ML20148G402
| ML20148G402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1988 |
| From: | Shemanski P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Butterfield L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, TAC-53684, TAC-53685, NUDOCS 8801260494 | |
| Download: ML20148G402 (10) | |
Text
,
January 20, 1988 DISTRIBUTION:
Doctet +11e OGC-Ilhite F1 int NRC & Local PDRs EJordan Docket Nos. 50-373 PDIII-2 r/f JPartlow and 50-374 GHolahan ACRS(10)
LLuther PDIII-2 Plant File PShemanski Mr. L. D. Butterfield, Jr.
Nuclear Licensing Manager Commonwealth Edison Co.
Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Butterfield:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM 2.2 (PART 1) 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28, FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 & 2, TAC NOS. 53684/53685 By letters dated November 5,1983 and February 29, 1984, Commonwealth Edison Company responded to the staff position of Item 2.2 (Part 1)
"Equipment Classification Program (Programs for All Other Safety-Related Coroponents)" of Generic Letter 83-28. Enclosed is the additional infor-mation requested by the staff in order to complete its review.
If there are any questions concerning this information, please contact Paul Shenanski, Project Manager at (301) 492-8375.
Sincerely,
/6 Paul C. Shemanski, Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page l
f.0 PDIII-2
[-
PDIII-2 DMW 'y PDE PShemanski/ww LLuther er 1/ 20 /88 1/ so /88 1/ p /88
$01'NOS U f3 P
,9 -
- T e
Mr. L. D. Butterfield, Jr.
LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Connonwealth Edison Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
John W. McCaffrey Suite 5200 Chief, Public Utilities Division Three First National Plaza 160 North LaSalle Street, Room 900 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Assistant Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street Suite'2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Resident Inspector /LaSalle, NPS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rural Route No. 1 P.O. Box 224 Marseilles, Illinois 61341 Chairman LaSalle County Board of Supervisors LaSalle County Courthouse Ottawa, Illinois 61350 Attorney General 500 South 2nd Street Springfield Illinois 62701 Chairman Illinois Connerce Comission Leland Building 527 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, Illinois 62706 Mr. Gary N. Wright, Manager Nuclear Facility Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 i.
t
~,
~a ENCLOSURE LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1&2 DCCKET N0. 50-373/374 REQUEST FCR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR GENER!C LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1 INTRODUCTION:
We have reviewed the responses to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1 dated November 5, 1983 and February 29, 1984 provided by Commonwealth Edison Company, the licensee for the LaSalle Ccunty Station, Units 1&2, and find them generally acceptable with the following two exceptions. The licensee is requested to provide additional information for these two items as described below.
Evaluation and Specific Information Request:
1.
Item 2.2.1.3 (Use of Information Handling System):
Guideline:
The licensee response should confirm that their equipment classification program includes criteria and procedures which govern the use of the information handling system to determine that an activity is safety-rr'.ated and that safety-related precedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement and other activities defined in the introduction to 10CFR50, Appendix B are applied to safety-related cceponents.
-Y
. Evaluation:
The licensee states in their response that it is up to the shift supervisor or an operating engineer to determine whether an activity is safety-related but they failec to show that these or other personnel are. required to use the information handling system.in making that determination and further, that having determined that an activity involving the component is safety-related that this activity is then conducted according to appropriate safety-related procedures.
==
Conclusion:==
The licensee should identify and describe the procedure by which supervisory and other personnel are required to use the information handling system to determine.the classification of both the. activity and the components involved in the activity.
In addition the licensee should confirm that classification of an activity as safety-related automatically causes the use of safety-related procedures, cautions and constraints.
2.
Item 2.2.1.4 (Hanagement Controls):
Guideline:
The licensee should confirm that management controls used to verify that the procedures for preparation, validation and routine utilization of the information handling system have been followed.
. Evaluation:
1 The licensee's response failed to describe the program of controls to be used by their management to assure themselves that the classification information handling system was prepared according to approved
_ procedures; that its contents have been properly validated; that it is being maintained current; and that it is being used to determine equipment classification as intended.
