ML20207N282

Forwards Input to SALP Rept for Period Dec 1985 - Nov 1986. Licensee Rated in Category 2 in Functional Area of Licensing Activities.Summary of NRR & Overall Ratings for Past Two Evaluation Periods Also Encl

ML20207N282
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	01/07/1987
From:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8701140098
Download: ML20207N282 (7)

Text

x-January 7, 1987 Docket No. STN 50-456 g DISTRIBUTION 50-457 'fUecRetJevel Local PDR PD#3'Rdg. NRC PDR T. Novak C. Rossi NOTE T0: Harold R. Denton, Director J. Stevens Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation C. Vogan R. Vollmer FROM: Steven A. Varga, Director Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A

SUBJECT:

NRR SALP REPORT FOR COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY FOR BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 A copy of the NRR SALP Report addressing Commonwealth Edison's performance as owner / operator of Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, from December 1, 1985 to November 30, 1986 is enlosed. The report includes review ratings and summarizes significant licensing actions and activities during the evaluation period. The licensee's performance in the functional area of licensing activities is rated Category 2. Enclosed for your information is a suninary of the NRR and overall ratings for the past two evaluation periods.

We plan to transmit the report to Region III on January 12, 1987. I am the assigned SES for this SALP.

6 Steven A. Varga, Director Pro,iect Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosures:

As stated PD#3 p PD#3 CVogan JSterens 1/1/87 1/7/87 87 8701140098 870107 PDR ADOCK 05000456 O PDR ,

l

/ 'b

~,, UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

( $ 4 $ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../

Docket Nos. STN 50-456 -;.

N and STN 50-457 FACILITY: Braidwood Station, Units 1 and ?

LICENSEE: Comonwealth Edison Company EVALUATION PERIOD: December 1, 1985 to November 30, 1986 PROJECT MANAGER: Janice A. Stevens I. INTRODUCTION ,

This report presents the results of an evaluation of the licensee, Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco), in the functional area of licensing activities and other related areas. It provides NRR's input to the SALP review process as described in NPC Manual Chapter 0516. The review covers the period December 1, 1985 to November 30, 1986.

The approach used for this evaluation was in accordance with Office letter No.

44 which reauires that each organization responsible for developing Safety Evaluation Reports also provide a SALP input with their evaluation. Additional inputs were solicited for selected review areas of particular significance. The Project Manager also provided inputs on selected licensing actions. In most cases the staff applied the SALP evaluation criteria for the performance

. attributes based on first hand experience with the licensee or with the licensee's submittals.

-. The individual SALP evaluations for each rated licensee issue were assenbled into a matrix which was then used, with appropriate weighting for the importance to safety of the licensing issue, to develop the overall evaluation of the licensee's perfomance.

This approach is c.onsistent with. NRC Manual Chapter 0516 which specifies that each functional area evaluated will be assigned a performance category based on a composite of a number of attributes. The single final rating is to be tempered with judgment as to the significance of the individual elements.

II.

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS Based on the approach described above, the performance of CECO in the functional area of licensing activities is rated Cateaory 2.

Os

/. III. CRITERIA The evaluation criteria given in NRC Manual Chapter 0516, Table 1, were used.

Weighting was used depending upon the individual licensing att4ons' importance to safety. '

IV. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Generally, the licensee's performance was evaluated using the criteria specified in Manual Chapter 0516. There was not sufficient information to allow NRR to evaluate two of the evaluation criteria, enforcement history and reporting and analysis of reportable events.

During the evaluation period there was a significant level of activity. l Substantial effort was expended for the Braidwood OL hearing, which was completed on November 26, 1986. The hearing for the emergency preparedness contention spanned four days, and the hearing for the contention concerning harassment, intimidation, retaliation and other discrimination spanned 97 days. A license authorizing fuel loading and precritical testing for Braidwood s Unit I was issued on October 17, 1986. The Technical Specifications and two Supplemental SERs were prepared in support of licensing.

A. Management Involvement and Control in Assurino Quality The overall rating for this attribute is 2. The licensee's decision making is usually at a level that ensures adequate management review. The submittals needed to support licensing of Braidwood Unit I were generally timely, thorough and technically sound. However, certain issues pertaining to fire protection, technical specifications, and the initial test program should have been resolved by the licensee earlier in the review process.

Therefore, manaaement involvement could be improved.

.. B. Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint The overall rating for this attribute is 2. The licensee understands the technical issues and responses are generally sound and thorough. Conservatism is generally exhibited and approaches are viable. In several instances, the licensee challenged staff positions, but only when it believed safety would not be compromised.

C. Pesconsive to NRC Initiatives The overall rating for this attribute is 2. In the weeks prior to the issuance of the zero power license for Braidwood Unit 1, the licensee responded to many NRC initiatives in a short period of time. The licensee's responses were generally timely, sound and thorough, however, certain issues should have been resolved by the licensee earlier in the review process.

