ML20059K603
| ML20059K603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1994 |
| From: | Grant G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Murphy W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059K610 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-300, NUDOCS 9402020180 | |
| Download: ML20059K603 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000373/1993036
Text
e
cr. .
.g
.
January 25, 1994
)
EA'93-300
Docket No. 50-373
Docket No. 50-374
Commonwealth Edison Company
,
ATTN:- Mr. Warren Murphy
,
Site Vice President
LaSalle County Nuclear Station
2601 North 21st Road
Marseilles, IL 61341
Dear Mr. Murphy:
This refers to the electrical and instrumentation and control (I&C)
modification inspection conducted by Z. Falevits and R. Winter of'this office
on November 29 through December 21, 1993. The inspection evaluated activities
authorized for your LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2.
We discussed our-
inspection. findings with Mr. W. Murphy and others of your staff at the ex1.t.
interview on December 21, 1993.
,
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. ~ The
-
inspection team assessed the design, implementation, and engineering technical
support relative to the modification process. The inspection consisted of~a
.
f
selective review of modifications, relevant procedures, representatiu
'
records, failure history data, installed equipment, operating logs and-
interviews with engineering, operation and technical support staff.
The inspection identified a number of weaknesses including poor field
implementation of electrical modifications and reluctance by' technical staff
to use the Problem Identification Form (PIF) process, lack of managemet
oversight of Operational Analysis Department (OAD) activities and lack ef
interface between system engineers and 0AD engineers. New initiatives such as-
engineering reorganization and a streamlined modification process have been
slow in implementation.
During this inspection, we noted that certain of your activities were apparent
violations of NRC requirements. Of particular concern was'the lack of root
cause determination and' prompt corrective action to address repetitive
failures of secondary containment isolation (VR) dampers.
Procedure adequacy
-and adherence problems were also identified in a wide spectrum of procedures
-
applicable'to'the secondary containment ventilation dampers and reactor-
protection system electrical- power monitcring assemblies.
Furthermore,
testing activities relating to the Reactor Protection System-(RPS) Electrical
Power Monitoring (EPM) assemblies' overvoltage (OV), undervoltage (UV),: and
underfrequency (UF) time delay relays'were poorly controlled. 'For example,
important RPS EPM test data was inappropriately obtained with a wrist watch'
-
rather than proper test equipment.
'
i
9402020180 940125
ADOCK 05000373
G
pl '
0.10003
,
-
..
.
<
.
,
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
January 25, 1994
These apparent violations in conjunction with apparent violations in
Inspection Reports No. 50-373/93040;50-374/93040, and 50-373/93031;
,
50-374/93031 are being considered for escalated enforcement in accordance with
the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
(Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, and will be the subject of an
enforcement conference on February 1, 1994.
The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean that enforcement
action will be taken. The purposes of this conference are to discuss the
apparent violations, their cause and safety significance; to provide you the
opportunity to point out any errors in our inspection reports; and to provide
you an opportunity for you to present your proposed corrective actions.
In
addition this is an opportunity for you to provide any information concerning
your perspectives on 1) the severity of the violations, 2) the application of
the factors that the NRC considers when it determines the amount of a civil
penalty that may be assessed in accordance with section VI.B.2 of the
Enforcement Policy, and 3) any other application of the Enforcement Policy to
this case, including the exercise of discretion in accordance with section
,
V i l '.
You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our
deliberations on this matter. No response regarding the apparent violations
is required at this time.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosed inspection report, and your response to this letter
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
,
Geoffrey E. Grant, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
1.
Inspection Reports
50-373/93036(DRS);
50-374/93036(DRS)
.
See Attached Distribution
-
[M
'
RI
RII)
RII
RI
RI)
RII
Falevits
W nter
Gb"dner
y
D ayette
$ rig V
nt
Ol/p /94
0163/94
01/ /94
01Qi/94
'01/g6/94
0'l>
/94
Ol/2f/94
p
N
'. . -
.
t'4
Commonwealth Edison Company
3
January ' 25, .1994
Distribution
cc w/ enclosure:
L. DelGeorge, Vice. President, Nuclear
Oversight & Regulatory Services
D. Ray, Station Manager
J. Lockwood, Regulatory Assurance
Supervisor
D. Farrar,' Nuclear Regulatory Services
Manager
OC/LFDCB
,
Resident Inspectors, LaSalle,
Clinton, Dresden, Quad Cities
i
1R. Hubbard
i
J. ' W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public .
Utilities Division
t
Licensing Project Manager, NRR
!
R. Newmann,10f'.* ice of Public Counsel
State Liaison Officer
Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission
J. Lieberman,'0E-
J. Goldberg, 0GC
L. Callan, NRR
-
bcc w/ enclosure: PUBLIC IE01'
.,
j
,
l
,
q
.
.