ML20059D076
| ML20059D076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1993 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Wallace M COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059D079 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9311020127 | |
| Download: ML20059D076 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000373/1993020
Text
.
.
_
.
,
CN.
OCT 2 21993
sg
Docket No.
50-373
K
Docket No.
50-374
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN: Mr. M. J. Wallace
r
Vice President and
Chief Nuclear Officer
Executive Towers West III
1400 Opus Place Suite 300
Downers Grove,
IL 60515
Dear Mr. Wallace:
This refers to the special inspection conducted by D. Hills, P. Brochman,
J. Smith, M. Leach, H. Peterson, S. DuPont, and J. Kennedy from August 23
through September 30, 1993.
The inspection included a review of authorized
activities for your LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, facility.
At the
conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members
of your staff identified in the enclosed report.
,
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.
Within
these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures
and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of
activities in progress.
.
'
Based on the results of this inspection, certain of your activities appeared
to be in violation of NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed Notice.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your
response, you should document the specific. actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
The inspection indicated daily work planning was good, although operations
communication with mechanical maintenance warranted improvement. .Two of the
areas however, were of particular concern during this inspection.
Licensee-
staff approach to performance of 10 CFR 50.59 screenings and safety
evaluations was not thorough and did not reflect a good perspective of the
process.
This problem was highlighted by the above noted violations. Despite
several previous enforcement actions involving the safety evaluation process
at Commonwealth Edison (CECO) facilities, it appears that CECO management
still has not ensured implementation of a conservative safety evaluation
philosophy.
The other concern involved weaknesses in several phases of the
root cause analysis and corrective action process.
This included insufficient
010006
9311020127 931022
ADOCK 05000373
G
>
_
.
.
._ __
_ _
_
__
_
. _
__ .
.
..
,
j
OCT 2 21993
Commonwealth Edison Company-
2
worker knowledge of the integrated reporting system, insufficient thoroughness
and limited scope of root cause analysis, and lack of plant management.
overview of analysis results and corrective actions.
Please carefully-review
R
these issues and provide us your perspective on the broader concerns.
In accordance with 10 CFR ?.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 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,
Original DiCnted by 3, G. GroM4A
Edward G. Greenman, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Reports
No.
50-373/93020(DRP);
No.
50-374/93020(DRP)
cc w/ enclosures:
L. O. DelGeorge, Vice President,
Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Services
W. Murphy, Site Vice President
J. Schmeltz, Acting Station Manager
J. Lockwood, Regulatory Assurance
Supervisor
D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory Services
Manager
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspectors, LaSalle,
Clinton, Dresden, Quad Cities
R. Hubbard
J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public
Utilities Division
Licensing Project Manager, NRR
R. Newmann, Office of Public -
Counsel, State of Illinois Center
State Liaison Officer
Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission
,
bec:
PUBLIC
See Previous Concurrences
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII.
RIII
RIII-
h
'
~
M
McMurtray
Burgess
.Snell
Hague
Hausman
Clayton
Gre
.
.
. - -
.
.
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
process. This included in ufficient worker knowledge of the integrated
reporting system, insufficient thoroughness and limited scope of root cause
analysis, and lack of plant management overview of analysis results and
corrective actions.
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 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,
Edward G. Greenman, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Reports
No.
50-373/93020(DRP);
No.
50-374/93020(DRP)
cc w/ enclosures:
W. Murphy, Site Vice President
J. Schmeltz, Acting Station Manager
J. Lockwood, Regulatory Assurance
Supervisor
D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory Services
Manager
OC/LFDCB
Resident inspectors, LaSalle,
Clinton, Dresden, Quad Cities
R. Hubbard
J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public
Utilities Division
Licensing Project Manager, NRR
R. Newmann, Of fice of Public
Counsel, State of Illinois Center
,
State liaison Officer
Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission
bcc:
PUBLIC
M
I
R I
Rlli
Rijl
RIl
RIII
dsman
?
Greenman
u tray
rgess
nell
'F
aus >(ayt an,,g
,
ope
e
an
r