ML20055E146
| ML20055E146 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1990 |
| From: | Morgan W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007110058 | |
| Download: ML20055E146 (2) | |
Text
3;y c
7l l ;
?
1 y
,,sm]1400 Opus Placa v
i rMNV
[
Common :eelth Edison f's t
3
</ Downers Crovo, Illinois 60515 -
Ey -Q
"\\
p ve u
e
{
March'29, 1990 j!
=:
I a-
. Mr.'A. Bert Davis
~ Regional Administrator' t
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Region.III-f 799 Roosevelt Road-3 A
Clen Ellyn, IL 60137 o
I
Subject:
.LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2
- -'i Supplemental Response to Inspection Report i
Nos. 50-373/89018 and 50-374/89018 b
Safety System functional Inspection NRC Docket Non. 50-373 and 50-374 o
1 y,
References (a) H.J.-. Miller letter to Cordell Reed
[
I dated November 20, 1989 l
f i
.(b~) T.J. Kovach letter to A. Bert Davis dated January 22, 1990
)
Dear-Mr'. Davis:
-Reference (a) indicated.that certain activities appeared to be'in Lnoncompliance with NRC.requirementsL n regards to the Safety. System Functional i
. Inspection conducted July 24;through August 25, 1989 at LaSalle County
. Station. -Reference (b) responded to those noncompliances..
-.At the. request of your staff,>a-clarifi,.ation of LaSa11e County Station's response to the " CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN'TO AVOID FURTHER.
s n
NONCOMPLIANCE" regarding violation IR 373/89018-07, 374/8901G-07 (Failure to
' document an adequate bases for the conclusion that.a modificatirn did not generate an unreviewed safety. question violation of 10 CFR 50.59 (b)(1)),was
-i requested.
.i LaSalle County Station originally responded, " Subsequent to the issuance of:the subject modification, Commonwealth Edison Company developed a-detailed
. process:for. performing and-documenting 10 CFR 50.59: safety evaluations for any
' nuclear =related-plant modification.
This is documented in Kuclear Engineering
'. Department (NED) Procedure Q.6.1".-
This statement implied that the safety' evaluation process was only being performed on modifications designed by the corporate (NED).
\\
l E
.9007110058 900329:ADOCK 05000373 kg PDR Q
PDC APR 21900./[C/
f
- 6 ;e
\\}.-
k
- A j' - LMP. A. Bert Davis March 29, 1990-
.+
i In clarification of this statement, not only are modifications that are designed by the corporate NED subjected to a 10 CTR.50.59 ' evaluation, but separate from this. review, LaSalle County Station' performs a safety evaluation which meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 for all modifications nni t
designed by the corporate Nuclear-Engineering Department.
This requirement is
'specified in the administrative procedures (LAP) which governs these activities.
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please
-contact this office.
Very truly yours, j
A W 4M q
W. E. Morgan Nuclear Licensing Administrator j
.cci 'M.LPhillips - RIII j
Senior Resident Inspector LSCS j
i
~
/Imw:0845T l
.I j.
1 1
1
't l
1 i
4 e
,