IR 05000315/1978023
| ML17317A703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1978 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17317A702 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-78-23, 50-316-78-21, NUDOCS 7811020111 | |
| Download: ML17317A703 (99) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.:
50-315/78-23; 50-316/78-21 Docket No.:
50-315; 50-316 License No. DPR-58; DPR-74 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, New York 10004 Facility Name:
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
American Electric Power Service Corporation, New York, N.Y.
Inspection Conducted:
September 5-6, 1978 Inspector:
I.
. Yin
~
/
~<.-'-= ~/~-.
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section
Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Se tember 5-6 1978 (Re ort Nos. 50-315/78-23;
~/
Areas Ins ected:
Licensee action on previously identified unresolved matters regarding operability of the safety related snubbers.
The inspection involved a total of 8 inspector hours at the licensee corporate office, New York City, by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
a
DETAILS Persons Contacted American Electric Power Service Cor oration AEP
- R. F. Hering, Chief, Mechanical Engineering
- T. W. Baker, Head Piping and Valve Section
- I. Guterman, Associate Engineer, Piping and Valve Section
- T. Sun, Squad Leader, Hanger Design
- B. K. Wu, Group Leader, Design
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s (Closed)
Unresolved Item (316/78-08-05; 315/78-17; 316/78-13)
Excessive Snubber Hot 'Position Setting (HPS).
The effects of snubber settings other than mid stroke positions have been evaluated in detail by the licensee.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
See paragraph 1 for details.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (315/78-17-02; 316/78-13-02)
Snubber Settings not in Accord with Design Calculations.
The licensee performed detailed engineering evaluation and verification relative to Engineering Data Systems (EDS) pipe stress analysis.
Corrective actions to resolve the identified problems had been largely completed.
See paragraph 2 for details.
(Open)
Unresolved Item (315/78-17-03; 316/78-13-03)
Snubber Functional Test Acceptance Criteria.
During the visit, the inspector reviewed the licensee studies in this area, and the ITT-Grinnell testing data for which the studies were based upon.
The licensee stated that the work should be completed prior to next scheduled snubber functional tests.
Functional or Pro ram Areas Ins ected As a result of the meeting held on June 13, 1978, at the Sargent
& Lundy office in Chicago (RIII Report 50-315/78-17; 50-316/78-13)
relative to operabili.ty of some of the safety related snubbers installed in D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, the licensee performed a detail review in the areas that were of concerns to the inspector.
During this visit, the inspector reviewed the pertinent documentation and discussed the resolutions.
1.
Excessive Snubber Hot Position Settin s
During the site inspection for D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 on April 19-21, 1978, nine safety related snubbers were observed with
possible excessive HPS, and the problems were discussed in RIII Report 316/78-08, Paragraph 5.6.(4).
This matter was considered an unresolved item.
Subsequently, the inspector reviewed all HPS's for the safety related snubbers, and discussed his concerns with AEP and their consultants during a meeting held on June 13, 1978, at the Sargent 6 Lundy Engineers office in Chicago (RIII Report 315/78-17; 316/78-13).
During the visit, the inspector reviewed the following documents:
a.
ITT-Grinnell letter to AEP, dated July 28, 1978, sub)ect:
"Hydraulic Snubbers, NRC Docket No. 50-316" b.
ITT-Grinnell Report PHD-7579-S-3,
"A Worst Case Evaluation of the Effects of Piston Position on Spring Rate for ITT Grinnell Fig. 200/201 Hydraulic Shock Suppressors",
dated July 18, 1978.
c.
Teledyne Material Research Report No. E-1488, "Vibratory Response Characteristics of Shock and Sway Suppressors",
dated April 13, 1972.
d.
AEP calculation, "Unit 2 Snubbers Piston Settings, Based on Actual as Measured CPS",
dated June 15, 1978, and September 1, 1978.
After the review, the inspector concluded that his relative to (1) difference in spring rates between and tension chambers, (2) lateral seismic loadings snubbers, and (3) pumping action due to imbalanced had been adequately evaluated and addressed.
concerns, compression on the reactions, The ITT-Grinnell evaluation of the RIII inspector's methology applying true position settings by addition of the "Z" dimensions to the calculation indicated all safety related snubbers in question were acceptable except 2-MSS-1, a 50 Kips 5" stroke snubber with design loading of 46 Kips, and HPS of 5 1/8".
