IR 05000315/1991027
| ML17329A496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1992 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9205120009 | |
| Download: ML17329A496 (2) | |
Text
~PR REC0~
r Mr0 (
I (I
0
+**<<+,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
799 ROOSEVELT ROAO GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 60137 NY 07 >gg2 Docket No. 50-315 Docket No. 50-316 Indiana Hichigan Power Company ATTN:
Hr.
E. Vi'ce President Nuclear Operations Division 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43216
Dear Hr. Fitzpatrick:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS.
50-315/91027(DRP)
AND 50-316/91027 (DRP)
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 27, 1992, in response to our letter dated January 28, 1992, transmitting a Notice of Violation associated with Inspection Report Nos.
50-315/91027(DRP)
and 50-316/91027(DRP).
This refers also to the meeting which was held at the D.
C.
Cook plant site on April 3, 1992, among W. D.'hafer and B. L. Jorgensen of this office, J.
F ~ Stang of the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and A. A. Blind, J.
B. Kingseed, H.
E. Barfelz, and others of your staff.
. Your letter to'ok exception to five of the six examples cited in the Notice of Violation.
You concluded the remaining example was isolated; no programmatic deficiencies were identified.
We are not retracting any of the examples cited in our Notice.
After carefully considering the information provided by your staff in your
'ebruary 27, 1992, response to the Notice of Violation and at the April 3 meeting, we continue with the view that your screening process, as implemented for the six examples cited, was not in compliance with 10 CFR 50.59.'e reviewed your corrective actions taken to resolve the Notice of Violation and found them acceptable.
We note that you have committed to procedural revisions governing the conduct of 10 CFR 50.59 review for the D. C.
Cook facility.
These include clarifying the relationship between your initial technical safety review conducted as part of your screening process and the regulatory applicability review under
CFR 50.59(a)(l) which is performed by your Nuclear Safety, Licensing and Assessment group. Additionally, the procedures are to be updated to describe the logic and decisionmaking used when concluding from the screening review whether an unreviewed safety question (USg) could exist'.
Until such time as we have had an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of these proposed changes, we cannot conclude that you have eliminated all of the potential pitfalls related to our concerns.
We believe that regularly scheduled quality Assurance audits are desirable to provide oversight of your screening process.
'3(205120009
'II20507 PDR ADOCK 05000315 PDR
V
~
~
~
Indiana Michigan Power Company NY Op]ggg We are concerned that the potential exists, given the flexibilityto make conditional US( determinations, for improperly classifying proposed changes or modifications.
As a minimum, adequate documentation and oversight of the resolution of all open items are crucial to assessment and audit functions.
We continue to view your program with some concern, and we plan to closely monitor your future progress.
Sincerely, cc:
A. A. Blind, Plant Manager DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, RIII James R. Padgett, Michigan Public Service Commission EIS Coordinator, USEPA Region 5 Office Michigan Department of Public Health D.
C.
Cook, LPH,.NRR Edward G.
Greenman, Director Division of Reactor Projects
"-"
@~. Sc@H[ibinz/dp
, RIII Jo gensen I-9 ~
R@II Pederson ojP RI sv /0a