ML19354D976
| ML19354D976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1990 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19354D977 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001250121 | |
| Download: ML19354D976 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000254/1989025
Text
--
-
. . -.
...
. -
-
-.
r
i
-
-
.
1
l
A
'
l
I
!
-
!
l
'
M 18 *
Docket No. 50-254
Docket No. 50-265~
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed
Senior Vice President
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
Gentlemen:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Peggy R. Rescheske
,
!
of this office on October 30 through December 14, 1989, of activities at the
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Operating
,
!
License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30, and to the discussion of our findings with
Mr. G. F. Sped 1 and others of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspection focused on the modifications and design changes implemented
during the Unit 1 outage. The inspection also included a followup of the
sroblems identified by the NRC during review of Revisions 5 and 6 to the
JFSAR, and a review of the circumstances surrounding your recent request for a
temporary waiver of compliance from certain Technical S)ecifications (TS).
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies t1e areas examined
during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a
selective examination of documents, observations, and interviews with personnel.
During the inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation
of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice. A written response
is required. Correspondence dated June 7, 1989, and July 19, 1989, documented
.
deficiencies identified during NRC review of Revisions 5 and 6 to the UFSAR,
'
regarding accuracy and completeness of the UFSAR, and reporting requirements.
Your response, dated October 2, 1989, has been reviewed by our staff.
Long-term corrective actions to upgrade the UFSAR, namely the Rebaseline
Project, appears to be appropriate to identify and correct current
discrepancies between the plant and the UFSAR. However, your response did not
address how you will avoid recurrence of these problems. Therefore, your
l
' response to the enclosed Notice should not only address the status of the
Rebaseline Project, but also your interim actions prior to completion of the
Rebaseline Project, such as, procedure revisions, program enhancements, and
staff training, which will ensure future updates will conply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) and 10 CFR 50.59(B). A response to address
the individual examples given in the enclosed Notice _is not required since
your previous response regarding these items was adequate.
'
.
\\k
9001250121 900110
ADOCK 05000254
Q
/191
. _ . - .
-
-_
.
!
.
I
.
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
I' W
i
l
On November 20, 1989, a temporary waiver of ccmpliance from certain TS was
granted to allow startu) of Unit 1.
Our discussions with your staff have not
resulted in assurance t1at your program / procedures are adequate in the area of
'
10 CFR 50.59 reviews when a TS change is involved. Therefore, we request that
,
you respond to the Unresolved Item discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
Your response should include a description of your program and procedures
governing the 10 CFR 50.59 review process for changes involving TS, and address
,
the lines of responsibility and the review cycle for completing such a change.
,
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 Fublic Document Room,
i
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.
Sincerely,
MI% STNEO By gyggy 3, gg,
H. J. Miller, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-254/09025(DRS);
No.
50-265/89025(DRS)
cc w/ enclosures:
T. Kovach, Nuclear
Licensing Manager
R. L. Bax, Station Manager
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
Richard Hubbard
'
J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public
Utilities Division
'
R I[
RIl
III
R I
RIII
RIII'
i
k
R s c h'. ./cg/,c
Aps Ns
,rrWht
@in
p1/jo/90
i1
1/05/90
1/9/90
1/$/90
1/ /90
14b /90
..
-
. .