The inspector stated that he will closely observe the conditions of the 2-MSS-1 snubber during future site inspections.
This item is considered resolved.
(315/78-23-01; 316/78-21-01)
2.
Snubber Settin s Not in Accord with Desi n Calculations As stated in RIII Reports 315/78-17 and 316/78-13, paragraph 4,
the licensee committed to evaluated problems relative to the incorrect installation detail drawings.
The piping analyses were performed by S&L (Main Steam and Feedwater Systems inside containment),
EDS (all safety related systems),
and Nuclear Power Services, (balance of plant).
The licensee
was the A-E designing all the piping systems.
After the RIII site inspection on April 19-21, 1978, the licensee reviewed all safety related snubbers and found (1) eight discrepancies on Unit 2, among which seven were on the pressurizer relief system and (2) seven discrepancies on Unit 1, among which five were on pressurizer relief system.
The snubber problems identified in the pressurizer relief valve piping system was evaluated by EDS per licensee request, and the licensee has performed similar evaluations to verify the validity of the EDS results.
On July 6, 1978, a meeting was held between AEP and EDS, with the following findings and resolutions:
a.
Grinnell load ratings had changed since EDS performed its original calculation.
Resolutions:
(1)
1-GRC-S-587 and 596:
The design loads are larger than the new rated load based on ASME Section III require-ments, and within the old rated load based on ANSI B31.1 Power Piping Code requirements.
No change was considered necessary.
This position was concurred with by Grinnell in a telegram.
(2)
1-GRC-S-599 and 2-GRC-S-632:
Two 2 1/2" size snubbers will replace the present 1 1/2" snubbers during next plant cold shutdown.
The order for new snubbers has been placed.
b.
1-GRC-S-598; 2-GRC-S-609, and 626:
The CPS and HPS needed resetting.
Some of the problems were caused by Grinnell snubber
"Z" dimension change.
Corrective action was completed at the site on May 27, 1978.
c.
Other questions raised by AEP relative to constant spring support (C-590) adequacy, weight of water in the water seal not considered in the seismic analysis, and etc.
have been properly resolved.
3.
In con)unction with the resolution discussed in paragraph 2 above, the inspector reviewed the following documents:
a.
AEF Interoffice Memorandum by Head, Piping and Valve Section, P&V Pile No. 38.2,
"Review Summary Made by EDS", dated July 20, 1978.
b.
EDS letter to AEP, "Meeting of July 6, 1978, at AEPSC's New York Office", dated July 14, 1978.
c.
EDS Report,
".Design Review Summary of Pressurizer Relief Valve Piping Snubber Design",
dated June, 1978.
d.
AEP verification calculations and tables of summaries.
e.
ITT-Grinnell Telegram relative to 1-GRC-587 and 596 snubbers design loads versus rated capacity, dated September 1, 1978.
Since the D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2 are of similar design, the identified problems and resulting resolutions were implemented for both units.
M As a result of this review, the inspector considered the unresolved item discussed in paragraph 2 above resolved.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 1.
Exit Interview The inspector met with staff representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted)
at the conclusion of the inspection on September 6,
1978.
The inspector summarized the purpose of the visit and discussed with the licensee the results of the review.
C
~
'%4
<~g IIE00+
~o o3
/g 4>>
~Q alt*+h'NITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R EG ION I I I 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 sue 319>'8 Docket No.
0-31 Docket No. 50-316 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs.
J.
E. Kohler and J.
Smith of this office on July 5-7, 1978, of activities at Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 authorized by NRC Operating Licenses No. DPR-58 and No. DPR-74 and to the dis-cussion of our findings with Mr. Schaller at the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection.
Mithin 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 2, 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 days of your receipt 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.
hmerican Electric Power
Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company auG 319T8 Re <<ill gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, Caston Piorelli, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
Enclosure:
ZE Inspection Rpts Ho. 50-315/78-21 and Ho. 50-316/78-18
REGION III==
Repor t No. 50-315/78-21; 50-316/78-18 Docket No. 50-315; 50-316 License No: DPR-58; DPR-74 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana
& 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:
July 5-7, 1978 Y.<. s.M Inspectors:
J.
E. Kohler p.g 5~
J.
D. Smith
,<<l:/>>
F-2.-7P Approved by:
J. F. Streeter, Chief Nuclear Support Section
8/>/ra Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Jul 5-7 1978 (Re ort No. 50-315/78-21 50-316/78-18 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, announced inspection of 50% 'power plateau results for Unit 2 including moderator temperature coefficient and power dappler determination, core power distribution, flux assymetry with a single rod inserted.
