ML17329A498
| ML17329A498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1992 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9205150040 | |
| Download: ML17329A498 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1992001
Text
Docket No. 50-315
Docket No. 50-316
Company
ATTN:
Mr. E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Vice President
Nuclear Operations Division
1 Riverside
Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the NRC's Systematic
Assessment
of Licensee
Performance
(SALP)
10 Report for the Donald
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant;
our meeting of March 26,
1992,
which discussed
in detail the contents of the report;
and your written comments,
dated April,21, 1992, relative to the report.
Your written response
appeared
accurate
and the staff did not disagree
with
, any of your comments.
In the area of Radiological Controls,
where you
requested
that
we reconsider your SALP rating,
we acknowledge
that
improvements
have
been
made over recent years
in this area.
Your performance
in Radiological Controls is considered
to be good,
as evidenced
by your
relatively low collective station
dose
and personnel
contaminations,
as well as
other. improvements
noted in the
SALP.
We reconvened
the
SALP Board to consider your request
to change
the
Radiological
Controls 'rating to a Category
2 with an improving trend.
The
Board concluded
the infor'mation provided in your response
had
been
considered
in the initial board deliberations
and there
was
no clear basis to change
the
initial SALP rating.
While the
SALP Bo'ard acknowledged that yout performance
in the Radiological Controls area
was strong,
they concluded that the "improving
trend" criteria had not been met.
As stated
in
an
"improving trend" is specifically defined
as
a clearly discernable
trend
which, if continued, will likely result in an increased
rating in the next
SALP assessment
period.
While the Board recognized that several
improvements
were
made during this assessment
period, they concluded that the criteria for
an improving trend were not sati sfied.
Additionally, it should
be noted that
the category rating and the assignment
of a trend are
two separate
deliberations
by the
SALP Board.
A Category
2 improving is not necessarily
a higher rating
than
a Category 2.
Based
on our discussions
during the meeting
and our review and evaluation of
your letter of response,
we have
reached
the conclusion
presented
in the
enclosed
meeting
summary.
With the incorporation of the revised
pages
from
Enclosure
3, the Initial SALP Report should
be considered
to be the Final
Report.
9205150040
920507
ADOCK 05000315
'G
/j6
Indiana Hichigan Power
Company
Distribution (Cont.)
State Liaison Officer, State
of Hichigan
Chief,
NRR/LPEB
(2 copies)
L. B. Harsh,
NRR Director,'roject Directorate III-1
J.
Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement
C.
D. Pederson,
RIII
J.
A. Isom,
L. L. Cox, RIII
(2 copies)
TSS, RIII
RIII Files
RIII PRR
Company
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 with the
referenced
enclosures,, will be placed in the NRC's.Public'ocument
Room.
I'o
reply to this letter is required;
however,
should you have questions
regarding
the Final
SALP Report,
please let us
know and. we will be pleased
to discuss
them with you.
Sincenely,
bio~ C
/yc>l '
A. Bert Davis
Regional Administrator
Enclo'sures:
1.
Final
SALP 10 Report
No. 50-315/92001;50-316/92001
(Meeting Summary)-
2.
Revision sheet(s)
3.
Revised
Pages
to SALP Report
4.
Licensee
Response
Ltr,
dtd 04/21/91
cc w/enclosures:
A. A. Blind, Plant Manager
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB
Resident
Inspector,
RIII
James
R. Padgett,
Michigan Public
Ser'vice
Commission
EIS Coordinator,
USEPA
Region
5 Office
Michigan Department of
Public Health
D.
C.
Cook,
LPM,
The Chairman
K.
C. Rogers,
Commi s s ioner
J.
R. Curtiss,
Commissioner
F. J.
Remick,
Commissioner
E.,G.
de Planque,
Commissioner
J.
H. Sniezek,
DEDR
T.
E.
Mur ley, Director,
Distribution
Continued
- RIII
RIII
Schweibinz/bt
'Jorgensen
(SEE
ATTACHED CONCURRENCES)
RIII
RIII
Brown 'asse
RIII
Schafer
RIII
Greenman
RIII
Norelius
RIII
RIII
t
Paper iello
4,
avis
0
gtql'i~
'
a
Company
No reply to this letter is requi red;
however,
should you have questions
regarding
the Final
SALP Report,
please let us
know and
we will be pleased
to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
Final
SALP 10 Report
No. 50-315/92001;50-316/92001
(Meeting
Summary)
2.
Revision sheet(s)
3.
Revised
Pages
to
SALP Report
4.
