IR 05000315/1978009
| ML17319A913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1978 |
| From: | Charles Brown, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17319A905 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-78-09, 50-315-78-9, 50-316-78-07, 50-316-78-7, NUDOCS 8106050505 | |
| Download: ML17319A913 (24) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-315/78-09; 50-316/78-07 Docket No. 50-315; 50-.316 License No. DPR-58; DPR-61 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Facility Name:
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
D. C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection Conducted:
April 17 20, 1978 Inspector:
C.
Nuclear Support Section
Ins ection Summa Ins ection on A ril 17-20 1978 (Re ort No. 315/78-09 50-316/78-07 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unan'nounced inspection to review fire protection and prevention equipment, work control procedures, operational control of work, QA/QC verification of performance and control of ignition sources in vital areas.
The status of the Technical Specification revision implementation was reviewed.
The inspection involved 31.5 inspection hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were found in two areas; three apparent items of noncom-pliance were identified in three areas, (infraction - untreated wood used in safety related areas Paragraph 7b., infraction failure to post required fire watches Paragraph 7c., infraction - lack of approve procedures for fire barrier penetration seal maintenance Paragraph Td)
)
~"
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager
- B. Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager J. Stietzel, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- E. Abshagen, Quality Assurance Auditor
- R. Dudding, Maintenance Superintendent
- D. Wizner, Maintneance QCIC
- R. Keith, Operation Superintendent R. Lease, Production Supervisor J. Randolph, Engineer T. Beilman, Quality Control Coordinator S. >rost, Engineer K. Toner, Engineer D. Nelson, Training Coordinator
- L. McCullough,
?&M Construction QC/QA
- Denotes licensee representatives attending the management interview.
2.
Work Control Procedures a.
0 erational Control The review of the facility work control procedures indicates that at least two levels of operational review and approval of the work request (Job Order) are required.
The Shift Engineer is required to sign the work request to authorize the work to commence.
The revie~ of the.work request procedurally includes a survey of the area of the gob for fire hazards and safety related equipment.
The hazards and equipment are then to be moved or protected.
The control of the "Construction" groups irking on Unit 2 was noted to be weak in the areas discussed in paragraph 7.
Several sections of the work control procedures were limited to work performed on Unit 1.
The control of the work under these parts of the procedure would be controlled by the construction group foreman and their procedures.
b.
I ition Source Authorization The ignition source control is procedurally provided by the
'equirement that any source used outside of special welding
)
and burning areas be authorized by the "Melding, Burning, Grinding Permit".
The first line supervision is responsible for a safe welding, grinding, and burning area.
The check-off sheet provides for fire watch, equipment, and communications.
Ce Firewatch The procedures reviewed in 2.a and b provide for the posting of the firewatch in those areas covered by the procedures.
The recent revision to the Technical Specifications require a fire watch to be posted during malfunction of specified fire protection equipment and the procedures were under review for revision.
The ignition source permit has the phone numbers to call in an emergency.
The duties described in the work control procedures established the minimum level of qualifications for the person manning the fire watch.
All personnel coming onsite in a work capacity receive training in handling emergencies.
The actual use of fire suppression equipment may be limited to a once per year fire fighting practice drill.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
alit Assurance Surveillance The quality assurance surveillance procedures were reviewed for the requirements of frequency and content of the audit.
The review showed that an audit may be performed on a gob in progress verifying that operations personnel have authorized the job and that other requirements of the work control procedure (i.e., ignition sources and firewatch) have been met.
This would be performed under a
procedure compliance audit.
Other audits performed on gobs in progress are hold point inspection as specified in the work procedure.
The procedure for control of construction work being performed in Unit 2 was noted to be weak as discussed in paragraph 7.
The acceptable material for repair seal is specified on the purchase order and the receipt inspection (requirement) verifies that only the acceptable material is received into the storage warenouse.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Desi Chan e Control The design change procedures were reviewed to establish the level of control required to be maintained to assume that any penetration seal rebuild is performed with nonflamable materials.
The review revealed that the procedural controls are mainly from
v Q
)
h
the work/maintenance control procedures as a "Job Order" is to be initiated for any work performed at the facility.
The review of work having been performed on Unit 2 indicated that flammable material was not used.
There appeared to be a
weakness in the control of the methods used by the construction group to rebuild the seals during the modification work.
The procedure for rebuilding the penetration fire barrier seals was not written for the use of RTV (see 7d)
and is considered an item of noncompliance.
A periodic surveillance program has been set up to visually check the fire barrier penetration seals.
Emer enc Procedures The review of plant emergency procedures revealed that specific vital areas have special fire fighting procedures.
The fire drill frequency requirements were noted to be unclear as to the re-quirements 'for each crew.
The inspector was informed that a
procedure revision for this area was being drafted.
The pro-cedure is to clearly defined the frequency plus other areas of the drill performance.