Routine inspection of safety-related instrumentation for Unit l.
The inspection involved 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted D. Schaller, Plant Manager B. Svenson, Assistant Plant Manager E. Smarella, Technical Supervisor T. Allen, Nuclear Engineer V. Vanderburg, Chief Nuclear Engineer D. Duncan, Instrumentation
& Control Engineer 2.
Power Coefficient of Reactivit (Unit 2 Prep
)
The inspector reviewed test procedure THP 6040 PER.
054 and pre-operational test procedure 2PO-080-810.
The procedures describe the licensee's technique for calculating the contribution of moderator temperature and doppler to the power coefficient.
The inspector determined that initial conditions as specified in the procedure were met prior to making the reactivity measurement as follows:
a.
Axial flux difference was + 5% target band P 50% power b.
Tavg was according to programmed value c.
RCS was at established pressure d.
Reactor was critical on the control bank D
The licensee's calculation was reviewed and determined to be acceptable.
3.
50% Power Plateau The inspector reviewed the results of the physics testing done at 50%
core power in order to confirm the design power characteristics.
The licensee performed the following checks during an 18-hour hold at 50%
power:
a.
Radiological chemical analysis of reactor coolant b.
Visual inspection of feedwater piping c.
Performance of a plant radiation survey d.
Full core map.
The inspector determined through procedure review that authorization to increase power above 50% was granted after the review of the full core flux maps taken at 30% and 50% power.
No items of no'ncompliance were identified.
4.
50% Power Distribution Review The inspector reviewed the full core flux maps taken at 50% power and determined that the nuclear hot channel factors and quadrant power tilt were within Technical Specification limits.
No items of noncom-pliance were identified.
5.
Evaluation of Flux Ass etr With a Rod Full Inserted The inspector reviewed the completed procedure for evaluating nuclear flux characteristics with a single rod inserted.
The results of the test showed that all thermal limits were within limits.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Plant Res onse to Load Swin s The inspector reviewed the results of the plant response to a 10%
load decrease.
Plant conditions were observed to react as designed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Calibration of Safet -Related Instrumentation The inspector selected the calibration records related to the following safety-related instrumentation to verify that Technical Specification calibration requirements were met.
a.
Bi Stable to Hi-Lo Blender Flow Deviation Alarm IFB-100 A&B b.
Strong Motion Triaxial Accelograph, SMH-3 c.
T/Tavg Protection Set
d.
Electric Hydrogen Recombiner Instrumentation Calibration 1,2 e.
4160 Undervoltage Relay Calibration The inspector determined that:
1.
Service status of the system was in conformance with the appli-cable limiting condition of operation.
2.
Procedures used to calibrate these systems contained review and approval and acceptance values for trip settings.
3.
Trip points of components selected conformed to the applicable technical specifications.
8.
S ecial Test E ui ment The inspector selected three pieces of special test equipment used in the calibration of safety-related equipment and determined that the accuracy of these instruments was traceable to an NBS standard or other independent testing agency.
The inspector has no further ques-tions regarding this item.
9.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection, the inspectors met with Mr. Schaller and summarized the results of the inspection.
Docket No. 50-315 7g ~O Docket No. 50-316 SEp 01 1978 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Executive Vice President Engineering and Construction 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter dated August 17, 1978, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the noncompliance identified in our letter dated July 24, 1978.
We villexamine your corrective action during a future inspection.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, Gaston Fiorelli, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch cc:
Hr. D. V. Shaller, Plant Manager cc w/ltr dtd 8/17/78:
ntral Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Davis D. Comey, Executive Director, Citizens for a RIII OFFICE 0 SURHAMEW DATE0 Baker gw 8/31/78 RIII
~i8'I WarnicV RIII; m Fiorelli NRC Form 318A {RZK) {5-76) NRCM 02040
~U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:
1978~53 818
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER S e rvi c e Co rp o ra ti on AEP 2 Broadu,ay, Nnm 2ork, N. K l0004 (2J2J 422.4800 ZOIC Z.aOr aX Srnior Errrunrr1 err Prrridrn!
Znginrrring August 17r 1978 AEP:NRC:
00065 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 a
Docket Nos.
50-315 8 50-316 License Nos.
