ML20153B963
| ML20153B963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1988 |
| From: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 5019K, NUDOCS 8808310167 | |
| Download: ML20153B963 (2) | |
Text
.
[\\ Commonwealth Edison Dg s
/ One Fast Natonal Plaza. CNcaGo, IEnos
( j_v 7 Addreet Reply to: Poet omco Box 767 e-CNeago, IEnois 60690 0767 August 19, 1988 Mr. A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 l
Response to the SALP 7 Board Report NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 Reference (a):
A.B. Davis letter to Cordell Reed dated June 1, 1988.
Dear Mr. Davis:
Reference (a) transmitted the SALP 7 Board Report for LaSalle County Station and summarised our performance ratings for the period November 16, 1986 through March 15, 1988. The purpose of this letter is to provide Commonwealth Edison's coments.
We believe that that SALP 7 board Report Is well written and generally represents a balanced look at our strengths, improvements and problems encoun-tered during tha report period. We recognise this as the NRC's subjective "report card" which provides your perspective of the overall operation of LaSalle. As was discussed during the SALP Meeting on June 21, 1984, we were especially disappointed with receiving a rating of Category 2 in Plant Operations because of the improvements we have ec.mpleted in this crea and the good coments which have been received from INPO and other organisations.
Your recognisation that performance at Commonwealth Edison Company plants has improved and that the improvement at LaSalle has been dramatic is appreciated.
During the Summary Remarks at the SALP meeting, it was indicated that, although the numerical ratings of SALP 7 vere not substantially different from those in SALP 6. In balance, the station was much improved.
Specifically, the following were noted The License area improved from a Category 2 to Category 1 rating in SALP 7.
j pb 8808310167 830319 l O PDR ADOCK 05000373 l
Q Poc AUG r 41333
n *:
..,4 1
. Q.
A.B. Davis
.-2.
. August 19, 1988 i
l Operations showed significant improvement, particularly in areas of
- 6 management' involvement and response to NRC initiatives even though it received a Category 2. rating.
Emergency Preparedness was rated a Category 2 and improving, versus a Category 2 at the end of SALP 6.-
o
-Quality' Programs and Administrative Controls affecting quality.showed improvement in' areas.of management involvement and response to NRC initiatives'even though.it was rated Category 2..
~
.The Maintenance Category 2 is "low" and increased attention need to be given to the balance-of-plant-area. -
4 During your closing remarks at the meeting, you stated that "this is not a bad SALP, but LaSalle did not stay up with the improvements occurring in i
'the rest of the. industry." As was discussed at the meeting, Commonwealth Edison is committed to pursuing excellence and will concentrate more effort at LaSalle in the form of a specific LaSalle SALP Improvement Plan.
In that
.j plan, which will be presented to your scaff when complete, we will aggressively work to improve SALP awareness in station attitudes and also to improve regulatory perception.
l t
I Me believe that the improvement noted in your report and in your
[
j presentation at the SALP meeting, as well as the performance Improvements l
results which we presented.to you earlier in 1988, are the direct. result of our commitment to achieve sustained excellent performance at LaSalle Station.
This commitment continues and will be even more focused with our LaSalle SALP Improvement Plan.
j Please direct any comments you may have regarding this response to this office.
6 t
very truly yours, f
r i
b Cordell Reed i
Senior Vice President j
1m l
cca P. Shemanski - Project Manager, NRR 5
R. D. Lanksbury - LaSalle Resident Inspector I
i-5019K
0 e
e t