ML20245K791

Forwards Maint Team Insp Repts 50-373/89-10 & 50-374/89-10 on 890501-05,15-19 & 25 & Notice of Violation.Insp Team Conclusion That Maint Satisfactorily Performed & Effective Noted.Weaknesses Discussed

ML20245K791
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	06/28/1989
From:	Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20245K794	List: IR 05000373/1989010 ML20245K791 ML20245K801
References
NUDOCS 8907050256
Download: ML20245K791 (3)

See also: IR 05000373/1989010

Text

,. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _

w n- ,

OE ol'

p,.y ,

-

,

'

l} ,,

-<

,

JUN 2 81989

jH

-

i<

-

Docket Noi 50-373'

'

!

'

Docket No. 50-374

Commonwealth Edison Company.

. ATTN: Mr..Cordell Reed-

e Senior Vice President

.'. iPost Office Box 767

. Chicago, IL 60690-

. Gentlemen: ,.

This refers to'the special. maintenance team inspection conducted by Ms._S. Eick

and others of this office;on May.1-5, 15-19, and 25,.1989. This inspection

covered activities at L'aSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 as authorized.by

'

NRC Operating Licenses NPF-11 and NPF-18, and the inspection ~ findings that were

discussed with Mr. D. Galle and others of your staff.at the conclusion of the

inspection.

The inspection.was conducted to assess and evaluate your support and

implementation of maintenance to assure that plant structures, systems, and

components reliably perform on-demand. Various activities'were evaluated to

determine if. maintenance was accomplished, effective, and adequately assessed

by_your.own quality; verification process.

The enclosed copy of our. inspection report identifies specific areas examined

during the~ inspection. .Within these areas, the. inspection consisted of a

.

' selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations,

and interviews with personnel. In an attempt to. focus on those activities

which are most risk significant,. insights from LaSalle County Station's

Probabilistic Risk Assessment study, performed by the NRC, were used to select

systems and components'important to safety.

Plant performance since January 1989 was good in the areas of reactor trips,

safety system actuations, and forced outage rate. Overall, the inspection

team concluded that maintenance at LaSalle County Station appeared to be

satisfactorily performed and effective. The team identified strengths and

weaknesses in the maintenance process, which are highlighted in the executive

summary. Section 4.0~of the-inspection report provides a synopsis of your

.

maintenance program.

.The most significant weaknesses identified were: (1) instances of poor

communication between corporate and site that resulted in inadequate corrective

action on a 10 CFR 21 report regarding potential common mode failure of more

than.50 motor-operated valves; (2) instances of ineffective direction of

maintenance activities that resulted, for example, in lack of QC involvement

iin surveillance testing, and inadequate controls to monitor the performance j

of degraded solenoid operated discharge valves of the fuel oil transfer pumps

i

i l l

6907050256 890628 \

PDR ADOCK 05000373

h0

'

Q PDC

4

.-_ ___ _

A.

l3 ~)

l

- ,

'

s

Commonwealth Edison Company 2

JUN 2 81989

for Unit 2 emergency diesel generators; (3) instances of inadequate engineering

support that resulted in poor Technical Staff review of procedures used to

verify operability of the five emergency diesel generators, and limited

involvement with cause/ failure analysis associated with Program Analysis Data

Sheets; and (4) in many instances there was an overall low level of system

.

awareness and technical knowledge of System Engineers. Although some actions

were in progress to address these concerns, increased management attention is

required to affect needed' improvement.

During this inspection, certain.of your activities appeared to be in violation

i of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice. A written response

is required.

'

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed

in the NRC Public Document Room.

The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not

subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and not

Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

" Original Signed by i:. W. C:or-- E"h

Hubert J. Miller, Director #

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Reports

No. 50-373/89010(DRS);

No. 50-374/89010(DRS)

cc w/ enclosures:

T. Kovach, Nuclear

Licensing Manager

G. J. Diederich, Station

Manager

DCD/DCB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch

Resident Inspector, RIII

Richard Hubbard

J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public

Utilities Division I

ye .

RIII RI I RII Rill n

$5 ws+9 RIIL['

/f,%+ _

/f/6"A

1ck/ jaw J onski C er on Ma Miller

) A

'O y .

Chl89 f/ifff

_-

- - - _.

-

j , .

! ,.- .,_

< ;, _

<

Commonwealth Edison Cotepany 3 JUN 2 81989

i.i -

Distribution Cont'd

David Rosenblatt, Governor's

, Office of Consumer Services

Commissioner'Curtiss, OCM/JC

K. Hart, NRR/LPEB

Director / Division of Reactor

Safety RI, RII, RIV, RV

.

i

22._ . _-._