G. Keppler, Regional Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL.
60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
This letter responds to your letter dated July 24, 1978 which we received on July 27th and which transmitted to us a Notice of Violation generated as a result of IE Report No. 50-315/78-20; 50-316/78-16 by Mr. K. R. Baker.
The Notice of Violation contained three infractions, two of which requiring our reply within twenty days.
Our required reply to the Notice of Violation is attached.
Very truly yours, ohn E. Dolan JED/emc Attachment cc:
R. C. Callen G. Charnoff P.
W. Steketee R. J. Vollen R. Walsh D. V. Shaller Bridgman R.
W. Jurgensen
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and
Docket Nos.
50-315 and 50-316 License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 Attachment to AEP:NRC:
00065 INFRACTION A "Contrary to Technical Specification 6.8.1 procedures to control bypasses were not implemented.
Specifi-cally on May 3, 1978 a knife switch which bypasses the low low RWST-RHR Pump Trip was opened without being logged as required by PMI 2140 on Unit 2."
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS When the condition was pointed out by the inspector, the open knife switch was immediately entered into the Lifted Lead Log.
The knife switches involved had been recently installed and are unusual in that they are the first and only switches made available in the Engineered Safeguards Systems for trip bypass in case of instrument inoperability.
At the time of the cited infraction, a lifted lead in the log book title was thought to consist of the removal of a terminal screw and the physical lifting of a wire.
The opened knife switch was not understood to be a lifted lead.
Revisions have been initiated by means of Temporary Sheets to the Operations, Technical and Maintenance Department procedures written to implement PMI 2140.
The effect of the revisions was to specifically identify the opened knife switch as a lifted lead.
The C6I Technicians and licensed Operations Department personnel have also been verbally instructed that opening one of these switches requires an entry into the Lifted Lead Log.
INFRACTION B
"Contrary to Technical Specification 4.0.5 surveillance requirements for inservice testing of safety related pumps was not being conducted in accordance with Section XI of the ASME B and PV Codes in that the results of the tests were not evaluated within 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />.
Specifically the testing of the Unit 2 West Containment Spray Pump performed on April 18, 1978 was not evaluated within 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />.
Other examples were also noted during the inspection."
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Upon contact, during the inspection by the NRC inspector concerning this item, immediate data reviews were effected.
Subsequently, all data reviews have been promptly conducted.
I
II AEP:NRC:
00065 The data generated by the cited pump tests were originally to have been reviewed by a plant Inservice P
Inspection organization which is independent from the Operations Department which performed the test.
Concurrent h th A ril tests cited, a Unit 1 Refueling Outage/Inservice I
p ction was occurring, and during this intense period of ns e
activity, the data review for the cited tests was inadvert y
entl neglected.
This neglect was caused in part by the excessive demands on the plant's Inservice Inspection Supervisor who was acting in a dual role, both as the Inservice Inspection Supervisor and as the Quality Control Supervisor.
To preclude similar occurrences, the following personnel changes were accomplished to improve the timeliness of the data reviews in the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant's Inservice Inspection Program:
a)
The Inservice Inspection Supervisor was relieved of his function as Quality Control Supervisor as of May 1, 1978.
b)
An Assistant Inservice Inspection Supervisor and a clerk were hired on July 17, 1978 and July 12, 1978, respectively.
With the addition of these personnel, the Inservice Inspection Section will be able to make a concentrated effort in'll aspects of Section XI tests, test evaluations and future examinations.
In addition, the Operations Department, staff has been given a form that provides for its data evaluation immediately upon completion of a test.
This action will necessitate revision of test procedures.
All procedure revisions encompassed by this change will be completed by September 29, 1978.
gIeIt RECy~
P O~C r4
~~"
qO
/p +a*~~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 7$fQ jjgg Docket No. 50-315(/I1 Docket No. 50-316 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. K. R. Baker of this office on May 1, 3-5, 10-12, and June 2, 1978, of activities at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 authorized by NRC Operating Licenses No. DPR-58 and No. DPR-74 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. D. 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.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed Appendix A.
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office with-in twenty days of your receipt of this notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for infractions A and B:
(1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
American Electric Power
- 2 Service Corporation JUL 24 )978 Vith respect to Infraction C, your reports dated May 16 and 20, 1978 described the corrective actions taken at the time the event was dis-covered, corrective action taken to prevent recurrence, proposed actions regarding Unit 2 operating procedures, and the anticipated date of full compliance.
