ML20006A748
| ML20006A748 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1990 |
| From: | Greger L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006A749 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001300138 | |
| Download: ML20006A748 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000373/1989025
Text
r;.
~ ;.
n
{c,
-?e
- ;o
m
-
.
,
.
- JAN 041990
Docket No. 50-373'
cDocket No. 50-374
'
Commonwealth-Edison Company
.
~ ATTN:
Mr. Cordell Reed-
.
Senior Vice' President-
Post Office Box-767-
O
Chicago, IL 60690
,
Gentlemen:.
i'
This refers to the routine safeguards inspection conducted by
,
,
Ms. G. M;.Christoffer of this office on December 4-18, 1989, of activities
at LaSalle-Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Operating
-
Licenses:No. NPF-11 and No ~NPF-18 and to the discussion of our findings with
Mr.-W. Huntington at;the conclusion of the inspection.
'
The _ enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
-
Lexamination of procedures and representative records, observations, and
interviews with personnel.
1
No violations:of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this
' .i nspection.'
. Areas examined 'uring this, inspection concern a' subject matter which is exempt
~
d
from disclosure according to.Part-73, Title ~10, Code of_ Federal Regulations,
Section 73.21(c)(2).
This information must be handled and protected in
-
'accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR~73.21.- Consequently, our report
of this inspection'will not be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
tin <accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
f.
this: letter and the attachment to the Report Details will be placed in the
NRC Public-Document Room.
'
'C.
'
1;
QDY
l
g
,
L
En+sme Contains
l
SAFEGUARDS INFORMAT.10lt I
_ en
r n, e a nn n
irmnenn nrw
Upon Separation This
i
Page is Decontrolled "f
...,+uvouwv
c.
v,s.as,.
.-
a
- ~l
'
9001300138 900104
l
ADOCK 05000373
l1 I
Q
, .7
.
.
'
'
<
- >
<
.
_
._
.
.
'
g_
_
,
+
.c
-
. . . -- - a a n r igd ' '
--
j
._g,,,,,-
.
18 4 4 V 8 t"" ' ' '
,,i,_uVnhUd
o; ,
,
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
M 04 g
,,
<
We will gladly l discuss' any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
<
-
. Robert Greger, Chief
9
_
Reactor Programs Branch
I
,
Enclosure:
Inspection Reports
No. 50-373/89025(DRSS); and
!
No. 50-374/89024(DRSS)
(UNCLASSIFIED SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION)
l
Attachment: Allegation Review
cc w/ enclosure:
T. Kovach, Nuclear
. Licensing Manager
G. J. Diederich, Station
Manager-
NRR/DRIS/SGB
'!
NRR/DRIS/S1B
-i
NRR/DLPQ/PEB
.l
!
cc w/ enclosure, w/o-
UNCLASSIFIED SAFEGUARDS-
INFORMATION:
.DCD/DCB (RIDS)
-Licensing Fee Management Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
Richard Hubbard
'
J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public
!
! Utilities Division
-i
David Rosenblatt, Governor's
!
Office of Consumer Services
'bec:
D. E. Funk
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
C&lpv
d)d
Q
r
Christ ffer/ jaw
h
inds
Greger
Il4 *10
t/V'
gWIWo Contnine;
Sgua:p mm,ggg
on, %
-.
Ct A T"F* A l i A n n o 1 P 17 A n n n It T! n (j
@ O 00 LOU [rOll%
vi u a-w v a u i 6./ v a6ha vstuifniiUll
f
U. .
. -
.
>
GT.
i
Pfe,
.:
.
.
.
4
,-
,,s
u ;,
,s'
~
ATTACHMENT
ALLEGATION REVIEW
' Allegation Review: -The following information provided in the form of an
!
- allegation, was reviewed by the. inspector as specifically noted below:
. Background:- The LaSalle Resident Inspector received written documentation
zon-November 21, 1989 from a named individual which contained concerns about
i
inadequate contingency response by guards.
The information-regarding our
review of this allegation was developed during interviews with security
n.anagers during the onsite inspection and follow-up in-office review.
The specific information is discussed below.
1.
Allegation (AMS No. RIII-89-A-0146):
The al. leger indicated that the officers on the third shift were not
!
allowed to use vehicles for patrols.
They had to patrol on foot because
n
the mobile was dirty.
Alleger was concerned that this would have an
,
adverse impact on response.
Review:
Licensee security managers were interviewed, and the security
i
plan was reviewed to obtain information regarding this allegation.
'
During the interviews, information was developed that the vehicle was not
!
to be used by third shif t because guard operators had abused the vehicle.
.The supervisors were knowledgeable of the-fact that if a contingency event
.
occurred, the vehicle was available for use by the guard force to respond
!
if necessary.
There is no security plan commitment that a vehicle be
.
used for patrols.
Conclusion:
The guards on third shift were required to patrol on foot
rather than use a vehicle. There was a vehicle available for use by
the guards if a a contingency event occurred.
There was no violation
of security plan commitments.
This allegation is closed.
-i
>
i
i