ML17328A777
| ML17328A777 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1990 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Alexion M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17328A778 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011200208 | |
| Download: ML17328A777 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1990001
Text
ROY g 5 1890
Docket No. 50-315
Docket No. 50-316
Company
ATTN:
Mr. Milton P. Alexich
Vice President
Nuclear Operations Division
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Gentlemen:
Enclosed for your review, prior to our scheduled
meeting at the site
on
November 28,
1990, at 1:00 p.m., is the
9 Board Report for the
Donald
C.
Cook Nuclear Generating
Plant,
covering the period July 1,
1989
through August 31,
1990.
In accordance
with NRC Policy, I have reviewed the
SALP Board Assessment
and
concur with the ratings except the rating for Maintenance/Surveillance.
The
SALP Board deliberated
at length
on this functional
area
and had difficulty .
in determining whether
the rating should
be
a Category
3 improving or a
Category
2.
The final determination
by a majority of the members
was
Category
2.
I have carefully considered
your performance
in this functional
area
and concluded that the appropriate
rating is, Category
3 with an improving
trend.
While I recognize
some
improvement in maihtenance
and material
condition of the plant, I note that there were
many weaknesses
in maintenance
practices'hese
included poor maintenance
procedures
and adherence
to them;
poor work histories
and trending;
many equipment
leaks,
although the
number is
decreasing
now; undocumented
temporary repairs;
and
a limited preventive
maintenance
program.
I also note slow implementation of certain
major aspects
of your maintenance
improvement program.
Other specific highlights of the
report are set forth below:
1.
The Category
1 ratings in the areas of Operations
and
Emergency
Planning
were the
same
as in previous
assessments.
The Category
1 rating in
Security was
an improvement.
This was largely based
on substantial
hardware
improvements
and effective management
action to correct
identified problems.
You are to be
commended for the performance
reflected in these ratings.
2.
Category
2 ratings were assigned to Radiological Controls
and to Safety
Assessment/Quality
Verification.
In general,
these reflect an appropriate
level of attention
and performance
in these
areas.
3.
A Category
3 rating was assigned to Engineering/Technical
Support.
This
rating declined
when compared
to the previous
assessment.
The rating is
based
upon poor control of design,
design verification, and assessment
of
equipment
performance
problems.
Numerous deficiencies
were also noted in
the plant's'ire protection
safe
shutdown
program.
g/$ 0
n
E,
Company
I
am concerned
that the weaknesses
outlined in the
SALP report in the areas
of
Maintenance
and Engineersng/Technical
Support are long standing
and that they
have
been known'o you, yet actions
have not been completed or were not
effective.
To ensure
an increased
focus
on these
problems,
I have instructed
my staff to increase
the frequency of periodic meetings with your staff to
closely track your corrective action
on these
issues
on
a more frequent basis.
I also intend to monitor your progress
personally.
At the
SALP meeting you should
be prepared
to discuss
our
assessments
and your
.plans to improve performance.
The meeting is intended to be
a candid dialogue
wherein
any comments
you may have regarding
our report are discussed.
Additionally, you may provide written comments within thirty days after the
meeting.
Your comments,
a
summary of our meeting,
and
my disposition of your
comments will be issued
as the Final
SALP Report.
In accordance
with Section
2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2,
Title 10,
Code of Federal
Regulations,
a copy of this letter and the Initial
SALP Board Report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document
Room.
Should you have
any questions
concerning
the
SALP Report,
we would be pleased
to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Initial SALP
9
Reports
No. 50-315/90-01;
No. 50-316/90-01
A. Bert
avis
Regional Administrator
cc w/enclosure:
J.
H. Sniezek,
DEDR
T ~
E. Murley, Director,
K.
M. Carr,
Chairman
K.
C. Rogers,
Commissioner
J.
R. Curtiss,
Commissioner
F. J.
R mick, Commissioner
RIII
j)
R
Schwei inz/dsv
qrgess
rL(L>
Hague"
RIII
RII
RIII
artin
Pa
)ello
ss
<<Ki4+~
ll /51'f~
< I /~j'F+
~
ton
RIII
No
'us
u(>
PYS
RIII
l 1er
/<z/i~
NOV 2 g lg90
Indiana Mi'chigan Power
Company
Distribution
Continued
T.
G. Colbur n,
NRR Senior Project Manager
R.
C. Pierson,
NRR Director, Project Directorate III-I
~ J.
Lieberman, Director, Office of
Enforcement
E.
W. Brach,
M. L. Dapas,
C.
F. Holden,
R.
