ML17332A918
| ML17332A918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1995 |
| From: | Axelson W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17332A919 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9509190057 | |
| Download: ML17332A918 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1995009
Text
PRIDRI I Y Z
REGULATORY'6%66Kt8&9'f&klKTIONSYSTEM (RIDS )
ACCESSION NBR:9509190057
DOC.DATE: 95/09/12
NOTARIZED:
NO
DOCKET
N
~
~
~
~
~
FACIL:50-315 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana
M
05000315
50-316 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana
M
05000316
AUTH.NAME
AUTHOR AFFILIATION
AXELSON,W.L.
Region
3 (Post
820201)
RECIP.NAME
RECIPIENT AFFILIATION
FITZPATRICK,E.
Co.
SUBJECT:
Forwards
insp repts
50-315/95-09
& 50-316/95-09
on 950620-
0817
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IEOID
COPIES
RECEIVED:LTR /
ENCL J
SIZE: 5 +'2
TITLE: General
(50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Response
NOTES:
RECIPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
PD3-1
INTERNAL: AEOD/DEIB
AEOD/~T.TC
~FILE'ENTERS
NRR/DORS/OEAB
NUDOCS-ABSTRACT
OGC/HDS2
ERNAL: LITCO BRYCEPJ
H
NRC PDR
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REC1PIENT
ID CODE/NAME
HICKMAN,J
AEOD/SPD/RAB
DEDRO
NRR/DISP/PIPB
NRR/DRCH/HHFB
OE DIR
RGN3
FILE
01
NOAC
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
YOTE TO ALL"RlDS" RECIPIENTS.
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE iVASTEICOYTACTTHE DOCL'ihiEYTCOYTROL
DESK, ROOM PI-37 IEXT. 504-'20S3
) TO ELI!iIIYATEYOUR YAMEFROif
DIS'I'RlBI."I'IOYLISTS FOR DOCI.:WIEYTSYOL'OY'1 YEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES
REQUIRED:
LTTR
17
ENCL
17
September
12,
1995
Mr. E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
Company
1 Riverside
Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the routine safety inspection
conducted
by Messrs.
J.
Isom,
D. Hartland,
C. Orsini,
D. Butler,, and
R.
Paul of this office from June
20
through August
17,
1995.
The inspection
included
a review of activities at
your Donald
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units
1
and 2.
At the conclusion of the
inspection,
the findings were discussed
with those
members of your staff
identified in the enclosed
report.
'I
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'ersonnel.
Based
on the results of this inspection,
the
NRC has determined that
violations of NRC requirements
occurred.
The violations are cited in the
enclosed
Notice of Violation (Notice)
and the circumstances
surrounding
them
are described
in detail in the subject inspection report.
The violation for failure to follow procedures
is an example of one of several
procedural
adherence
problems that have
been
noted during this inspection
period.
Each event
by itself was not significant, but in the aggregate
represented
a marked decline in operator
performance
over the last two months.
Procedural
adherence
problems
appear to exist in operations,
maintenance
and
engineering.
We encourage
your staff during your assessment
of the violation
to consider
any generic implications in regards to overall plant compliance
with procedural
requirements.
In the area of operations,
we are concerned
that
a recent
NRC administered initial operator
examination identified
a
weakness
where
a lack of self-checking
caused
operator candidates
to miss
steps
during procedure
performance
and others to miss irregularities in system
responses.
The inspectors
were especially
concerned
that this weakness
was
now being observed
in actual plant operations.
The violations pertaining to post maintenance
testing
(PMT) and the reporting
of events
are
a concern to us because
both of these violations represent
programmatic
weaknesses
in these
areas.
Also, both of these violations were
in areas that the
NRC had previously expressed
concern.
9509i90057 9509i2
ADQCK 050003i5
8
[r
~
~
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
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.
Your response
may reference
or
include previous
docketed
correspondence, if the correspondence
adequately
addresses
the required
response.
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.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of
this letter, its enclosures,
and your response will be placed in the
NRC
Public Document
Room
(PDR).