Therefore, no response to item C is required at this time.
Ve wish to point out that the lockout of the containment spray pumps during plant startup on May 2, 1978 represents the second time in six months that this system was rendered inoperable oa en automatic basis.
In both cases the condition resulted from personnel error.
awhile I and members of my staff have discussed this with you end representatives from your ofHce, we iatend to communicate to you further, our coacerns regerdiag this and other events we feel stem from the same basic operatioaal control deficiencies which contributed to the event of Hay 2, 1978.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title l0, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter wQ.1 be placed ia the-RC's Public Document Room, except as follows. If the enclosures con-tain information that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to this office, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such information from public dis-closure.
The application must include a full statemeat of the reasons
.-r which the information is considered proprietary, aad should be
"".pared so that proprietary information identified in the application o contained in an enclosure to the application, Pe will gladly discuss eny questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, J'ames Director
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice
.of Violation 2.
IE Inspection Rpts.
No. 50-316/78-20 and No. 50-315/78-16
REGION III==
Report No. 50-315/78-20; 50-316/78-16 Docket No. 50-315; 50-316 License No. DPR-58; DPR-74 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana 6 Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Facility Name:
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
Donald C. Cook Site, Bridgman, MI
//
7i Inspector:
App oved By:
Inspection Conducted:
May 1, 3-5, 10-12, and June 2,
1978 K. R. Baker Reactor Projects Section
Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Ma
3-5 10-12 and June
1978 Re ort No. 50-315/78-20
~/
Areas Ins ected:
Observations of operations, operating records review, control of bypasses, surveillance activities, test results, and entering Mode 4 with Containment Spray Pumps locked out of service.
The inspec-tion involved 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in three areas.
Three items of noncompliance were identified in the remaining areas (Infractions Implementation of Jumper/Bypass Control Procedure, Failure to review surveillance data within required time. frame, and entering Mode 4 with Containment Spray Pumps in lockout (Paragraphs 3,
4 and 6).
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Durin The Ins ection
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager R. Dudding, Maintenance Superintendent D. Wizner, Maintenance Quality Control Coordinator V. Vanderburg, Nuclear Engineer
- E. Smarrella, Technical Supervisor
- B. Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager R. Lease, Production Supervisor
- R. Keith, Operations. Superintendent E. Kant, Performance Supervisor D. Palmer, Health Physicist A. Blind, Performance Engineer H. Chadwell, Production Supervisor
- J. Stietzel, Quality Assurance Supervisor C. Murphy, Shift Operating Engineer R. Skinner, Operating Engineer The inspector also contacted a number of operators, technicians and maintenance personnel during the course of the inspection.
~Denotes those present at one or more of the exit interviews.
Tours Observation of 0 erations and Records Review The inspector observed operations on May 1, 3-5, 10 and 11, 1978.
The inspector toured portions of the facility on May 1 and 5, 1978.
The inspector reviewed the following records:
Unit 2 Control Room Log; May 1-10, 1978 Unit 2 Test Log; May 4-10, 1978 SOE Log; May 4-10, 1978 QA Audits, QA 78-09, 06 and 05.
Condition Reports 78-234-302.
3.
Bysesses During observations in the Unit 2 Control Room on May 3, 1978 the inspector noted that the knife switch which bypasses the low low RWST level cutout of RHR pumps was opened.
Licensee supervisory personnel who were conducting reviews of plant conditions prior to startup were unaware of the condition as it had not been logged as required by PMI 2140 "Bypass of Safety Functions:
Jumpers, Grounds, Lifted Wire and Blocked Relay Control."
-2-
The above appears to be in noncompliance with Technical Speci-fication 6.8.1 which requires procedures to be implemented.
4.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed a portion of Unit 2 Technical Specification Surveillance.
Technical Specification 4.0.5 requires surveillance to be conducted in accordance with ASME B and PV Code, Section lX, 1974 edition.
Section 1 WP 3220 of this code requires that test data shall be analyzed within 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> after completion of the test.
On May 3, 1978 the inspector noted that 2-OHP-4030 STP.007 Con-tainment Spray Monthly Pump test for 2 West had been completed on April 18, 1978; 2 East had been completed on April 29, 1978.
The data had not been analyzed as of May 3, 1978.
A review of the pro-cedure revealed that the procedure contained no specific acceptance criteria to be used for the initial review as required by PMI 2010 Attachment No. 2.
