ML20216E555
| ML20216E555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1998 |
| From: | Dacimo F COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 50-373-96-11, 50-374-96-11, NUDOCS 9804160241 | |
| Download: ML20216E555 (2) | |
Text
onnmonwcann us.n tonin.ny d
ia ane cencranna sanon s
b 2htll North list lbs.nl ei
\\tarwilles, il 614 il ')'i' 3
ici m sas 4,,,i April 10,1998 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Supplemental Response to NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-373/96011; 50 374/96011 (DRS)
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License NPF-11 and NPF-18 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374
References:
(1)
G.E. Grant Letter to W.T. Subalusky, dated November 15,1996, Transmitting NRC Inspection Report 373/374/ 96011 (2)
W.T. Subalusky letter to USNRC, dated January 10,1997, Transmitting Response to NRC Inspection Report 373/374/ 96011 The Reference 2 letter responded to a number of violations identified in the Reference 1 Inspection Report. The pvpose of this letter is to clarify a number of the actions that were described as being developed for implementation in January 1997.
Specifically, on page 7 of the Reference 2 letter, LaSalle summarized the most important of the improvement efforts that would be implemented prior to restart of Unit 1. LaSalle indicated that detailed action steps for each of these areas was being prepared. These action steps were included in the LaSalle County Restart Plan.
Based on the implementation of the Restart Plan, LaSalle must clarify the intent of two actions listed on page 7 of the Reference 2 letter.
(0 Bullet 1 discusses " system qualifications for all System Engineering g\\
personnel for assigned systems in accordance with plant procedures 40 (all systems will be assigned)."
.m 6.8 v V O I
~
9004160241 980410 PDR ADOCK 05000373 0
\\ t nionn company
l l
4 4
The intent of this action was to have a System Engineer assigned to all systems that have a Maintenance Rule function, are safety-related or are PRA significant. Systems have been assigned based on this criteria.
Bullet 2 discusses the Engineering Assurance Group (EAG) functions.
It identified that reviews would be "in line for the following engineering products: Safety Evaluations, Operability Evaluations, Technical Specification Clarifications, Root Cause Reports, selected design packages, selected material evaluations, LERs, regulatory submittals."
As the EAG Charter was developed in early 1997 some of the reviews indicated above were not included in the EAG Charter or were assigned to be completed by another organization.
i The Corrective Action Review Board is responsible for in line reviews of root cause reports. As such, the EAG does not perform these reviews.
" Selected design packages" and " selected material evaluations" are not reviewed in-line. Per the EAG Charter, selected reviews of final design packages and material
)
evaluations are completed by the EAG.
The EAG Charter was not clear on the scope of " regulatory submittals". This has been defined as License Amendment Requests.
j If there are any questions or comments concerning this letter, please refer them to Harry Pontious, Regulatory Assurance Manager, at (815) 357-6761, extension 2383.
Resp
- ully, i
V Fred R. Dacimo Site Vice President LaSalle County Station ec:
A. B. Beach, NRC Region lll Administrator t
M. P. Huber, NRC Senior Resident inspector - LaSalle D. M. Skay, Project Manager - NRR - LaSalle