To the extent possible,
your response
should not include
any personal
privacy,
proprietary,
or safeguards
information so that it can
be placed in the
without reduction.
The responses
directed
by this letter
and the accompanying
Notice are not
subject to the clearance
procedures
of the Office of Hanagement
and Budget
as
required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
Pub.
L. 96.511.
Sincerely,
Docket No. 50-315
Docket No. 50-316
/s/W. L. Axelson, Director
W. L. Axelson, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
Inspection
Report
No.
50-315/95009(DRP);
50-316/95009(DRP)
cc w/encl:
A. A. Blind, Plant Hanager
James
R. Padgett,
Hichigan Public
Service
Commission
Hichigan Department of
Public Health
See continued distribution
'l
0
I
I
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Distribution continued:
Docket File w/encl
PUBLIC IE-Ol w/encl
OC/LFDCB w/encl
D.
C.
Cook w/encl
DRP w/encl
RIII PRR w/encl
D.
C.
Cook,
PM,
NRR w/encl
IPAS (E-Mail) w/encl
Document:
R:iinsprptsipowersicookidcc95009.drp
To receive a copy of this docuaent,
indicate in the hox "C" ~ Copy eeithout attach/encl
"E
Copy with attach/encl
N
No co
OFFICE
RIII
+
RIII
RIII
NAME
DATE
Burdick
7/95
Gardner
Caniano
08/
/95
08/
95
OFFICIAL RECORD
COPY
g8 REG
Wp
A.
O
C
O
~O
+++*+
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION III
801 WARRENVILLEROAD
LISLE, ILI.INOIS60532-4351
September
12,
1995
Hr.
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
Company
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Dear Nr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the routine safety inspection
conducted
by Nessrs.
J.
Isom,
D. Hartland,
C. Orsini,
D. Butler,
and
R.
Paul of this office from June
20
through August 17,
1995.
The inspection
included
a review of activities at
your Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units
1
and 2.
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,
the
NRC has determined that
violations of NRC requirements
occurred.
The violations are cited in the
enclosed
Notice of Violation (Notice)
and the circumstances
surrounding
them
are described
in detail in the subject
inspection report.
The violation for failure to follow procedures
is
an example of one of several
procedural
adherence
problems that have
been
noted during this inspection
period.
Each event
by itself was not significant, but in the aggregate
represented
a marked decline in operator
performance
over the last two months.
Procedural
adherence
problems
appear
to exist in operations,
maintenance
and
engineering.
We encourage
your staff during your assessment
of the violation
to consider
any generic implications in regards to overall plant compliance
with procedural
requirements.
In the area of operations,
we are concerned
that
a recent
NRC administered initial operator examination identified
a
weakness
where
a lack of self-checking
caused
operator candidates
to miss
steps
during procedure
performance
and others to miss irregularities
in system
responses.
The inspectors
were especially
concerned
that this weakness
was
now being observed
in actual plant operations.
The violations pertaining to post maintenance
testing
(PHT)
and the reporting
of events
are
a concern to us because
both of these violations represent
programmatic
weaknesses
in these
areas.
Also, both of these violations were
in areas that the
NRC had previously expressed
concern.
E.
E.. Fitzpatrick
~
~
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 rec'urrence.
Your response
may reference
or
include previous docketed
correspondence, if the correspondence
adequately
... addresses
the required response.
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.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of
this letter, its enclosures,
and your response will be placed in the
NRC
Public Document
Room (PDR).
To the extent possible,
your response
should not include any personal
privacy,
proprietary, or safeguards
information so that it can
be placed in the
without reduction.
The responses
directed
by this letter and the accompanying
Notice are not
subject to the clearance
pr'ocedures
of the Office of Management
and Budget
as
required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
Pub.
L. 96.511.
Sincerely,
Docket No. 50-315
Docket No. 50-316
W. L. Axelson, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
Inspection
Report
No.
50-315/95009(DRP);
50-316/95009(DRP)
cc w/encl:
A. A. Blind, Plant Manager
James
R. Padgett,
Nichigan Public
Service
Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health