Other similar examples were noted in Charging Pump, Residual Heat Removal Pump, Auxiliary Feed Water Pumps and Component Cooling Water Pump surveillance records.
The above appears to be in noncompliance with Technical Specification 4.0.5.
Test Data and Results Review The inspector reviewed portions of the following tests and supporting data:
2-PO-050-539 2-PO-080-810 2-PO-060-612 Flow Coast Down Power Tests Cold Shutdown from Outside the Control Room 6.
No items of noncompliance were observed.
Containment S ra Pum s Locked Out of Service On May 3, 1978 the licensee reported verbally to the inspector that Unit 2 had been in Mode 4 with the Containment Spray System (CTS)
pumps locked out of service contrary to Technical Specification 3.6.2.1 on May 2, 1978.
The licensee submitted written followup reports dated May 16, 1978 and May 22, 1978.
The licensee assigned Licensee Event Report No. 78-026/01L-0 to this event.
The inspector's review of facility records and discussions with per-sonnel involved revealed the following.
On May 2, 1978 at 0431 hours0.00499 days <br />0.12 hours <br />7.126323e-4 weeks <br />1.639955e-4 months <br />
Unit 2 was placed in Mode 4 (greater than 200 F and less than 350 F) in preparation for returning the unit to operation.
At about 0800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> the shift who had just relieved the 0000-0800 shift which had placed the unit in Mode-4 noted that both CTS pump control switches were in the "Pull to Lockout" position which would prevent the pumps from starting automatically if required.
Techni-cal Specification 3.6.2.1 requires two independent containment spray systems to be operable when in Mode 4.
Upon recognizing the problem, valve lineups of both containment spray systems were completed and the CTS pump switches were aligned for automatic operation at 0920 hours0.0106 days <br />0.256 hours <br />0.00152 weeks <br />3.5006e-4 months <br /> while the unit was still in Mode 4.
No errors were noted in the valve lineup checks which would have pre-vented the operator from manually operating the system from the Control Room.
The operators who placed the unit in Mode 4 were aware that the CTS pumps were locked out.
They had refered to the procedure being used for heatup (2-0HP-4021.001.001)
to determine if this was acceptable prior to entering Mode 4 and concluded from the procedure that the CTS systems were not required until Node
(greater than 350 F).
The inspector's review of the event confirms the licensee report of the event.
The inspector noted on May 10, 1978 that temporary changes similar to those made of Unit 2 procedures had not been made to Unit 1 procedures.
The licensee initiated the changes to Unit 1 proce-dures on that date.
Exit Interview The Resident Inspector conducted the following Exit Interviews and discussed his findings for the proceeding days of inspection.
Ma
1978 a.
Discussed items of noncompliance.
The inspector stated that the implementation of Jumper and Bypass. Controls had been the subject of earlier enforcement items.
b.
,Operating aids in the Unit 2 Control Room were discussed.
The licensee stated the same aids that were in the Unit 1 Control Room would be provided in Unit 2.
C ~
The Containment. Spray Pump event was discussed.
Ma
1978 a
~
b.
gA Audits were discussed.
Timely review of preoperational tests was discussed.
C ~
The number of LER's associated with rod position indication was discussed.
d.
Licensee discussed his proposed corrective actions regarding the Containment Spray Pumps being locked out.
June
1978 The noncompliance associated with the Containment Spray Pumps being locked out was discussed.
~pe RE0II (4 Np
~4
(
o
+>>**~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISStON
REGION III
799 ROOSEVELT ROAO GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 AUG 319T8 Docket No.
0-315 Docket No.
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the corporate management meeting held with Mr. Tillinghast, you, and others of your staff on June 16, 1978, at the American Electric Po~er Companys office in New York, and to the inspection conducted by Mr. K. R. Baker of this office on June 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, July 6 and 7, 1978, of activities at the D. C.,Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Operating Licenses No. DPR-58 and No. DPR-74 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. D. V. Shaller and other members of your staff 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 2, 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 days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company AUG 3 1978 information froa public disclosure.
The application must include a full statement of the reasons for whicker the information is con-sidered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
Ve wi11 gladly discuss any qaestions you have concerning this inspection.
