ML20090M753
| ML20090M753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1984 |
| From: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20090M746 | List: |
| References | |
| 8545N, NUDOCS 8405290166 | |
| Download: ML20090M753 (2) | |
Text
-
/^'$ Commonwealth Edison
(
f-
[
) one First National Plata Chicago, Ilknois l
( ~ ~ ] Address Reply to. Post Office Box 767
-J N
/ Chicago, Illinois 60690 May 1, 1984 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Supplemental Response to IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/83-17 and 50-457/83-16 NRC Docket Nos. 50-456/457 References (a):
R. C. Knop Letter to Cordell Reed dated February 3, 1984 (b):
E. D. Swartz Letter to J. G. Keppler dated February 28, 1984 (c):
D. L. Farrar Letter to J. G. Keppler dated April 9, 1984
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Reference (a) provided the Commonwealth Edison Company with the results of an inspection conducted by Mr. L. G. McGregor of-your office during the period of October 3 through December 16, 1983, of activities at our Braidwood Station.
During that inspection, certain activities appeared to be in non-compliance with NRC requirements'.
Reference (b) provided the Commonwealth Edison Company responee to the woven wire fence issue for both Byron and Braidwood Stations as requested in Reference (a).
Reference (c) provided the thirty day response to the item of non-compliance.
The purpose of this letter is to supplement our Reference (c) thirty day response and address three items discussed with Mr. W. L.
Forney of your staff'on April 26 and 27, 1984 as follows:
1.
Page 12, paragraph 5 of Reference (c), states that " Site Quality Assurance will review records to identify any other maintenance activities Operational Analysis Department might have had responsibility for at the site and evaluate these activities to determine whether Operational Analysis Department specific practices in the area were properly carried out".
This addresses the NRC question on the need to examine other areas of responsibility for Operational Analysis Department.
D$D 0
MAy_ gy i
r L'
o 2.
Revise last sentence of the first paragraph on Page 4 in the response to Example 2 of Reference (c) to read as follows:
"Braidwood Site Quality Assurance does not have the responsibility for review and approval of Operational Analysis Department Electrical Construction Test Procedures generated from System Operational Analysis Department.
Site Quality Assurance will review and approve any site specific Operational Analysis Department procedures."
Also, any future revisions to the Electrical Construction Procedures will be reviewed by Site Quality Assurance in addition to the General Office Quality Assurance review.
3.
It is the practice of Site Quality Assurance to monitor all o'f Operational Analysis Department's activities and not just the maintenance of the battery banks.
Consequently, add the following sentence to the end of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of page 12 of Reference (c)
"This specific activity will be performed in conjunction with Site Quality Assurance's monitoring of all OAD activities."
Please address any questions that you or your staff may have 4
concernin0 this matter to this office.
Very truly yo,urs, 7
r-r Dennis L. Farr Director of Nuclear Licensing EDS/ rap Attachment cc:
RIII Inspector Braidwood (8545N)
-