IR 05000010/1994018
| ML17180B044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1994 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Joyce T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17180B045 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9412230087 | |
| Download: ML17180B044 (1) | |
Text
SUBJECT:
-
December 9, 1994 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-010/94018; 50-237/94018; 50-249/94018)
Dear Mr. Joyce:
Enclosed are the results of our inspection conducted by M. Leach and others of this office, and by C. Settles of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, on October 6 through November 21, 1994.
The inspectors reviewed activities authorized for your Dresden Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3.
At the conclusion of the inspection, the inspectors discussed their findings with members of your staff.
The areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progress.
The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by your licenses were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. *
Overall, we found the conduct of activities during this period was adequate.
We are encouraged by the increased management involvement in routine and non-routine plant activities. However, during this period, several of your activities involved personnel not adhering to established procedures and were violations of NRC requirements.
In particular, your corrective actions for poor control of contaminated items in 1993 and early 1994 were ineffective and resulted in one example of a violation for failure to follow radiation protection procedures during this period.
In addition, we found that your ability to identify and correct problems in a timely manner remained weak.
The second example of poor procedure adherence involved an operator's failure to announce a small trash fire over the public address system.
The details of the violation and other non-cited violations are discussed in the enclosed Notice and inspection report.
In general, the implementation of the operations department standards was good.
We were encouraged by the control of special activities such as the Unit 3 and Unit 2 start-ups and the response to problems that occurred during those activities. However, operator performance during routine activities such as log keeping and communication during surveillances indicated that some of the higher standards have not been fully embraced.