Caston Fiorelli, Chief Reactor Operatinns and Huclear Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Reports Ho. 50-315/78-19 and Ho. 50-316/78>>19
REGION III==
Report No. 50-315/78-19; 50-316/78-19 Docket No. 50-315; 50-316 License No. DPR-58; DPR-74 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:
June 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, July 6 and 7, 1978 Inspector:
Approved By:
]PF4g K. R. Baker g+4tJ~A R. F. Warnick, Chief Reactor Projects Section
E-8-7 Ins ection Summar Ins ection on June 7-9
14
19
23 Jul 6 and
1978 Re ort No. 50-315/78-19'0-316/78-19 Areas Ins ected:
Unit 1 refueling activities, review of operation,
CFR Part 21 implementing procedures, and a Corporate Management Meeting.
The inspection involved 53 inspection hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the course of the inspection.
V
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted J. Tillinghast, Vice Chairman, Engineering and Construction, AEP J. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President, Engineering, AEPSC R. Jurgensen, Chief Nuclear Engineer, AEPSC R. Kroeger, Manager QA, AEPSC
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager
- B. Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager
+R. Dudding, Maintenance Superintendent
- R. Keith, Operations Superintendent
- J. Stietzel, QA Supervisor
- E. Smarrella, Technical Supervisor E. Kant, Performance Supervising Engineer V. Vanderburg, Nuclear Engineer R. Lease, Production Supervisor H. Chadwell, Production Supervisor The inspector also contacted a number of engineers, operators, technicians and maintenance personnel during the course of the inspection.
~Denotes those present at one or more of the exit interviews.
2.
Unit 1 Refuelin Activities The inspector reviewed the following items:
a ~
Licensee's repairs and recalibration of Steam Dump System.
b.
Licensee's data and analysis of 1THP4030 STP217 results.
Included was a review of deficiencies observed during the test.
The licensee has resolved or is resolving them.
The tripping of Reactor Coolant Pumps observed during the test was found to be as designed.
ce Maintenance activities.
(1)
RFC 2269, 227, and 2242, Safety related cable replace-ment, cable rerouting, and power terminal block removal (splicing) in Unit 1 containment.
(2)
JO 46043, RHP Pump Seal replacement.
(3)
RFC 12-2038, Degraded grid voltage modifications.
(4)
Licensee's plans and schedule for startup after refueling.
Included was verification of plans to retest selected items.
(5)
Master Surveillance Record for April 17-30, 1978.
(6)
Selected valve lineups.
The inspector noted during the review of JO 46043, RHR Pump Seal Replacement that the licensee had used only a portion of the approved maintenance procedure that appeared applicable to that job.
The licensee has no method to authorize or control the partial use of a maintenance procedure.
It would appear this has the possibility to lead to the omission of control points during future maintenance activities.
The licensee agreed to review this item and implement the necessary controls.
During the valve lineup checks performed prior'o returning Unit 1 to service the licensee noted that valves SI 121 S and N were close
.
d These valves are used to throttle and balance the safety injection flow.
The licensee initiated an investigation to determine the cause and to identify the time at which they were shut.
After an extensive review the licensee found they had been closed during this refueling and that the plant had not been operated with them closed.
The valves had been closed during leak tests of containment isolation valves performed under 12 THP4030 STP 203.
The licensee found that they had been shut and not returned to normal as required by the procedure.
The licensee is revising procedures to provide better control of the valve lineups and the returning of the systems to normal configuration.
No items of noncompliance were 'identified.
3.
Review of 0 erations The inspector reviewed the following:
a ~
Condition report file.
The inspector questioned the report-ability of Condition Reports 2-5-78-270, South Boric Acid tank low level; 2-5-78-277, RUST Level Transmitter Failed Low; and 1-5-78-293, Failure of Phase A train B to actuate manually.
'The licensee's re-review of 2-5-78-277 and 1-5-78-293 showed they were reportable and the licensee subse-quently reported them as required by Technical Specifications.
2-5-78-270 was found not to be reportable as the middle tank contained sufficient boric acid to meet Technical Specifi-cation requirements.
b.
The inspector observed operations on June 7, 12, 23, July 6 and 7, 1978.
c.
The inspector toured portions of the facility on June 7, 8, 9, 23, July 6 and 7, 1978.
d.
Unit 1 Control Room Logs, June 10-12, 1978.
e.
Unit 2 Control Room Logs, June 1-19, 1978.
During a review of diesel generator testing performed using OHP4030 STP 27 the inspector could not identify the specific diesel being tested from the test data sheets.
