VPtf t re to Tee me fee to Tee me fee se of fICl4 4tCM CEPl
$GCAeBI SAfet $ 4 %2Pt MIOC&\\ Wet \\QCo. Lit M
,1
~
70 1
content until va oco rool p sitiva reculto osaing 2
forth from these changes.
3 Thank you very much.
4 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Mr. O'Connor?
5 MR. O'CONNORt Thank you, Chairman Selin.
6 Thank you, Doctor Mason.
7 From what you have heard
- today, we 8
acknowledge that our nuclear operations have neither 9
been concistently nor uniformly at a level that you or 10 that we find acceptable.
But we do believe that we 11 are on the right track and know that we must pick up 12 the pace.
Like Doctor Mason, I have the utmost 13 confidence in Mike Wallace.
He has truly made a 14 difference during his brief tenure as Chief Nuclear 15 Officer.
He has recruited, continues to recruit and 16 is developing new leaders in our organizations, 17 leaders who will not settle for less than excellent 18 performance.
19 Mr. Chairman, that completes our formal 20 presentation and we would be happy to try to respond 21-to any questions that you might have.
22 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I have some remarks I'd 23 like to make based on this presentation.
They were 24 not' prepared in' advance.
25 First of all, it's unusual that we'd be so
~
I 71 1
intorcotcd in corporoto gavsrnonco that our job 10 to 2
make sure the plants are safe.
But the record at 3
Commonwealth has been to the point where we can't stop 4-at the plants.
Awhile ago you were having some 5
problems bringing in some of the new plants.
Then it i
6 wes the old plants.
Now it's the BWRs, et cetera, and 7
it's just hard to avoid the conclusion that looking 8
only at the plants without looking at the overall 3.
i 9
governatice causes us to lose sight of the problem.
10 It's like looking at a three dimensional figure in two
~
11 dimensions.
You're bound to miss something.
It's 12 quite unusual for the Commission.
It's very unusual, 13 for instance, for Commissioner Remick who is extremely 14 careful and f astidious about what.our authority is to l
15 ask questions about corporate governance. I think you 16 should take that as modestly as it's put as a serious 17 concern on all our parts that the governance be such 18 that all the plants, not just the three we're focusing I
-19 on now, continue to be operated, that will be operated
[
20 properly.
21_
In the two and a half years that I've been 22 in this job, it's always been one something or 23 something else. I have to say that I don't think your 2
l 24 Board has done its job.
I think that the NRC has had
-25 to do things that the Board should have done earlier i
72 1
obout colling your Ottontion to tho prob 1cmo.
I don't
{,.
think management has done its job.
Until today I had 2.
3 the impression that your problems were being treated 4
as kind of a question of putting in some resources and 5
paying some attention, an operational problem ' and 6
they're clearly not an operational problem.
They go 7
far beyond that.
8 Having said that, I do feel very good 9
about what we've heard today because it's the first 10 time since I've been dealing with this particular i
11 company that I hear concrete evidence to say this is 12 not a short-term problem.
It's not just a question of 13 turning the screws tighter and bringing in a couple of 14 people and paying some attention..
15 I know that you have felt, Mr. O'Connor, 16 that you've gone through enormous cultural changes to 17 get where you are, but I think you've just started.
18 I really think that the cultural changes you've seen 19 are just starting.
I don't want to draw too much on 20 what Doctor Mason said, but the idea -- one could get 21 the impression that the fixes have been made and it's 22 a question.of watching the results and I don't think 23 that's true at all.
It is true that the resources 1
24 seem to be there. We don't monitor how much you r, pend 25 and say there's a right amount or wrong amount, but
}
,L
73
-8 1-you'vo ~ clocrly medo tho coco that not only tho financial resources are there but perhaps by bringing
-2 2-in this number of outside. people, _ to use a phrase 4
you've used before, you're not trying to stretch a 5
five site blanket to cover -six sites, that your discussions at Byron clearly.make it clear that you're 6
7 not going to fix the rest of your system by taking 8
bleeding people off Byron.
You can't possibly do that 9
and still be consistent with the commitments you've 10 made today.
You've clearly said you're going to keep 11 Byron where it is and bring the others up to that point and that can't be done by robbing Peter to pay 12 13 Paul.
14 For the first time, I get the impression 4
15 that Commonwealth management realizes that this is not 16 a short-term problem, that you're just starting to 17 make the structural fixes which in themselves will 18 eventually -bring the operational changes.
The 19 reorganization you're talking about, without trying to-20 run your business, does give the potential for being 21 a major step forward because being the chief executive 22 of an organization that runs 12 reactors is certainly 23 a job that's important enough to be recognized, to be 24
--compensated, to be - given the authority to do the
-25
_ position and not just looking at it as one of two
74 1
chiof oparating officaro in offcet beccuco tha e'
2 problems go beyond operations, they go to the control 3
of resources and the authority over a large number of 4
functions.
5 One of the impressions I have from last 6
year and before was that all the improvements at the 7
corporate level were done at the expense of the site 8
level and that can't continue.
Mr. Wallace has said 9
it won't continue and we take that seriously.
10 But down to specific things about how nuch 11 time health physics managers spend on the site to the 12 corporate vice presidents, et cetera, an idea I had 13 before is wrong.
You have the resources and you have 14 the people, but they have to start at the bottom and 15 really get the sites set up.
Then you can take care 16 of corporate practices and procurement once those 17 things ate fixed.
18 I do think, and this is the first time 19 I've felt this since we've talked to you, that you 20 finally are on the right direction.
Mr. Wallace's 21 presentation, I set aside the exhortation part of it, 22 the exhoritory part-of it to the commitment to the 23 resources and the problems.
I think that's a serious 24 and positive impression.
But I think you're going to 25 have to be doing organizations and changes that are
75 1
far bayond cnything you'vo donc bofera.
Just tho o
2 nuclear side is a very-big company and has to be run 3
as a very large company.
I hope you'll come back 4
around this time next year and report on results, be 5
they posit.ive or not, and not wait so long as we have this time to hear from you again on how you're doing.
i 6
7 MR. O'CONNOR:
We'd like very much m Jo 8
that.
Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Remick?
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
First a couple 11 questions.
12 Have you had any particular adverse fuel 13 experience which has contributed to some of your 14 health physics problems, especially in the BWRs?
15 MR. WALLACE:
We have source term issues 16 that are significant among our BWRs and, in fact, have 17 a source term reduction production that is getting 18 highest focus at LaSalle and also next Dresden, Quad 19 Cities.
I don't think it's indicative of fuel 20 problems, I think it's indicative of just an area that 21 has needed attention and is going to take us some time 22 to move forward.with.
23 The other thing that we observe is as we 24 are picking up the pace in our BWRs working on 25 material condition, we have tihat many more
.)
,