ML20245K791
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907050256 | |
| Download: ML20245K791 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000373/1989010
Text
,.
-
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ -
_
w
n-
,
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
l
l
i
6907050256 890628
\\
Q
h0
ADOCK 05000373
'
4
.-_ ___
_
A.
l3
~)
l
-
,
'
s
JUN 2 81989
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
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.
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
.
I
RII
Rill n
RIII
RI
RIIL['
/f,%+ _
/f/6"A
$5 ws+9
1ck/ jaw
J
onski
C
er
on
Ma
Miller
) A
y
.
Chl89
f/ifff
'O
_-
- - -
_.
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._ . _-._