ML17333A284
| ML17333A284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1996 |
| From: | Axelson W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17333A285 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-96-020, EA-96-20, NUDOCS 9602060012 | |
| Download: ML17333A284 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1995014
Text
gp<< REgy
c<
4
0
Cy
I
ClO
~O
++*<<<<
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION III
801 WARRENVILLEROAD
USLE. ILUNOIS60532~1
January
25,
1996
yL
gP
P
~~0
EA 96-020
Hr.
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
Indiana Hichigan
Power
Company
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
SUBJECT:
NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION
REPORT
NO. 50-315/95014(DRP)
Dear Hr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the special
safety inspection
conducted
by Hessrs.
B. Bartlett,
D. Hartland,
and
C. Orsini of this office from December
20,
1995, through
January
16,
1996.
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.
The
inspectors
reviewed the circumstances
surrounding the inoperability of the
Unit
1 West Centrifugal
Charging
Pump
(CCP).
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,
three apparent violations (Section
5.0) were identified and are being considered for escalated
enforcement
action
.,in accordance
with the "General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.
The apparent
violations involved
a personnel
error and procedural
weakness
that left one
CCP unable to meet its technical specification
(TS) requirement for
operability from March 15;
1995 to September
13,
1995.
The circumstances
surrounding
these
apparent violations, the significance of the issues,
and the
need for lasting
and effective corrective action were discussed
with members
'of your staff at the inspection exit meeting
on January
16,
1995.
As a
result, it may not be necessary
to conduct
a predecisional
enforcement
conference
in order to enable the
NRC to make
an enforcement decision.
However,
a Notice of Violation is not presently
being issued for these
inspection findings.
Before the
NRC makes its enforcement decision,
we are
providing you an opportunity to either (1) respond to the apparent violations
addressed
in this inspection report or (2) request
a predecisional
enforcement
conference.
If you choose to provide
a response,
your response
should
be submitted within
30 days of this letter and
be clearly marked
as
a "Response
to Apparent
Violations in Inspection
Report
No. 50-315/95014(DRP)"
and should include for
each
apparent violation:
(1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if
96020600i2 960i25
POR
ADQCK 050003XS
8
060006
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
contested,
the basis for disputing the apparent 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.
In addition,
we request your response
address:
(1) the potential of other maintenance activities being conducted
using
technicians
who have not maintained proficiency by requalification training or
on the job performance of specialized
procedures;
and (2) the factors
contributing to the delay in determining operability and reportability of the
Unit
1 West
CCP following the event.
Your response
should
be submitted
under
oath or affirmation and
may reference
or include previous docketed
correspondence, if the correspondence
adequately
addresses
the required
response.
If an adequate
response
is not received within the time specified
or an extension of time has not been granted
by the
NRC, the
NRC will proceed
with its enforcement
decision or schedule
a predecisional
enforcement
conference.
If you choose not to provide
a response
and would prefer participating in a
predecisional
enforcement
conference,
please
contact Hr. Wayne Kropp at (708)
829-9633 within 15 days of the date of this letter.
In addition,
please
be advised that the number
and characterization
of
apparent violations described
in the enclosed
inspection report
may change
as
a result of further
NRC review.
You will be advised
by separate
correspondence
of the results of our deliberations
on this matter.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of
this letter, its enclosure(s),
and your response (if you choose to provide
one) will be placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room (PDR).
To the extent
possible,
your response
should not include any person'al
privacy, proprietary,
or safeguards
information so that it can
be placed in the
PDR without
redaction.
The responses
to the apparent violations described
in the enclosed
inspection
report
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.
No.96-511.
Sincerely,
Docket No.
50-315
License
No.
W. L. Axe son,
Division of R
Director
actor projects
Enclosure:
Inspection
Report
No. 50-315/95014(DRP)
See Attached Distribution
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
-3-
Distribution:
cc w/encl:
A. A. Blind, Site Vice President
John
Sampson,
Plant Manager
James
R. Padgett,
Michigan Public
Service
Commission
Michigan Department of
Public Health
January
25,
1996
EA 96-020
Mr. E.
E. Fitzpatrick
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation
Company
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
SUBJECT:
NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION
REPORT
NO. 50-315/95014(DRP)
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the special
safety inspection
conducted
by Messrs.
