ML20214E959

Applicant Exhibit A-166,consisting of Forwarding Further Util Comments on SALP Board Rept 4.Allegation Noted in Rept Recently Received,After Util Reporting on Subj

ML20214E959
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	10/27/1986
From:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
OL-A-166, NUDOCS 8705220343
Download: ML20214E959 (2)

Text

I

, so - 456/q s7- 0 0 '

(N Commonwealth Edison

/ ) one rus: Natanal Plata. Chicago. minois

( O -] Address Reply to. Post othee Box 767

- /h [o

', 1 j chicago. Hhnois 60690 / g 3qq ,

Wr December 26, 1984  ;

'87 APR 21 P8 :01 Mr. James G. Keppler GFFrc _ t :  :..--

Regional Administrator, Region III DOCM; r;n j,7. , :7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W D' 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Elly,n, Illinois 60137

Subject:

Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2

• SALP Assessment * -

NRC Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 Reference (a): J. G. Keppler letter to Cordell Reed dated November 6, 1984.

Dear Mr. Keppler:

On November 26, 1984, representatives of Commonwealth Edison Company met with you and members of your staff to discuss the SALP 4 Board Report, as transmitted by Reference (a). -

Commonwealth Edison Company appreciated the opportunity to discuss this report with you. We acknowledge your conclusions in Reference (a) that our " regulatory performance at the Braidwood Station was considered to be acceptable during this assessment period" and that our " regulatory performance within the SALP period showed an improving trend." Overall, we believe that this is a fair assessment of our performance.

Our detailed review of the SALP 4 Board Report did, however, reveal certain areas where we felt it appropriate that clarifying comments be entered on the record. First, we note that l the Commonwealth Edison Company positions regarding each item of i non-compliance have previously been docketed. The previous submittals included discussion of areas of disagreement between the l NRC staff and Commonwealth Edison and, therefore, those discussions

! .are not repeated in this transmittal. Other Commonwealth Edison l

Company comments are addressed in the enclosure.

We appreciate the NRC Region III Staff's effort toward providing a meaningful characterization of the overall safety l performance for the Braidwood Station.

l l Very truly yours, 8705220343 861027 6 -e-OG 0500 6

[R Cordell Reed Vice President Enclosure cc: NRC Resident Inspector - Braidwood

sc ~ ~, ' - '

q, ,- .- ,

0%'

L;; .-

COMMONWEALTH E0ISON COMPANY COMMENTS ON BRAIDWOOO SALP 4 REPORT J. .

l.- Page 7, paragraph 5. It should be clarified that the allegation was recently received, after Commonwealth Edison Company reporting

, of the subject. Our decision to expand the sample-inspection to 100% was based upon the initial sample results. The July 3, 1984 report explained that the sample inspection reports were being  ;

evalveted. Additional status was provided by David H. Smith letter ~ j to J. G. Keppler dated November 2, 1984.

2. Page 8,. paragraph,C.l.d. Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/83-09; 50-457/83-09 should be 50-456/84-09; 50-457/84-09.

3. Page 9, second'to last paragraph, sentence 3. We believe that the as-built- drawing ~ process, which was always part of our program, provides requisite information to the design engineers for

-determining the adequacy of field installations.

4. Page 10, Paragraph 2, last sentence. The MTV effort is currently

' . in progress. When the results have been finalized and evaluated, they will be submitted to the NRC.

5. Page 10, last paragraph. The exact purpose and objectives of the BCAP are defined in the BCAP scope document.

6. Page 19, paragraph h. Severity Level IV should be V.

7. Page 21, paragraph h. AL we clarified in the November 26, 1984 meeting, our response to Inspection Report 83-09 indicated that an overinspection goal of 25% has been established. This has been accomplished in the area of visual weld inspection for most major contractors.- Checklists have been prepared to permit broad overinspection coverage. Our percentage of overinspection will vary depending on the results of our selected inspections. For example; overinspections for concrete expansion anchor installation have been activity increased may' temporarily decrease to 100%,

in selected if warranted.Likewise, overinspection areas,

8. Page 21, paragraph k. The exact purpose and objectives of the BCAP are defined in the BCAP scope document.

9574N e

G