ML17334A757
| ML17334A757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1998 |
| From: | Stang J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Sampson J INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9806190223 | |
| Download: ML17334A757 (8) | |
Text
gP,S Rfyy
+4 po Cy Cl C
O IVl0
'y
+~
~
~o
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c. 205S&0001 June 8, 1998 Mr. John R. Sampson, Site Vice President Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Ml 49107
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATIONPURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(f) REGARDING THE 2.206 PETITION FILED BY THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS ON THE DONALDC. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2
Dear Mr. Sampson:
By letter dated October 9, 1997, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a petition requesting the NRC to prevent the Donald C. Cook nuclear plant from operating until such time that there is reasonable assurance that all significant deficiencies in safety-related systems have been identified and corrected.
By letter dated January 12, 1998, the NRC received an addendum to the October 9, 1997, petition that included additional concerns at D.C. Cook.
The NRC staff has concluded that it requires information that willaid the staff in providing its response to the petition and addendum.
Therefore, you are required, pursuant to Section 182(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), to submit a response to the enclosed request for information within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Your response must be written and signed under oath or affirmation. Please submit the original copy of your response to the NRC Document Control Desk, with a copy to the Director, Office of 9806i90223 980608 PDR ADOCK 05000315 G
Mr. John R. Sampson Nuclear Reactor Re'gulation, and a copy to the NRR Petition Manager, John Stang.
In addition, please include the petitioner on distribution for all correspondence to the NRC concerning this petition:
Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495 Sincerely, John F. Stang, Se Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316
Enclosures:
- 1. Request for Information
- 2. October 9, 1997, Letter from Union of Concerned Scientists
- 3. January 12, 1998, Letter from Union of Concerned Scientists cc w/encis: See next page
Mr. John R. Sampson June 8, 1998 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and a copy to the NRR Petition Manager, John Stang.
In addition, please include the petitioner on distribution for all correspondence to the NRC concerning this petition:.
Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495 Sincerely, Original Signed By:
Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 John F. Stang, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Request for Information
- 2. October 9, 1997, Letter from Union of Concerned Scientists
- 3. January 12, 1998, Letter from Union of Concerned Scientists cc w/encls: See next page Dis 'buio we cs Docket File PUBLIC PD3-3 Reading EAdensam(EGA1)
ACRS OGC RBellamy GGrant, Rill DOCUMENT A E::iDCCOOKiUSC.RAI
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFFICE M
E PD33 LA E
EBarnhill Q OGC" RHoefling NAME DATE t'o
/98 6/4/98
~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY PD33 D E
RBellamy Q/
/98
Mr. John R. Sampson 4 June 8, 1998 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and a copy to the NRR Petition Manager, John Stang.
In addition, please include the petitioner on distribution for all correspondence to the NRC concerning this petition:.
Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495 Sincerely, Original Signed By:
Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 John F. Stang, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Request for Information
- 2. October 9, 1997, Letter from Union of Concerned Scientists
- 3. January 12, 1998, Letter from Union of Concerned Scientists cc w/encls: See next page Di r'i encls'ocket File PUBLIC PD3-3 Reading EAdens am(EGA1)
ACRS OGC RBellamy GGrant, Rill DOCUMENT A E::>DCCOOK(USC.RAI
'SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFFICE NAME M
E PD33 LA EBarnhill 9W OGC*
RHoefling PD33 D E
RBellamy DATE 4o
/98 (y /
/98 OFFICIALRECORD COPY 6/4/98 (y/ /98
John Sampson Indiana Michigan Power Company CC:
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532<351 Attorney General Department of Attorney General 525 West Ottawa Street Lansing, Ml 48913 Township Supervisor Lake Township Hall P.O. Box 818 Bridgman, Ml 49106 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 7700 Red Arrow Highway Stevensville, Ml 49127 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20037 Mayor, City of Bridgman P.O. Box 366 Bridgman, Ml 49106 Special Assistant to the Governor Room 1 - State Capitol Lansing, Ml 48909 Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 3423 N. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd P.O. Box 30630 CPH Mailroom Lansing, Ml 48909-8130 Steve J. Brewer Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Ml 49107 David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DONALDC. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-315 AND 50-316 The October 9, 1997, petition from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) raised concerns that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) design inspection in August and September of 1997, identified significant operability issues in systems that have recently been evaluated and approved by the D.C. Cook design basis documentation reconstitution program.
Following the inspection, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) on September 19, 1997. The CAL references letters that you have docketed and that describe the long-and short-term action plans to be used at D.C.
Cook to find and correct engineering problems in other safety-related systems.
Please provide the specific details of the programs that willbe used to identify significant deficiencies in safety-related systems before restarts of either D.C. Cook Unit 1 or
=
Unit 2. Your response should include the following details:
a.
Systems to be reviewed and the logic for selection of the systems, b.
Review methodology, including milestones,
- c. System deficiencies,
- d. Corrective actions, and e.
Whether each system is in full conformance with the licensing and design basis as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
2.
Ifa system willnot be in conformance with its licensing and design basis, please provide the details of the deficiency, and a justification for the system's operability.
3.
Describe the programmatic changes that willbe implemented at D.C. Cook before restart and that in the long-term will provide reasonable assurance that safety-related systems as described in the UFSAR willperform their intended safety function.
By letter dated January 12, 1998, the UCS submitted an addendum to the original 2.206 petition. The January 12, 1998, letter raised six new concerns.
Please respond in fullto the following five concerns from the January 12, 1998, letter:
a.
Concern 1 as it pertains to D.C. Cook plant. Also, include the detailed action plan for the ice melt, ice condenser inspection, and repair plan.
b.. Concern 2 as it pertains to the review and assessment of safety evaluations performed under your old 50.59 process.
Provide the details of the review and corrective actions.
ENCLOSURE 1 c.
Concern 3 as it pertains to engineering calculations.
Please provide the details of the review and assessment performed to date of engineering calculations.
The response should include the population and type of calculations reviewed, justification for the population selected, findings, corrective actions, and long-term plan to assure accuracy and quality of engineering calculations at D.C. Cook.
d.
Concern 4. Please include the NPSH calculations for all safety-related pumps.
Describe the calculational technique and all assumptions used in the calculations.
, e.
Concern 5. Please provide the actions taken to assure the accuracy of the February 6, 1997, response to the NRC request for information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) in light of the inspection findings from the design inspection in September 1997, and the followup design inspection in April 1998.