ML20116C693
| ML20116C693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1992 |
| From: | Kovach T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211040257 | |
| Download: ML20116C693 (2) | |
Text
,.
Commonwealth Edison l'
,2y ' 1400 Opus Place
{
Dowrers Grove. IIHnois 60515 October 28,1992 l
L l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l
Attn:
Document Control Desk L
l
Subject:
Byron Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 and 2 Response to inspection Followup Item associated with inspection Report 50-454(455)/92016 NRC_D.ocheLNumbeL50-4_5_42nd.50455
Reference:
J. R. Creed letter to Cordell Reed dated -
September 16,1992, transmitting Inspection l
Repor150-454(455)/92016.-
l Enclosed is Commonwealth Edison Company's (CECO) response to the subject inspector Followup item'which was transn:!tted witn the referenced letter.
The inspector Followup Item concerns an incident that occurred during the Ins aection. The response addresses the investigation and activities relating to the l
j inc dent.-
11 there are any questions or comments regarding this response, please contact l
Sara Reeco Koenig, Compliance dngineer, at 708/515-7250.
Very truly yours, kb-hw&a.,
T.J. Kovach Nuclear Licensing Manager SRK/cah Attachments cc:
A. Bert Davis, Regional Administrator - Region 111
~ A. H. Hsia, Project Manager, NRR W. J. Kropp, Senior Resident inspector, Byron
\\
92110402S7 921028 PDR ADOCK 05000454 j
G PDR L
ZNLD/2257i1 1-3 Ll'
.s
~
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 454(455)/92016 INSPECTOR FOLLOWUP ITEM 454(455)/92016-01 This matter pertained to the management effectiveness regarding the discovery and subsequent handling of a simulated explosive device molded from duct seal.
CECO agreed to provide a written response detailing the results of their investigation.
Response
Based on a problem investigation report, the following conclusions and corrective actions have been developed in response to the incioent
==
Conclusions:==
1.
Station personnel need to be informed that if an item is found which they believe could be an explosive device, they are to leave the item alone and make the appropriate notifications.
2.
Communications between security and oporations personnel should be clear and concise.
3.
Criteria should be established for determining what is considered a
" Suspected Explocive Devics."
4 Security personnel responsible for determining Guspected Explosive Devices should be trained on the established criteria.
Corrective Actions:
1.
A lotter was distributed to station personnel on 10/21/92 addressing the need to make the appropriate notifications anytime a device is found that is believed to be explosiva.
2.
The need to properly communicate pertinent information, and to confirm and clarify communications, has been addressed to all secur;ty personnel.
3.
Criteria for determining Suspected Explosive Devices will be established through a joint effort between Station and Corporate Security Additicnally, a Non-CECO agency will be contacted to provide input. The criteria will be established by 12/1/92 and added to station procedure BXP 200-1.
ZNLD/2257/2
.-a
-- -