ML20058D713
| ML20058D713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1982 |
| From: | Schroeder C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D708 | List: |
| References | |
| 4448N, NUDOCS 8207270321 | |
| Download: ML20058D713 (3) | |
Text
3 Commonwealth Edison O ) One First Nationit Plaza, Chicago, Ithnois v ~7 Address R ply to: Post Office Box 767 j Chicago. Illinois 60690 June 30, 1982 Mr. Jame s G.
Keppler, Regional Administrator Directorate of Inspection and Enforcement - Region III 0.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL =60137
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Response to Concerns Delineated in Inspection Report 50-373/82-08 NRC Docke t No. 50-373 Reference (a):
C. E.
Norelius letter to Cordell Reed dated June 8, 1982 transmitting Inspection Report 50-373/82-08.
Dear Nr. Keppler:
~
Reference (a) referred to the investigation conducted by Ms. G. M.
Christoffer and Mr. B. W. Stapleton of your staf f on January 11-14 and 18, 1982.
This letter requested that Commonwealth Edison Company advise you in writing, within twenty days of receipt of Reference (a), of our actions to address the matters addressed in paragraph 7 of Inspection Report 50-373/82-08.
The purpose o f this letter is to provide the requested response.
Inspection Report 50-373/82-08, paragraph 7, states, in part:
"During the meeting, the licensee's representatives acknowledged the investigators' comments that the current guidance / policy, that is reflected in the " Code of Conduct" and " Grounds for Dismissal" and which may allow an indivi-dual to report for duty "under the influence" a c least twice before significant action is taken, should be revised.
The revised guidance should specifically reflect a requirement that no individual determined to be "under the influence" will be allowed to work.
In order to be effective, the procedure should include a definition of "under the influence" and specific guidelines for deter-mining an individual's fitness for duty.
Training on how to make the fitness for duty determination should be mandatory for all guard supervisors.
Addition &ily, the line of communication between the guard contractor and on-duty licensee management should be improved in order to ensure proper application o f the policy and to keep the licensee informed of activities occurring at the site."
JUL 1 0824 8207270321 820716 gDRADOCK 050003{
J. G. Keppler June 30, 1982 In response to these concerns, Commonwealth Edison has determined that:
1.
Our security contractor, Burns International Security Service, Inc.,has in place a " Procedure for Alcohol /
Orug In toxication" dated February 2, 1982.
2.
The procedure reflects the requirement that no individual determined to be "under the influence" will be allowed to hold a security duty post.
3.
The procedure is a two page document that addresses the following areas:
(a) definition of the words Alcohol / Drugs (b) Symptoms to ba aware of (c) Responsibility o f the Employee (d) Responsibility o f Supervising Personnel (e) General Company Comment.
4.
All security force supervisors were briefed on the procedure during the first week o f February,1982.
5.
The procedure content was incorporated in the of f-site training for all new security o fficers on June 25, 1982.
6.
The Burns' General Company Comment will be revised by July 6, 1982 to include the following statement:
i
" Anyone found in violation o f the Burns' Procedure on Alcohol / Drug Intoxication will be terminated."
Commonwealth Edison believes that these actions have adequately addressed the NRC concerns.
Commonwealth Edison notes that Reference (a) requested a response to these concerns within 20 days following its receipt.
Re ference (a) was received on June 14, 1982 and, therefore, this submittal meets the requested time frame for response.
It is unclear to Commonwealth Edison what criteria is utilized by your o ffice to determine the timeframe for responses.
Responses to non-compliances normally are required within 30 days o f the date of your transmittal letter.
In this case (which was not an item of noncompliance), we are suprised that your report, which was issued 20 weeks following i
the completion of the inspections, requested a response within 20 days.
We do recognize that your staff (as well as ours) has been occupied with many activities regarding the startup of LaSalle l
Station and other matters during this period o f time.
- + -,, - -..
-.7
._,g--m.
y.
.. ~ -
9
-, +.
97,.,
j 1*
J. G. Keppler June 30, 1982 If there are any further questions in this matter, please contact this of fice.
Very truly yours, J
6l30/81.
C. W. Schroeder
{
Nuclear Licensing Administratcr l
1m 1
1 cc:
flRC Resident Inspector - LSCS i
l i
't 4448N i
l i
t b
i t
I l
f 1
i i
I
'J t
l
- ~ _.. _. -,.... _ _ - - -. _ - -.
.