==
Conclusion:==
The licensee should describe their program of management controls that will be used to assure their management that the equipment classification-information handling system was properly prepared and validated, is properly maintained, and is being used as intended.
i January 20, 1988 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Fu e OGC-Ilhite Flint NRC & Local PDRs EJordan Docket Nos. 50-373 PDIII-2 r/f JPartlow and 50-374 GHolahan ACRS(10)
LLuther PDIII-2 Plant File PShemanski Mr. L. D. Butterfield, Jr.
Nuclear Licensing Manager Connonwealth Edison Co.
Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Butterfield:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITEM 2.2 (PART 1) 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28, FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 & 2, TAC NOS. 53684/53685 By letters dated November 5,1983 and February 29, 1984, Cormonwealth Edison Company responded to the staff position of Item 2.2 (Part 1)
"Equipment Classification Program (Programs for All Other Safety-Related Components)" of Generic Letter 83-28.
Enclosed is the additional infor-mation requested by the staff in order to complete its ' review.
If there are any questions concerning this information, please contact Paul Shenanski, Project Manager at (301) 492-8375.
Sincerely,
/s /
Paul C. Shemanski, Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page f.0 PDIII-2 I-PDIII-2 P
R PShemanski/ww LLuther 0
1/ 20 /88 1/ qo /88 1/ 24 /88
c.
Mr. - L. D. Butterfield, Jr.
LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Comonwealth Edison Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
John W. McCaffrey Suite 5200 Chief. Public Utilities Division Three First National Plaza 160 North LaSalle Street, Room 900 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Assistant Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Resident Inspector /LaSalle, NPS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Rural Route No. 1 P.O. Box 224 Marseilles, Illinois 61341 Chairman LaSalle County Board of Supervisors LaSalle County Courthouse Ottawa. Illinois 61350 Attorney General 500 South 2nd Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 Chairman Illinois Comerce Comission Leland Building 527 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, Illinois 62706 Mr. Gary N. Wright, Manager Nuclear Facility Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 T
??
T
i
{
ENCLOSURE LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1&2 DCCKET NO. 50-373/374 REQUEST FCR ADDITIONil :NFORMATION FOR GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
We have reviewed the responses to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1 dated November 5, 1983 and February 29, 1984 provided by Comonwealth Edison Company, the licensee for the LaSalle Ccunty Station, Units 1&2, and find them generally acceptable with the following two exceptions. The licensee is requested to provide additional information for these two items as described below.
Evaluation and Specific Information Request:
1.
Item 2.2.1.3 (Use of Information Handling System):
Guideline:
6 I
The licensee response should confirm that their equipment classification program includes criteria and procedures which govern the use of the information handling system to determine that an activity is safety-related and that safety-related procedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement and other activities defined in the introduction to 10CFR50, Appendix B are applied to safety-related components.
. _ - __ - =_
.,\\
Evaluation:
The licensee states in their response that it is up to the shift supervisor or an operating engineer to determine whether an activity is safety-related but they fallec to show that these or other personnel are requireo to use the information handling system in making that determination and further, that having determined that an activity involving the component is safety-related that this activity is then conducted according to appropriate safety-related procedures.
==
Conclusion:==
The licensee should identify and describe the procedure by which supervisory and other personnel are required to use the information handling system to determine the classification of both the activity and the components involved in the activity.
In addition the licensee should confirm that classification of an activity as safety-related automatically causes the use of safety-related procedures, cautions and constraints.
2.
Item 2.2.1.4 (Hanagement Controls):
Guideline:
The licensee should confirm that management controls used to verify that the procedures fer preparation, validation and routine utilization of the information handling system have been followed.
I l
i i
.o
,, \\,
Evaluation:
The licensee's response failed to describe the program of controls to be used by their management to assure themselves that the classification information handling system was prepared according to approved procedures; that its contents have been properly validated; that it is being maintained current; and that it is being used to determine equipment classification as intended.
==
Conclusion:==
The licensee should describe their program of management controls that will be used to assure their management that the equipment classification information handling system was properly prepared and validated, is properly maintained, and is being used as intended.
.