Licensee
Response
Ltr,
dtd 04/21/91
cc w/enclosures:
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,
LPM,
A. Bert Davis
Regional Administrator
The Chairman
K.
C. Rogers,
Commissioner
J.
R. Curtiss,
Commissioner
F. J.
Remick,
Commissioner
E.
G.
de Planque,
Commissioner
J.
H. Sniezek,
DEDR
T.
E. Murley, Director,
Distribution
Continued
y-S
P'e 5
R I I~I
R+11
Rgg+,wri
Schweibinz/jaw
Qorgenaen
frogn
Q -3C -'j zk
"<-3c -'90
i'(>%>
~l 'l/
RI
RIII
RIII
RIII
cP
llgp
~
Nor l
Pape iello
Davis
Sx%
RIII
c afer
f uzi
RIII
y
Gr
enean
ggII II6GI
~c~
0
Cy
C
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
799 ROOSEVELT ROAO
GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 60137
Docket No.
50.-315
Docket No. 50-316
Company
ATTN:
Mr. E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Vice President
Nuclear Operations Division
1 Riv'erside
Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the
NRC's Systematic
Assessment
of Licensee
Performance
(SALP)
10 Report for the Donald
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant; our meeting of March 26,
1992,
which discussed
in. detail
the contents of the report;
and your written comments,
dated April 21,
1992, relative to the report.
Your written response
appeared
accurate
and the staff did not di sagree
with
any of. your comments.
In the area of Radiological Controls,
where you
requested
that
we reconsider your SALP rating,
we acknowledge that
improveme~ts
have
been
made over recent years in this area.
Your performance
in Radiological Controls is considered
to be good,
as
evidenced
by your
relatively low collective station
dose
and personnel
contaminations,
as well as
other improvements
noted in the
SALP.
We reconvened
the
SALP Board to consider your request
to change
the
Radiological Controls rating to
a Category
2 with an improving trend.
The
Board concluded
the information provided in your response
had been considered
in the initial board deliberations
and there
was
no clear basis
to change
the
initial SALP rating.
While the
SALP Board acknowledged
that your performance
in the Radiological
Controls area was-strong,
they concluded that the "improving
trend" criteria had not been
met.
As stated
in
an
"improving trend" is specifically defined
as
a clearly discernable
trend
which, if continued, will likely result in an increased
rating in the next
SALP assessment
period.
While the Board recognized that several
improvements
were
made during this assessment
period,
they concluded that the criteria for
an improving trend were not satisfied.
Additionally, it should
be noted. that
the category rating
and the assignment
of a trend are
two separate
deliberations
by the
SALP Board.
A Category
2 improving is not necessarily
a higher rating
than,a
Category
2.
Based
on our discussions
during the meeting
and our review and evaluation of
your letter of response,
we have
reached
the conclusion
presented
in the
enclosed
meeting
summary.
With the incorporation of the revised
pages
from
Enclosure
3, the Initial SALP Report should
be considered
to be the Final
Report.
x
Company
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 with the
referenced
enclosures,
will be placed in,the NRC's'ublic Document
Room.
No reply to this letter is required;
however,
should you have questions
regarding
the Final
SALP Report,
please let us
know and
we will be pleased
to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
~ A. Bert Davis
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
Final
SALP 10 Report
No. 50-315/92001;50-316/92001
(Meeting
Summary)
2.
Revision sheet(s)
3.
Revised
Pages
to
SALP Report
4.
Licensee
Response
Ltr,
dtd 04/21/91
cc w/enclosures:
A. A. Blind, Plant Manager
DCD/OCB (RIOS)
OC/LFOCB
Resident
inspector,
RIII
James
R. Padgett,.
Michigan Public
Service
Commission
EIS Coordinator,
USEPA
Region
5 Office
Michigan Department of
Public Health
D.
C. Cook,
LPM,
The Chairman
K.
C.
Rogers,
Commissioner
J .
R. Curti ss,
Commissioner
F. J.'Remick,
Commissioner
E.
G. de Planque,
Commissioner
J.
H. Sniezek,
DEOR
T.
E. Hurley, Director,
Distribution
Continued
Company
Distribution (Cont.)
State Liaison Officer, State
of Michigan
Chief,
LPEB/NRR
(2 copies)
L. B. Harsh,
NRR Director, Project Directorate III-1
J. Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement
C.
D. Pederson,
RIII
J.
A. Isom,
L. L. Cox, RIII
(2 copies)
TSS, RIII
RIII Files
RIII PRR