The procedure revision is also to provide the changes to conform with the Technical Specifications revision pretaining to the fire protection at the facility.
The facility procedures were found to cover alternate shutdown and cooldown methods including the backup source of coolant.'his area will be reviewed during a future inspection.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Pire Drills The record'of the fire drills performed at the facility were reviewed.
It was noted that one drill was performed per month and a critique of the performance was made.
The items pointed out needing correction appeared to have been corrected in a timely manner.
II The drills were held with 3 crews, apparently, and one fire l/
fighting equipment use drill for almost all of the personnel onsite.
The requirements as now stated can be interpreted as one drill per month at the facility, and the licensee was meeting this interpretation.
The procedure is being revised to conform move closely to the guide and will be written in a clearly form.
This area willbe reviewed in a future inspection.
t t
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Tour The inspector conducted a tour with a licensee representative of selected areas of facility.
Items noted:
a.
b.
Housekeeping in general was satisfactory with the comment on the "No Smoking" areas-these contained a number of cigarette butts and small pieces of trash.
Untreated wood was noted in the back panel area of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 control room and various other areas.
The "Lexan" doors used during the Unit 2 construction.
Th's is considered non-comp1iance with procedure PMI 2271-c.
Several barrier penetration seals in Unit 2 control room were noted to be open and no firewatch was posted.
This ~ms non-compliance with Technical Specification 3.7.10.
d.
A number of seals were noted to have been rebuilt with RTV.
RTV is considered an acceptable material to use as grout, but procedures have not been written for the one of RTV to rebuild the seal instead of the specified foam.
Ttd.s was considered to be noncompliance with Technical Specifi-cations 6.8.1.a, which requires procedures for safety related maintenance,and repair.
8.
Mana ement Interview A management interview was conducted on the April 20, 1978, at the conclusion of the inspection and subsequent telephone conversation.
The licensee representatives as denoted in Paragraph 1 attended and the following subjects were included in the discussion:
&o The licensee ackriowledged the. statement of apparent noncompliance items.
b.
Ce d.
The licensee stated a review would be made of the interface between construction and operations in Unit 2 and then they would provide procedures to control the interface.
Housekeeping in the control room of Unit 2 and in no smoking areas would be strenghtened.
The licensee will conduct a review to determine the status of the penetration seals that have been rebuilt with RTV instead of foam to determine if the seal is acceptable in its present form.
(Paragraph 4 and 7d).
+a,,C k
T
'EI
~S IIEg(
~4 P0 A0O
.. ~ 33
~O
+0**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION REGION ttl
~
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN,II.LINOIS60137
'APR 2 2 1981 Docket No. 50-316 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John Vice Chairman Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. M. A. Ring of this office on March 16-18 and April 6-11, 1981, of activities at D.
C. Cook, Unit 2, authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-74 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. D. V. Shaller at the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the course of this inspection.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part
?
. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, except as follows. If this report contains information that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to this office, within twenty-five days of the date of this letter, to withhold such information from public disclosure.
The application must include a full statement of the reasons for which the information is considered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
~<< <<.r
American Electric Power Service Corporation
- 2-Aph p p
~98>
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-316/81-08
REGION III==
Report No. 50-316/81-08 Docket No. 50-316 License No. DPR-74 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana S Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Facility Name:
D.
C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection Conducted:
March 16-18, and April 6-11, 1981 Inspectors:
M. A.
ing Approved By: i. Jackiw, Acting Chief,j~
Test Program Section o ~lzl Ins ection Summar Ins ection on March 16-18 and A ril 6-11 1981 (Re ort No. 50-316/81-08)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine announced inspection of preparation for refueling, refueling activities, refueling surveillance and maintenance activities during the refueling outage on Unit 2.
The inspection involved a total of-76 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector including 10 inspector-hours on offshifts.
Results:
In the four areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
~P Ci
DETAIlS Persons Contacted
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager
+E. Townley, Assistant Plant Manager
'.
Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager
- J. Stietzel, Quality Assurance Supervisor H. Chadwell, Outage Planning Coordinator C. Murphy, Production Supervisor J. Allard, Maintenance Supervisor A. Blind, Performance Engineering Supervisor D. Sudkamp, Performance Engineer C. Ross, Nuclear Engineering Supervisor H. Bolinger, In"Service Inspection Coordinator Additional plant technical and administrative personnel were contacted during the course of the inspection by the inspector.
2.
-"Denotes those attending the exit interview.
Pre aration for Refuelin (Unit 2)
The inspector verified that technically adequate procedures for Unit 2 cycle II-IIIwere approved for fuel handling, transfers, core verification~
inspection of fuel to be reused and handling of other core internals.
These procedures were in a large part incorporated in the vendor Refueling Procedure FP-AMP-R2 which the inspector verified to have been reviewed and approved by -the licensee in accordance with Technical Specifications.
