ML17180A745
| ML17180A745 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1994 |
| From: | Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Lyster M COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17180A746 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405160300 | |
| Download: ML17180A745 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1994003
Text
'
I
Docket No. 50-237
Docket No. 50-249
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN:
Mr. M. Lyster
Site Vice President
Dresden Nuclear Power Station
6500 Nortfl Dresden Road
Morris~ IL
60450
Dear Mr. Lyster:
May 11, 1994
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (INSPECTION REPORTS NO. 50-237/94003(DRS);
NO. 50-249/94003(DRS))
This letter refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. H. A. Walker and others
of this office from February 28 through April 5, 1994.
The inspection
included a review of authorized activities for your Dresden Nuclear Power
Station.
At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed
with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.
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 verify that
engineering activities at the Dresden Power Station were conducted safely and
in accordance with NRC requirements.
The inspection verified that engineering and technical support activities at
the Dresden Power Station were acceptable and met regulatory requirements.
The inspectors noted significant improvements~ from our last engineering and
technical support inspection, in the Site Engineering and Construction (SEC)
Organization; however~ little improvement, if any 9 was noted in the Systems
Engineering Organization and we are concerned with the apparent lack of rigor
and assertiveness in the performance of systems engineering activities.
Adequate involvement of system engineers in plant support activities was not
always evident. Most engineers were knowledgeable of their assigned area and
appeared to be well motivated; however, there were notable exceptions.
For
example, the recently issued design basis document for the standby liquid
control system contained several significant errors.
In addition, significant
problems were noted in the control of temporary alterations which indicated
the need for more attention by both engineering organizations.
Based on the inspection results, certain of your activities appeared to be in
violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice of
Violation (Notice}.
The violations are of concern because the failure to
determine and correct design errors could result in systems that could not
~---~-
9405160300 6~856~37
~DR ADOCK
'
I
Commonwea.lth Edison Company
2
May 11, 1994
perform the intended function.
Procedural compliance is important because the
established and proven methods of performing safety significant activities are
essential. Accurate up-to-date drawings in the control room are essential for
troubleshooting and diagnosing equipment problems in order to maintain safe
plant operations.
-
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response,
In responding,
please indicate the actions you are taking to address the listed unresolved
matter and the inspection follow up item.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any
additional actions you plan to take to prevent recurrence, After reviewing
your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and
the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC
enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory
requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed
in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Enclosures:
2.
Inspection Reports
No. 50-237/94003(DRS);
No. 50-249/94003(DRS)
See Attached Distribution
RIII V
f.<<t
5//fJ /94
~~
~Hiland
5/10 /94
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Wright, Chief
Engineering Branch
~
Sfiafer
5/\\\\ /94
'
I
Commonwealth Edison. Company
3
Distribution
cc w/enclosure:
L. 0. DelGeorge, Vice President
Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Services
G. F. Spedl, Station Manager
J. Shields, Regulatory Assurance
Supervisor
D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory
Services Manager
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspectors, LaSalle,
Dresden, Quad Cities
Richard Hubbard
Nathan Schloss, Economist, Public
Utilities Division
Licensing Project Manager, NRR
Station Liaison Officer
Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission
R. V. Crlenjak, Riii
S. Stein, SRS
J. T. Haller, Parameter, Inc.
D. C. Prevatte, Powerdyne Corporation
L. A. Love-Tedjoutomo, Atomic Control Board, Canada
bee:
PUBLIC IE-01
May 11, 1994