L. Wharton,
RIII PRR
State
Liaison" Officer, State
of Michigan
L. A. Reyes,
RII
L.
R. Greger, RIII
M. J.
Pearson,
RIII
L. L. Cox, RIII
RIII Files
A@8 46'p
+
0
Cy
A.
o Q
0
qO
+a*++
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR'EGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
799 ROOSEVELT ROAO
GLEN ELLYN, II LINOIS 60197
ROY
1. 5 lo'30
Docket No. 50-315
Docket No. 50-316
Company
ATTN:
Mr. Milton P. Alexich
Vice President
Nuclear Operations Division
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Gentlemen:
Encl,osed for your review, prior to our scheduled
meeting at the site
on
November 28,
1990, at 1:00 p.m., is the
SALP 9 Board Report for the
Donald
C.
Cook Nuclear Generating
Plant, covering the period July 1,
1989
through August 31,
1990.
In accordance
with NRC Policy, I have reviewed the
SALP Board Assessment
and
concur with the ratings except the rating for Maintenance/Surveillance.
The
SALP Board deliberated
at length
on this functional area
and
had difficulty
in determining whether the rating should
be
a Category
3 improving or a
Category
2.
The final determination
by a majority of the members
was
Category
2.
I have carefully considered
your performance
in this functional
area
and concluded that the appropriate
rating is Category
3 with an improving
trend.
Mhile I recognize
some
improvement in maintenance
and material
condition of the plant, I note that there were
many weaknesses
in
maintenance'ractices.
These
included poor maintenance
procedures
and adherence
to them;
poor work histories
and trending;
many equipment leaks,
although the
number is
decreasing
now;
undocumented
temporary repairs;
and
a limited preventive
maintenance
program.
I also note slow implementation of certain major aspects
of your maintenance
improvement
program.
Other specific highlights of the
report are set forth below:
1.
The Category
1 ratings in the areas
of Operations
and
Emergency
Planning
were the
same
as in previous assessments.
The Category
1 rating in
Security
was
an improvement.
This was largely based
on substantial
hardware
improvements
and effective management
action to correct
identified problems.
You are to be
commended for the performance
reflected in these ratings.
2.
3.
Category
2 ratings were assigned
to Radiological Controls
and to Safety
Assessment/guality
Verification.
In general,
these reflect an appropriate
level of attention
and performance
in these
areas.
A Category
3 rating was assigned
to Engineering/Technical
Support.
This
rating declined
when compared to the previous assessment.
The rating is
based
upon poor control of design,
design verification, and assessment
of
equipmert performance
problems.
Numerous deficiencies
were also noted in
the plant's fire protection
safe
shutdown
program.
Company
I
am concerned that the weaknesses
outlined in the
SALP report in the areas of
Maintenance
and Engineering/Technical
Support are long. standing
and that they
have
been
known to you, yet actions
have not been
completed or were not
effective.
To ensure
an increased
focus
on these
problems,
I have instructed
my staff to increase
the frequency of periodic meetings with your staff to
closely track your corrective action
on these
issues
on
a more frequent basis.
I also intend to monitor your progress
personally.
At the
SALP meeting you should
be prepared to discuss
our assessments
and your
plans to improve performance.
The meeting is intended to be
a candid dialogue
wherein any comments
you may have regarding
our report are discussed.
Additionally, you may provide written comments within thirty days after the
meeting.
Your comments,
a
summary of our meeting,
and
my disposition of your
comments will be issued
as the Final
SALP Report.
In accordance
with S'ection 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2,
Title 10,
Code of Federal
Regulations,
a copy of this letter and the Initial
SALP Board Report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document
Room.
Should you have
any questions
concerning
the
SALP Report,
we would be pleased
to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Initial SALP 9
Reports
No. 50-315/90-01;
No. 50-3l6/90-01
A. Bert
avis
Regional Administrator
cc w/enclosure:
J .
H. Sniezek,
DEDR
T.
E. Hurley, Director,
K. M. Carr,
Chairman
K. C. Rogers,
Commissioner
J.
R. Curtiss,
Commissioner
F. J.
Remick,
Commissioner
Company
Distribution
Continued
T.
G. Colburn,
NRR Senior Project
Manager
R.
C. Pierson,
NRR Director, Project Directorate III-I
J.
Lieberman, Director, Office of
Enforcement
E.
W. Brach,
M. L. Dapas,
C.
F. Holden,
R.
L. Wharton,
RIII PRR
State
Liaison Officer, State
of Michigan
L. A. Reyes,
RII
L.
R. Greger, RIII
M. J.
Pearson,
RIII
L. L. Cox, RIII
RIII Files