ML17331B091
| ML17331B091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17331B090 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-93-12, 50-316-93-12, NUDOCS 9312070131 | |
| Download: ML17331B091 (3) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Indiana Michigan Power Company D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2
Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316 Licenses No. DPR-58; No.
DPR-74 During an NRC inspection conducted August 17 through September 28,
- 1993, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violations are listed below:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion I.II, states, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that the design basis is correctly translated into specifications,
- drawings, procedures, and instructions and that the design control measures shall provide for verifying the adequacy of the design.
Contrary to the above, on September 1,
- 1993, the team noted that:
a.
RWST instrumentation loop setpoint calculation No. 1-2-I9-03, dated August 25, 1993:
(2)
Erroneously derived the setpoint uncertainty value based on the use of Model N-E13 RWST transmitters.
- However, the installed RWST level transmitters were Hodel E13DM-HSAHI.
Provided no justification for using transmitter elevation 599'" to'derive the setpoint uncertainty value in the setpoint calculation.
b.
(3)
Did not consider the error effects of the velocity head of the ECCS pump flow (Safety Injection and Residual Heat Removal pumps) during design basis accidents.
Flow diagram OP-1-5144-13, "Containment Spray System Unit kl,"
incorrectly identified RWST level transmitter ILS-950 as having a
minimum level alarm at 638'l".
- However, the design basis setpoint value was 637'".
2.
10 CFR 50.59 states licensees may make changes to the facility as described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval unless the change involves an unreviewed safety question.
A written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question is required.
Section
- 10. 5. 1. 1 of the UFSAR states that the variable speed turbine driven main feedwater pumps are designed to provide the required feedwater flow to the steam generators.
In addition, Section 14.1.9 analyzed a loss of normal feedwater from pump failures which could result in a reduction of the secondary system to remove heat generated in the reactor core.
9312070131 931124 PDR ADOCK 05000315 Q
Notice of Violation Contrary to the above, on April 7, 1993, the licensee failed to perform an evaluation to determine that changes made to the feedwater pump speed control system by temporary modification 2-93-015 did not involve an unreviewed safety question.
These violations represent a Severity Level IV problem (Supplement 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the American Electric Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN.:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a
Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results
- achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a
Demand for Information may be issued to show cause why the license should not be
- modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may.
be proper should not be taken.
Where good cause is shown, considerate,ion will be given to extending the response time.
Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois, this day of November 1993