ML20154A247

Errata to SALP Repts 50-373/88-01 & 50-374/88-01 for 861116-880315

ML20154A247
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	08/26/1988
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20153D679	List: ML20153D676 ML20153D682 ML20154A247
References
50-373-88-01, 50-373-88-1, 50-374-88-01, 50-374-88-1, NUDOCS 8809120122
Download: ML20154A247 (3)

See also: IR 05000373/1988001

Text

.

.

.

'

Enclosure 2

ERRATA SHEET

PAGE LINE NOW READS SHOULD READ

20 26 .. 18 months .. 16 months

Basis - The length of the assessment period given in the report is

incorrect.

1

8809120122 080826  !

PDR ADOCK 05000373 I

O PD3

1

)

.._ _ __ . . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.- - . _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

Enclosure 3

.

.

,

'

!. Quality Pronrams and Administrative Controls Affectina Quality

1. Analysis

, ..

Evaluation of this area addresses two related, but separate,

functions.

,

l

First, it includes the assessment of licensee management's

! activities to achieve quality in overall plant activities,

This assessment reflects the quality of licensee activities in I

,

the individual functional areas that have been addrh;.ed in

r

j' other sections of this report, ,

Secondly, it includes the assessment of the licensee's internal,  ;

independent quality oversight activities, such as those

'

performed by the quality control / quality assurance organizations, j

i

Evaluation of the independent quality oversight activities (

consisted of three inspections by regional inspectors and i

continual observation by the resident inspectors. The areas

l examined during two inspections included followup of seven ,

j

i

findings in the area of procurement and audits previously  !

i identified in 1984 and 1987. Quality assurance (QA) auditor l

l

qualifications were also reviewed. During the followup i

inspection, the seven previously identified inspection findings  !

!

were closed with no safety issues or violations identified.  !

. t

l

Overall management involvement in ensuring quality has been I

i

good, and management has been aggressive in solving problems.

This was evident by the significant reduction in the nus.ber ,

1

of reportable events (19 for the current assessment period of ,

1

16 months compared to 26 for the previous assessment period i

of 13.5 months) and violations (21 for the current assessment i

,

period as compared to 34 for the previous assessment period) [

resulting from personnel error. These 1siprovements were the

,

l

l

result of site management aggressively identifying problems i

and pursuing resolutions that involved the plant workers so I

'

l

that they became part of the solutions. An example of this is

I clearly demonstrated by the elimination of the problem with

redundant verifications, which was a concern in the latter part

of the last assessment period. The establishment of a site

j team made up of personnel from the different departments

< (operations, mechanical maintenance, instrument and control, (;

' and technical staff) has helped prevent the problem from '

l

recurring. Management involvement in improving plant

performance also can be recognized in the plant painting

program to improve housekeeping and plant appearance. l

f I

I

Management involvement was evident in the procurement area as  :

'

indicated by improved procedures for the control of procurement.

Also, management involvement was evident in the audit area as l

l

i indicated by the timely revision of the audit schedule to ensure

20

i

L. __ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ _.__ _ _ _ __D

, . _ . _ __ __

, m. ,

.

'"

DAGE Enclosure 3

.

.

/N ERROR.

,

I. Quality Programs and Administrative Controls Affecting Quality >

l

, 1. Analysis

.

Evaluation of this area addresses two related, but s arate

functions.

First, it includes the assessment of licensee a gemen s i

activities to achieve quality in overo11 plant i s.

This assessment reflects the quality of lict pee ities in ,

the individual functional areas that have b r sed in

other sections of this report.

nsee's internal,

'

Secondly, it includes the assess nt of

independent quality oversight ivitie su as those

performed by the quality cont 1/ rance organizations.

Evaluation of the independent ity sight activities

consisted of three inspections by re 1 inspectors and

continual observation by the resi nspectors. The areas

examined during two inspections inc ded followup of seven

findings in the area of p cureme and audits previously

identified in 1984 and 19 u ty assurance (QA) auditor

qualifications were als r e- . During the followup

inspection, the seven i y identified inspuction findings

were closed with no s e ues or violations identified.

6

Overall mar.agement i ent in ensuring quality has been

good, and manag een aggressive in solving problems.