B. Bartlett,
D. Hartland,
and
C. Orsini of this office from December
20,
1995, through
January
16,
1996.
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.
The
inspectors
reviewed the circumstances
surrounding the inoperability of the
Unit
1 Mest Centrifugal Charging
Pump
(CCP).
Mithin these
areas,
the
inspection consisted of'
selective
examination of procedures
and
representative
records,
observations,
and interviews with personnel.
Based
on the r'esults of this inspection,
three apparent violations (Section
5.0) were identified and are being considered for escalated
enforcement
action
in accordance
with the "General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy),
The appar ent
violations involved a personnel
error and procedural
weakness
that left one
CCP unable to meet its technical specification
(TS) requirement for
operability from March 15,
1995 to September
13,
1995.
The circumstances
surrounding these
apparent violations, the significance of the issues,
and the
need for lasting
and effective corrective action were discussed
with members
of your staff at the inspection exit meeting
on January
16,
1995.
As a
result, it may not be necessary
to conduct
a predecisional
enforcement
conference
in order to enable the
NRC to make
an enforcement decision.
However,
a Notice of Violation is not presently being issued for these
inspection findings.'efore the
NRC makes its enforcement decision,
we are
providing you an opportunity to either (1) respond to the apparent violations
addressed
in this inspection report or (2) request
a predecisional
enforcement
conference.
If you choose to provide
a response,
your response
should
be submitted within
30 days of this letter
and
be clearly marked
as
a "Response
to Apparent
Violations in Inspection
Report
No. 50-315/95014(DRP)"
and should include for
each
apparent violation:
(1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
contested,
the basis for disputing the apparent 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.
In addition,
we request your response
address:
(I) the potential of other maintenance activities being conducted
using
technicians
who have not maintained proficiency by requalification training or
on the job performance of specialized
procedures;
and (2) the factors
contributing to the delay in determining
oper ability and reportability of the
Unit I West
CCP following the event.
Your response
should
be submitted
under
oath or affirmation and
may reference
or include previous docketed
correspondence, if the correspondence
adequately
addresses
the required
response.
If an adequate
response
is not received within the time specified
or an extension of time has not been granted
by the
NRC, the
NRC will proceed
with its enforcement
decision or schedule
a predecisional
enforcement
conference.
If you choose
not to provide
a response
and would prefer participating in a
predecisional
enforcement
conference,
please
contact Mr. Wayne Kropp at (708)
829-9633 within 15 days of the date of this letter.
In addition, please
be advised that the number
and characterization
of
apparent violations described
in the enclosed
inspection report
may change
as
a result of further
NRC review.
You will be advised
by separate
correspondence
of the results of our deliberations
on this matter.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of
this letter, its enclosure(s),
and your response (if you choose to provide
one) 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
PDR without
redaction.
The responses
to the apparent violations described
in the enclosed
inspection
report are not subject to the clearance
procedures
of the Office of Management
and Budget
as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
Pub.
L.
No.96-511.
Sincerely,
Docket No.
50-315
License
No. DPR-58
/s/William L. Axelson
W. L. Axelson, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
Inspection
Report
No. 50-315/95014(DRP)
See Attached Distribution
E.
E. Fitzpatrick
-3-
Distr".ication:
cc w/encl:
A. A. Blind, Site Vice President
John
Sampson,
Plant Manager
James
R. Padgett,
Michigan Public
Service
Commission
Hichigan Department of
Public Health
Distribution:
Docket File w/encl
PUBLIC IE-01 w/encl
OC/LFDCB w/encl
SRI D. C.
Cook w/encl
RMB/FEES w/o encl
DRP w/encl
RIII PRR w/encl
D. C. Cook,
PM,
NRR w/encl
IPAS (E-Hail) w/encl
J.
Lieberman,
J. Goldberg,
R. Zimmerman,
Document:
R: iInsprptsipowersicookidcc95014. drp
Yo eocatvo a copy of tla1 ~ coeesat,
1sd5cato
1o the box
C
~ Copy rttlest attaca/ooel
E
~ Copy rlt1 attac1/oocl
II
Ho c
OFFICE
NAME
DATE
RIII
Bur ess
Ol ~ 96
RIII
y'ardn
RIII
96
01 N 96
RII
Axe
01
96
OFFICIAL RECORD
COPY
I