ML20100K215
| ML20100K215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1985 |
| From: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 9847N, NUDOCS 8504120320 | |
| Download: ML20100K215 (2) | |
Text
D rn 0
.s,,
~
Commonwealth Edison Ona First Nation 11 Pina. Chic"go, Illinois Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 March 7, 1965 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Amended Response to Inspection Report 50-456/82-05, 50-457/82-05 NRC Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 References (a):
Cordell Reed letter to J. G. Keppler dated April 4, 1983 (b):
T. R. Tramm letter to J. G. Keppler dated December 30, 1982 (c):
E. D. Swartz letter to J. G. Keppler dated March 1, 1983
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Reference (a), attachment A, Response to Notice of Violation, Civil Penalty Violation A, Example 1, Corrective Action Taken to Avoid Further Violations, stated "As described in the October 8, 1982 report, a full time Project Manager was assigned to the Braidwood site.
The performance of all site contractors was reviewed closely to determine if similar problemssekisted.
None was found but substantive improvements were made in the organization and procedures of several site contractors.
Additionally, a scheduled major QA audit was advanced and the scope was broadened."
The October 8, 1982 report referred to is the 30-day Report for 50.55(e) 82-07, Mechanical Equipment Erection.
The Reference (b) and (c) issues were identified and addressed during the contractor performance review.
A retrospective evaluation of Reference (a) and documentation associated with the cited contractor performance review indicated the issues reported by References (b) and (c) might be interpreted as "similar problems".
8504120320 850307 gDR ADOCK 05000456 MAR I 4 1995 i
PDR l g L
~
qs.Y/
J. G. Keppler March 7, 1985 The problem, as viewed by Communwealth Edison' at the time of the Reference (a) submittal, was a " lack of approved" installation and inspection procedures.
The issues addressed by References (b) and-(c) are associated with deficiencies in " approved" installation and inspection procedures in effect at that time.
When Reference (a) was prepared, specific procedure deficiencies were not believed to be "similar" to a lack of approved procedures.
While we believe our assessment of the issues is accurate, the purpose of this letter is to preclude our Reference (a) response, in conjunction with our Reference (b) and (c) reports, from being interpreted differently than what was -intended during the time frame of their sumbittal.
If there are any questions in this matter, please contact this of fice.
Very truly yours,
=&
h.
D. L. Farrar Director of Nucleaf' Licensing cc:
NRC Resident Inspector - Braidwood Station 9847N