IR 05000456/1983018

Ack Receipt of 840323 Ltr Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-456/83-18 & 50-457/83-17.Suppl to 840323 Ltr Should Include Listed Items Re safety-related Cable Pulling

ML20197G696
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	06/08/1984
From:	Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20197G699	List: IR 05000456/1983018 ML20197G719
References
NUDOCS 8406180118
Download: ML20197G696 (3)

Text

, .t

.- .

jd W6 UNITED STATES f., _k, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)w( REGloN 111

.h .Q 799 ROOSEVELT MoAD g C 6,,

f OLEN ELLYh, ILLINolS 60137 g ..,++

y -

JUN 8 1984 .

- -

Docket No. 50-456 Docket No. 50-457 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed Vice President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter dated March 23, 1984, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the items of noncompliance which we brought to your attention in Inspection Report No. 50-456/83-18; 50-457/83-17 forwarded by our letter dated February 27, 1984. Lubsequent to the receipt of your letter as referenced above, a meetin's regarding the subject issues was conducted on May 15, 1984 in the RIII offices between Mr. W. Little and other RIII staff and your Mr. C. Schroeder and other CECO staf The primary purposes of the meeting of May 15, 1984 was to review the status of your commitments established in your response letter dated March 23, 1984; to discuss areas of your response that appeared incomplete; and to discuss par-

-

ticularly the Stop-Work order issued by CECO and its agents, regarding safety related cable pulling on May 10, 198 Regarding each of the areas discussed, it is our understanding that where indicated, you will supplement your March 23, 1984 response letter and revise your expected dates for completion of the corrective actions as necessary. It is our understanding that the Stop-Work order dated May 10, 1984 on cable pulling activities was initiated after the NRC Resident Inspector pointed out that your commitment to revise the associated QA/QC procedure by the expected date of March 30, 1984 was not complet It is our understanding that the supplement to your letter dated March 23, 1984 will include:

(a) A schedule for rework (as required), re-inspection, and close-out of the 1,173 Inspection Correction Reports and 401 Nonconformance Reports discussed in paragraph 3.A.5 of the subject NRC repor (b) A report evaluating or analyzing the bolt torquing requirements for mounting electrical equipment as discussed in paragraph 3.D(f)2 of the subject NRC repor Pending further inspection of the issues addressed in your March 23 response letter, the following is Region III's commentary on certain of the identified items of your response letter:

0 $

• 6 /af g

-

.

o

.

.

Commonwealth Edison Company 2 JUN 81984

. Reference Violation 1 Response After review of this issue and your response regarding its classi-fication as Severity Level Iv, we will revise our records to show Severity Level . Reference Violation 2 Response This violation was classified Severity Level IV based, in part, on the large number of examples of procedure deficiencies identifie Your response presents additional information which we will follow up on during the next inspection. At that time we will evaluate the violation classification and take appropriate actio . Reference Item 2, Example 3.B.(12) Response We agree that clarification of the subject inspection procedures was needed and your response indicates that you are taking an appropriate corrective action. As you indicate the issues identified in our inspection report are addressed in other L. Comstock procedures related to this work. However, they were not explicitly addressed in the subject inspection Procedure No. 4. This could and did result in your failure to document your inspec-tion of some of these quality attribute It is our understanding that you have taken the stated corrective action because of the first sentence of your response, which states, " Commonwealth Edison Company admits that Procedure 4. did not explicitly categorize all of the items described above as pre-pull, pull, and post-pull inspection activities." Reference Item 3e, Issue (3) of Response In regard to this matter, RIII will re-examine these circumstances during a subsequent inspection. If appropriate, this issue will be deleted from the RIII inspection record We will examine all these matters during a subsequent inspectio Your cooperation with us is appreciate

Sincerely,

"Of SI 31 Signed by J. F. Stre'eter" R. L. Spessard, Director Division of Engineering

f ,

.

o

. .s Commonwealth Edison Company 3 JUN 8 1984

.

cc:

D. L. Farrar. Director of Nuclear Licensing M. Wallace, Project Manager

.D..Shamblin, Construction Superintendent J. F. Gudac, Station Superintendent cc w/1tr dtd 3/23/84:

DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS Resident Inspector, RIII Byron Resident Inspector, RIII Braidwood Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environmental Control Division Jane Whicher, Es r

. /

7 R II R(hkk R III R II ove/lc Mendez Ga Williams P Hayes Li t

'

Sp sard 6/8/84 7 g, ,

. _