The inspector verified that the licensee's
CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation of the reload core showed that prior NRR review is not required.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's program for overall outage control.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Refuelin Activities The inspector verified that prior to the handling of fuel in the core, all surveillance testing required by the Technical Specifications and licensee's procedures had been completed.
The inspector verified that during the outage the periodic testing of refueling related equipment was being performed as required by Technical Specifications.
The inspector observed two shifts of fuel handling operations (removal, inspection, and insertion)
and verified the activities were performed in accordance with Technical Specifications and approved procedures.
In addition, the inspector observed activities within the upper contain-ment area while fuel handling operations were secured, and the reactor head was still removed in order to conduct sonic probe inspections of
~i S
the vessel nozzles.
During this time~
p
'o
{PMSI)-068 the ins ector questioned the manner in w ic e pr h
h th recautions of Plant Manager's Instruction {
)-
.0.1 on loose section 8.0 and Refueling Procedure FP-AMP-R2 section 6.0E.1 n
t l
'th an open reactor vessel were being observed.
This concern was discussed with licensee management who too promp terms of internal memos and phone calls.
Su seq i
ering
" d'ff 'ays and shifts showed that the precautions were being observe uate.
No further action and that the licensee response appeared to be adequate.
viewed the qualifications
's required on this item.
The inspector also re i is req i of the refueling contractor. personnel and verified h
d that licensee staffing during refueling was in.accordance with techni p
'cal s ecifications and approved procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Surveillance - Refuelin Th tor observed the Diesel Generator Load Shedding and Performance
{2THP 4030 STP 217A) surveillance testing on Unit; 2 train A
'
e inspec or o n A to verif edures that the ta e
ess h t th tests were covered by properly approved procedur e ts licensee proce ures use d
d were consistent with regulatory requiremen s,
re uisites were tm ts and administrative controls; that test prereq i i commi en s, i
service and comp e
e l t d special test equipment was calibrated and in d data was recorded for final review and analysis; that the require a
a qualifications of personnel conducting the test were q
ade uate and that the test results were adequate.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Maintenance Refuelin The inspector reviewed pressurizer safety val p
alve re lacement, reactor coolant pump seal inspections and main steam isolation valve disc gui e replacement maintenance work items in order to ascertain whether the maintenance procedures included administra pp tive a rovals for removal an re urn o s
d t
f ystems to service; hold points for inspection/audit an s for o erational re watch res onsibilities ff b gA or other licensee personnel; provisions fo p
testing following maintenance; provisions for fire p
(not require in i ems c
d
't chosen)
review of material certifications; pro-re air.
rovisions
s for assuring LCO requirements were met during repair; provisio visions or as for housekeeping during and following maintenance, p
and res onsibilities for reporting defects to management.
The inspector observed portions of the maintenanance activities and verified the work was being accomplished in accordance with the following approve procedures.
a.
PMI-2090 Housekeeping/Plant Cleanliness b.
PMI-2220 Rework Clearance Permit System
'Qi c.
PMI-2110 Equipment Control - Clearance Permit System d.
PMI-2290 Job Orders e.
12MHP5021,002.003 Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Inspection No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6 'xit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on April 10, 1981 and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
/
-4-
~5 AK0I
+4 p0 p
Cy
+
~O
+y*~4 Docket Nos.
50-315 and 50-316 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 October 31, 1980 lE FlLE COP~Y Mr. John Dolan, Vice President Indiana and Michigan Electric Company Post 0ffice. Box 18 Bowling Green Station New York, New York 10004
Dear Mr. Dolan:
This is to confirm a recent telephone conversation between members of your staff and personnel under contract to the NRC staff regarding a visit to the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant during the period of November 3-7, 1980.
Two individuals representing the contractor will perform an engineering analysis to identify vital areas at the plant.
This analysis will require access to both plant information and areas.
Identification information for the two personnel is contained in the enclosure to this letter.
Inasmuch as it contains personnel information, the enclosure is being withheld from public disclosure.
Both individuals have been granted government clearances for access to classified materials.
Information you consider to be proprietary which will be acquired during the visit will be afforded protection from disclosIIr e according to standard NRC procedures.
incerely, Enclosure:
As Stated Steven A.
arga, Ch Operating Reactor s anch
Division of Licensing cc:
w/o enclosure See next page OOPY SBly REGlONW
Mr. John Dolan Indiana and Michigan Electric Company - 2-October 31, 1980 cc:
Mr. Robert W. Jurgensen Chief Nuclear Engineer American Electric Power Service Corporation 2 Broadway New York, New York 10004 Gerald Charnoff, Esquir e Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Citizens for a Better Environment 59 East Van Buren Street Chicago, Illinois 60605 Maude Preston Palenske Memorial Library 500 Market Street St. Joseph, Michigan 49085 Mr. D. Shaller,.Plant Manager Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant P. 0; Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office 770 Red Arrow Highway Stevens vi 1 1 e, Michi gan 49127 Wi ll.iam J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
fe