This was eviden significant reduction in the number

! of reportab ve t 9 for the current assessment period of

'

18 mon sc 26 for the previous assessment period

of 13 mont violations (21 for the current assessment

perio a co a to 34 for the previous assessment period)

result f ersonnel error. The:S improvements were the

result i management aggressively identifying problems

j and purs resolutions that involved the plant workers so

'

t at they ecame part of the solutions. An example of this is

early monstrated by the elimination of the problem with

d t verifications, which was a concern in the latter part

t last assessment period. The establishment of a site

te made up of personnel from the different departments

rations, mechanical maintenance, instrument and control,

j d technical staff) has helped prevent the problem from

i ecurring. Management involvement in improving plant

t

performance also can be recognized in the plant painting

program to improve housekeeping and plant appearance.

l Management involvement was evident in the procurement area as

indicated by improved procedures for the control of procurement.

Also, management involvement was evident in the audit area as

! indicated by the timely revision of the audit schedule to ensure

<

20

.__. __. -__ . __

._ - . .- -__-_,- - -______- - - -

- .

. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

'

' Enclosure 4

'

CommonD' % Edison

. One Fast Na:o 8ta n C hca po.Is. e

MW W to Post Dmco Boa 767

• CNcago, Ilhos (Npo . 0767

August 19, 1988

Mr. A. Bert Davis

Regional A binistrator

U.S. Nuclear degulatory Comission

Region III

799 Roosevelt Road

Glen Ellyn, IL 60137

Subject LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 l

Response to the SALP 7 Board Report

MRC Decket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374__

Reference (a): A.B. Davis letter to Cordell Reed dated

June 1, 1986.

1

l

Dear Mr. Davis

Reference (a) transmitted the SALP 7 Board Report for LaSalle County )

Station and sumarised our performance ratings for the period November 16, 1986 '

thrcagh March 15, 1988. The purpose of this letter is to provide Coevnonwealth

Rolson's coments.

We believe that that SALP 7 Board Report is well written and generally

represents a balanced look at our strengths, improvements and problems encoun-

tered during the report period. We recognise this as the NRC's subjective

report card" which provides your perspective of the overall operation of

LaSalle. As was discussed during the SALP Meeting on June 21, 1988. we were

especially disappointed with receiving a rating of Category 2 in Plant

operations because of the improvements we have completed in this area and the

good coments which have been received f rom INPO and other organisations. i

, Your recognisetion that performance at Comonwealth Edison Company plants has I

iwproved and that the improvement at LaSalle has been dramatic is appreciated.

During the Sweary Remarks at the SALP meetlng it was indicated that,

j although the nurnerical ratings of SALP 7 were not substantially dif ferent f rorn

i

'

those in SALP 6, in balance, the station was much improved. Specifically, the

following were noted

-

The License area improved from a Category 2 to Category 1 rating

in SALP 7.

.enAoe# L r , -r _

m ovo 36 VW n 2.ff .

. _. __ . _ - - _ _ _ _ . -- . - - -AUGt41m.

--- --

!

.

.

,

Enclosure 4

A.B. Davis -2- August 19, 1988

.

-

Operations showed significant improvement, particularly in areas of

management involvement and response to MRC initiatives even though it ,

received a Category 2 rating.  !

)

- Emergency Preparedness was rated a Category 2 and improving, versus

a Category 2 at the end of SALP 6. )

,

-

Quality Programs and A&ministrat!ve Controls affecting quality showed

improvement in areas of management involvement and response to NRC

Initiatives even though it was rated Category 2.

- The Maintenance Category 2 is "low" and increased attention need to

be given to the balance-of-plant area.

During your closing remarks at the meeting, you stated that "this is

not a bad SALP, but LaSelle did not stay up with the improvements pecurring in

the rest cf . the ladustry." As was discussed at the meeting, Commonwealth

Edison is committed to pursuing excellente and will concentrate more effort at

LaSalle in the form of a speelfic LaSalle SALP Improvement Plin. In that

plan, which will be presented to your staf f when complete, we will

aggressively work to improve SALP awareneas in station attitudes and also to

improve regulatory perception.

We believe that the improvement noted in your report and in your

presentation at the SALP m&eting, as well as the performance improvements

results which we presented to you earlier in 1988, are the direct result of

our cannitment to achieve sustained oncellent performance at LaSalle Station.

This comnitment continues and will be even more focused with our LaSalle SALP

Improvement Plan.

Please direct any comments you may have regarding this response to

this office.

Very truly yours,

a

Cordell Reed

Senior Vice President

in

ces P. Shemanski - Project Manager, NRR

R. D. Lanksbury - LaSalle Resident Inspector

5019K