ML20086P413
| ML20086P413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1984 |
| From: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086P402 | List: |
| References | |
| 8095N, NUDOCS 8402270153 | |
| Download: ML20086P413 (3) | |
Text
n s.
~
x Commonwealth Edison
-[
) oni First Nabon 1 Pitza. Chictgo, liknois
( C ] Address Reply to: Post Othee Box 767 X
,/ Chicago. Ilknois 60690 February 3, 1984 Mr.-James G. Keppler Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Response to Inspection Report Nos.
50-373/83-49 and 50-374/83-52 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 Reference (a):
W. D. Shafer letter to Cordell Reed dated January 6, 1984.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
This letter is in response to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. G. Guldemand, S. C. Guthrie, C. D.
Evans, and A. L. Madison on November 18 through December 16, 1983, of activities at LaSalle County Station.
Reference (a) indicated that certain activities appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements.
Reference (a) also indicated that, for Items 1 and 2, action had been taken to correct the identified noncompliances and to prevent recurrence.
Consequently, no reply to these items of noncompliance was required.
The Commonwealth Edison Company response to the remaining item in the Notice of Violation is provided in the enclosure.
Also addressed are the special concerns discussed on page 13 of the inspection report.
To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained herein_and in the attachment are true and correct.
In some respects j
these statements are not based upon my pers.,nal knowledge but upon information furnished by other Commonwealth Edison employees.
Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice and I believe it to be reliable.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please direct them to this office.
Very truly yours, 042 A ~ A e /.4 D. L.
Farrar j
Director of Nuclear Licensing CWS/lm Attachment cc:
NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS 6N FEB 8095N 8402270153 840217 gDRADOCK 05000373 e
5 ATTACHMENT Item of Noncompliance Technical Specification 3.3.6 states that the st ige and intermediate range monitor detector not full in rod b.sck A
.trumentation shall be operable in operational Conditions 2 and 5.
Technical Specification 4.3.6 requires that the source range and intermediate range monitor detector not full in rod block instrumentation be demonstrated operable in operational Conditions 2 and 5 by the performance of channel functional checks.
Contrary to the above, since the issuance of an operating license for Unit 1, the functional checks for operability demonstration required by Technical Specification 4.3.6 have not been performed.
Corrective Action Taken and Results Achieved The possible cause for not identifying the departmental requirements may have occurred from the technique utilized by the Instrument Department.
The technique was to color code portions on the Technical Specifications which were not applicable to the department.
The
-columns on Table 4.3.6-1 are identified as N.A.
for both the channel check and the channel calibration.
It is assumed that when those items were color coded as N.A.-the channel functional test was also color coded at that time as N.A.
and was not identified as a require-ment during subsequent reviews conducted by the Instrument Department.
j Corrective action was to revi.ew the color coded technical specifica-f tions to determine if any other surveillance requirements may have i
been missed and to check with other station departments to determine
[
if a similer technique was utilized for identification of their tech-nical specification requirements.
No additional items were identified and no other departments utilized the color coding technique.
Procedures LOS-NR-W1 and LOS-NR-W2 were written for the SRM's and IRM's respectively.
No problems were found during performance of the surveillance procedures by the operation department.
The LOS procedures identified above apply to both Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Corrective Action Taken to Avoid Further Noncompliance LOS-NR-W1 and LOS-NR-W2 were verified inserted into the general station surveillance program.
The procedures are being called up as required.
Date of Full Compliance December 15, 1983.
8095N
o s :
--2 l
Special Concerns In the text ~ portion of Inspection Report No. 50-373/83-49 on page 13, the licensee was requested _ "...to provide a summary of actions taken to I
date to ensure the LaSalle Units 1 and 2 surveillance program is properly 1
-proceduralized, programitized and controlled and actions to be taken to ensure any outstanding deficiencies will be expeditiously identified and corrected."-
G. J. Diederich's letter to J. G. Ker.pler dated June 17, 1982 provided
' information in reference to actions that LaSalle Station was taking in relation to: Technical Specification Surveillances.
On May 12, 1983, a meeting was held in Region III.
Areas discussed were:
Licensee perform-ance in the surveillance area and proposed corrective actions by the
- licensee.
This meeting is documented in Inspection Report No. 50-373/83-19 p
and included in this report are a brief history, NRC concerns and the licensee's response.-
As discussed with the LaSalle Senior Resident Inspector on February 1, l
1984, the major request in Inspection Report No. 50-373/83-49 was signi-ficant actions taken sin:e June, 1983, future actions planned to address I
. the concern of "programitization" control and prompt corrective action on
-identified deficiencies.
This information was reviewed with the Senior Resident and'will be documented under a separate cover letter by March 1, 1984.
- 8095N
_ _ _ ___ _ __ _______ _ _ ________ _ ___ _ ______________ _____ _ ____ _ _