ML17332A309
| ML17332A309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1994 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17332A310 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9409290128 | |
| Download: ML17332A309 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1994014
Text
September
21,
1994
Company
ATTN:
Nr.
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
1 Riverside
Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Dear Nr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the routine safety inspection
conducted
by messrs.
James
A.
Isom, David J. Hartland,
and John
H. Niesler of this office from July 2,
1994,
through August 12,
1994.
The inspection
included
a review of activities at
your Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2, facility.
At the conclusion
of the inspection,
the findings were discussed
with those
members of your
staff identified in the enclosed report.
Areas
examined during the inspection
are identified in the report.
Within
these
areas,
the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures
and representative
records,
observations,
and interviews with personnel.
Based
on the results of this inspection,
certain of your activities appeared
to be in violation of NRC requirements,
as specified in the enclosed
Notice of
Violation (Notice).
In regards to the first violation,
we were concerned that
low standards
in the operations
department
resulted in ineffective corrective
actions to address
tour falsification issues.
We acknowledge that you have
taken aggressive
corrective actions to address this issue after it was brought
to your attention.
With respect to the first violation of the enclosed
Notice of Violation, you
are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed
Notice when preparing your response.
In your
response,
you should document the specific actions taken
and any additional
actions
you plan to prevent recurrence.
After reviewing your response
to this
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions
and the results of future
inspections,
the
NRC will determine whether further
NRC enforcement
action is
necessary
to ensure
compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
With respect
to the second violation of the enclosed
Notice of Violation, the
inspection
showed that actions
were taken to correct the identified violation
and to prevent recurrence.
Although Section
2.201 requires
you to submit to
this office, within 30 days of your receipt of this Notice,
a written
statement of explanation,
.we note that this violation was corrected
and those
actions
were reviewed during this inspection.
Therefore,
no response
with
respect
to the second violation of the Notice is required.
9409290l28
94092l
ADOCK 05000315
9
Company
Also, during this inspection,
other activities appeared
to be in violation of
NRC requirements.
However,
as described
in the enclosed
inspection report,
you identified this violation,
and to encourage
and support licensee
initiatives for self-identification and correction of violations, the
violations are not being cited because
the criteria specified in Section
VII.B.2 of the "General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement
Actions," were satisfied.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations;
a copy of
this letter,
and the enclosure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room.
We will gladly discuss
any questions
you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Edward
G.
Greenman,
Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No. 50-315
Docket No. 50-316
Enclosure:
1.
2.
Notice of Deviation
3.
Inspection
Report
No.
50-315/94014 (DRP);
50-316/94014 (DRP)
cc w/encl:
A. A. Blind, Plant Manager
OC/LFDCB
Resident
Inspector, RIII
James
R. Padgett,
Michigan Public
Service
Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
D.
C. Cook,
LPH,
IPAS (E-Hail)
Qc&"
~ Pccg/l~
Document: g.'o,qzySpgp7~ P~~~g~ K4 Q~C.~~o
~
~
To v>>ceive a copy of this document,
indfcate in the box
C
~ Copy without attach/encl
E
~ Copy arith attach/encl
N
No co
OFFICE
RIII
NAME
Pirok
DATE
09
0 94
RI
K
09
94
0 ~
94
OFFICIAL RECORD
COPY
Company
Also, during this inspection,
other activities appeared
to be in violation of
NRC requirements.
However,
as described
in the enclosed
inspection report,
you identified this violation,
and to encourage
and support licensee
initiatives for self-identification
and correction of violations, the
violations are not being cited because
the criteria specified in Section
VII.B.2 of the "General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC .Enforcement
Actions," were satisfied.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations,
a copy of
this letter,
and the enclosure will be placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room.
We will gladly discuss
any questions
you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
F~Q.W
Edward
G.
Greenman,
Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No. 50-315
Docket No. 50-316
Enclosure:
1.
2.
Notice of Deviation
3.
Inspection
Report
No.
50-315/94014(DRP);
50-316/94014(DRP)
t
cc w/encl:
A. A. Blind, Plant Manager
OC/LFDCB
Resident
Inspector, RIII
James
R. Padgett,
Michigan Public
Service
Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
D.
C.
Cook,
LPH,
IPAS (E-Hail)
~ggl AEg(
Cy
A.n
t
0
+**<<<<
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION III
801 WARRENVILLEROAD
USLE, ILUNOIS60532-4351
September
21,
1994
Indiana Hichigan
Power
Company
ATTN:
Hr.
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Dear Hr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the routine safety inspection
conducted
by Hessrs.
James
A.
Isom, David J. Hartland,
and John
H. Niesler of this office from July 2,
1994,
through August
12,
1994.
The inspection
included
a review of activities at
your Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2, facility.
At the conclusion
of the inspection,
the findings were discussed
with those
members of your
staff identified in the enclosed
report.
Areas
examined during the inspection
are identified in the report.
Within
these
areas,
the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures
and representative
records,
observations,
and interviews with personnel.
Based
on the results of this inspection,
certain of your activities appeared
to be in violation of NRC requirements,
as specified in the enclosed
Notice of
Violation (Notice).
In regards to the first violation,
we were concerned
that
low standards
in the operations
department
resulted
in ineffective corrective
actions to address
tour falsification issues.
We acknowledge that you have
taken aggressive
corrective actions to address this issue after it was brought
to your attention.
With respect to the first violation of the enclosed
Notice of'Violation, you
are required to respond to this letter
and should follow the instructions
specified 'in the enclosed
Notice when preparing your response.
In your
response,
you should
document the specific actions
taken
and
any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
After reviewing your response
to this
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions
and the results of future
inspections,
the
NRC will determine
whether further
NRC enforcement
action is
necessary
to ensure
compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
With respect to the second violation of the enclosed
Notice of Violation, the
inspection
showed that actions
were taken to correct the identified violation
and to prevent recurrence.
Although Section
2.201 requires
you to submit to
this office, within 30 days of your receipt of this Notice,
a written
statement of explanation,
we note that this violation was corrected
and th'ose
actions
were reviewed during this inspection.
Therefore,
no response
with
respect
to the second violation of the Notice is required.