, , . - . . c, .- -.,, - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - , ~ - ~ - - - - - , - - - -- - -

[ 3--

D. Staffino The overall rating for this attribute is 1. Key positions.are clearly identified and responsibilities and authorities are wel.1 defined for both the plant staff and the licensing departrient. The' security organiza-tion positions and responsibilities are well defined; the security staff is considered to be more than ample to implement the facility physical protection program.

E. Training and Qualification Effectiveness The overall rating for this attribute is 1. The licensee has developed a comprehensive Shift Experience Program for Braidwood Station. The program is designed to give senior operators on shift additional supervisory training at an operating PWR. The licensee has an ample number of experienced senior operators to provide on-shift operating experience which satisfies the hot participation requirements of Generic Letter 84-16. ..

F. Housekeepina and Control Room Behavior The overall rating for this attribute is 2. Although housekeeping and control room behavior is discussed elsewhere in the NRC evaluation, NRR has continuing interest in this area since good housekeeping practices are an indication that the licensee takes pride in its facilities. Visits by the Project Manager and discussions with the Resident Inspectors indicate that the licensee's housekeeping practices have improved over this SALP review period due to increased management attention.

V. CONCLUSIONS

~

Based on our evaluation of licensino activities, an overall ratino of 2 is

.. assessed for Comonwealth Edison's licensing performance for the period December 1, 1985 to November 30, 1986.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS The licensee's best areas of performance were staffing and training and qualification effectiveness. Due to the rapidly approaching low and full power licensing dates for Braidwood Unit 1, the licensee's management should continue to maintain a high level of involvement in licensing activities and should also ensure that plant cleanliness and housekeeping practices continue to improve.

ENCLOSURE 1 Previous SALP Cycle Ratings Rating SALP 4 Ratina SAlp 5 SALP b Functional Areas Trend A. Plant Operations X NR . ---

B. Radiological Controls 2 2 Improved C. Preoperational Testing 2 2 Same D. Fire Protection X NR ---

E. Emergency Preparedness X 2 ---

F. Security X NR ---

G. Quality Programs and 3 2 Improved Administrative Controls .

Affecting Quality '

H. Licensing Activities 2 2 Same I. Containment, Safety- 2 2 Same Related Structures, and Major Steel Supports J. Piping Systems 3 2 Improved and Supports K. Safety-Related 3 2 Improved Components - Mechanical

~~

L. Auxiliary Systems 2 2 Same M. Electrical Equipment 2 2 Same and Cables N. Instrumentation 2 2 Improved O. Braidwood Construction X 1 Improved Assessment Program P. Housekeeping and X 3 Same Equipment Protection X = Not Rated Last Report NR = Not Rated because of lack of activity in the area.

5

e. s n

\

ENCLOSURE 2 SALP INPUTS (DECEMRER 1, 1985 - NOVEMRER 30,1986)

BRANCH MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO RESPON-REVIEWER LICENSING ACTION INVOLVEMENT RESOLUTION SIVENESS STAFFING TRAINING OVERALL E08, Romney Reactor Trip System --

1 1 -- --

1 Reliability, 4/21/86 EICSB, Kramer Post-Trip Review, 2 --

2 -- --

2 4/28/86 EICSB, Burrows Charging Pump Dead- --

1 3 -- --

2 heading, 5/6/86 EICSB, Lasher Review of GL 83-78, --

1 1 -- --

1 Item 2.1, 6/27/86 FOB, Samworth Review of FSAR Auend. 1 --

1 -- --

1 47, 8/20/86 PSB, Katze Envir. Effects of 3 3 1 -- --

3 HELB, 8/21/86 PSB, Li Envir. Effects of --

1 1 -- --

1 MSLB, 9/25/86 I

FDB, Hickman Initial Test Program, 2 2 2 -- -- - 2 9/25/86 FOB, Orr, Lapinsky Procedure Gen. Package, 1 1 1 -- --

1 10/7/86 1

ER, Ranchi Seismic / Dynamic Qual. -- 2 1 -- --

2 of Mech. A Elec.

Equip., 10/3/86

s- .s ,-

t PPANCH MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO RESPON-REVIEWER LICENSING ACTION INVOLVEMENT PESOLUTION SIVENESS STAFFING TRAINING DVERALL EB, Johnson, Lee Preservice Inspec., --  ? I -- --

2 10/7/86 PSB, Singh Fire Protec., 10/8/86 3 2 3 -- --

3 FOB, Hickman Initial Test Program, -- 3 2 -- -- 2 10/10/86 EB, Elliot Eval. of Compliance w/ 1 1 1 2 --

1 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3),

10/15/86 EICSB, Walker Envir. Qual., 10/15/86 --  ? 2 -- --  ?

EICSB, Weiss Human Factors Eng., 2 2 2 -- -- 2 10/17/86 RSB, Chatterton Core Physics TS,  ?  ? I -- -- 2 10/23/86 MMSS Skelton Physical Security, 1  ? 1 1 --

1 11/10/86 .*,

O