ML17202U927
| ML17202U927 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1990 |
| From: | Greger L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17202U928 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9012270109 | |
| Download: ML17202U927 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1990026
Text
f
.. ,
UNITED STATES
'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Docket No. 50-237
Docket No. 50-249
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN:
Mr. Cordell Reed
Senior Vice President
Opus West III
1400 Opus Place
Downers Grove, IL
60515
Gentlemen:
REGION 111
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
OEC 2 0 1990
This refers to the routine inspection conducted by Mr. M. A. Kunowski and
Dr. J. E. House of this office on November 5-23, 1990, of activities at
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, authorized by NRC Operating
Licenses No. DPR-19 and No. DPR-25, to the discussion of our findings with
Mr. E. D. Eenigenburg and others on November 9, 1990, at the conclusion of
the regular onsite inspection, and on November 23, 1990, at the conclusion
of a review of several allegations regardin~ radiological controls .
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures and representative record~~ observations, interviews
with personnel, and independent dose rate measurements.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation
of NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed Notice. These activities
were reviewed against the criteria of 10 CFR 2, Appendix C, Section V.G.1, for
exercise of discretion for licensee-identified violations, but were deemed
not to meet these criteria. The problem described as Violation 1.b. was not
identified by persons working under the authorization of Dresden Station
licenses and the problem described as Violation 1.c. was identified by the
inspectors.
The problem described as Violation 1.a. was similar to problems
with high radiation area work controls that occurred around February 1990.
---~, ..
Corrective actions for those earlier problems apparently were not effective
in preventing this most recent violation and several other related problems as
described in Section 8 of the enclosed inspection report.
With respect to Violation 1.b. and 1.c., the inspection showed that actions
had been taken to correct the identified problems and to prevent recurrence.
Our understanding of your corrective actions is described in Sections 12 and
13, respectively, of the enclosed inspection report. Consequently, no reply
to these items are required and we have no further questions regarding these
items at this time.
Regarding the remaining item, a written response is
required.
In your response, please indicate why your corrective actions will
be more effective than those taken for the problems that occurred around
February 1990.
27J005
Commonwealth Edison Company
2 DEC 2 O 1990
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 response requested by this letter is 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.
Sincerely,
~.
L. Robert Greger, Chief
Reactor Programs Branch
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-237/90026(DRSS);
No. 50-249/90025(DRSS)
cc w/enc l osures
D. Galle, Vice President - BWR
Operations
T. Kovach, Nuclear
Licensing Manager
E. D. Eenigenburg......Station Manager
DCD/DCB (RIDS) 7
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspectors LaSalle,
Dresden, Quad Cities
Rithard Hubbard
J .. W. Mccaffrey, Chief, Public
Utilities Division
Robert Newmann, Office of Public
Counsel, State of Illinois Center