Cross checking the data sheets with log entries identified the diesel in all cases.
The desirability of identifying the specific equipment on the data sheets was discussed with the licensee.
g.
Log entries on June 15, 1978 show that the Unit 2 CD diesel was removed from service from 1300 hours0.015 days <br />0.361 hours <br />0.00215 weeks <br />4.9465e-4 months <br /> until 1655 hours0.0192 days <br />0.46 hours <br />0.00274 weeks <br />6.297275e-4 months <br />.
From 1418 hours0.0164 days <br />0.394 hours <br />0.00234 weeks <br />5.39549e-4 months <br /> to 1431 hours0.0166 days <br />0.398 hours <br />0.00237 weeks <br />5.444955e-4 months <br /> the Unit 2 AB battery was removed from service to jumper a cell.
The Technical Speci-fications appear to allow this.
The inspector discussed the item with the licensee and pointed out to the licensee the increased conservatism obtained by not removing a diesel and opposite battery at the same time.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
4.
Cor orate Mana ement Meetin A meeting was held in the AEP Corporate Headquarters on June 16, 1978.
Attending were:
AEPSCII and M Power Com an RIII J. Tillinghast J. Dolan R. Jurgensen D. Shaller R. Kroeger G. Roy R. Warnick K. Baker The trends in the licensee's performance were discussed.
Included in the discussion was the number and seriousness of the recent items of noncompliance, the trend toward a high number of Licensee Event Reports, repetitiveness of items, and recent important events such as the containment spray system being valved out and pumps being locked out.
The licensee indicated an awareness of the problems.
The licensee stated that positive steps would be taken to reverse adverse trends in operations.
The Resident Inspection Program was also discussed.
5.
CFR Part 21 Procedure Review The inspector reviewed AEPSC General Procedure No.
Reporting to the NRC of Defects and Noncompliance Associated with American Electric Power System Nuclear Plants" and PMI 7070 Rev.
0 "Defect or Noncom-pliance Reporting" to determine that the licensee has established procedures implementing the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21.
In addition, the inspector observed various postings and determined that selected purchase orders were being identified as to the applica-bility of 10 CFR 21.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Exit Interview The resident inspector conducted the following exit interviews and discussed his findings for the preceding days of inspection.
June
1978 The licensee agreed to review the controls on the performance of parts or sections of Maintenance Procedures.
June
1978 Removal of a battery from service while a diesel was out of service was discussed.
The licensee stated that surveillance procedures would be revised so that the specific item tested would be identified on the data sheets.
Jul
1978 The scope of the inspection was discussed.
Attachment:
Preliminary Inspection Findings
~
~
~ '
, lo
- LICENSEE
~
~
'merican Electric. Power Svc.
Cox'p.
Xndiana b Michigan Powex'ompany
.
2 Broadway
.
New York, NY 10004, D. C. Cook Un'it 1 'x'idgman, MX D.
C.
Cook Unit 2
. Brid man MiX
.2e REGIONAL OFFXCE ','
U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Xnspection b Enforcement, RXXX.
'&9 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, XL'0137
~
~
', PRELLu.NARY'iioZLttCAXOHFXNDXNGS
't ~
~
v'
t
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
3 ~ " DOCKET NUMBERS 50-315 50-316
LXCENSE NUiafBERS
.
5 ~
DATE gF XNSPECTXON
'PR-58 tDPR-74 I
~
I
/~ 6.; Within the ecope od the inepection, no theme od noncoep1ience ot devietione were found.
I I
I
/~
'
~. ',.'.The. following'metter's are preliminiry".'inspection 'findings s'
~
~
/ / 8.'hese preliminary'inspection findinga vie.1 be reviewe'd by'IC Supervision/'anagement at the Region XXX Office and they Sill correspond with you concerning any enforcement action. '.i:;,;-
I '
p ~
, '.;..
~..'..i,, ',":. "".!.,':.,:.:.. Nuclear ReguXetory Commission Xnspector
~
I
~
~
s
',PRELXMXNhRY XNSPECTXON FXNDXNGS ls s ~
LICENSEE
., 'I'gd 's American Electric. Power Svc.
Cox'p Indiana
& Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway
.
New York, NY 10004 D. C.
Cook Unit 1:
Bridgman, MI D.
C.
Cook Unit 2.. Brid man MI 2.
REGIONAL OFFICE '...
s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Xnspection
& Enforcement, RXXX 799 Roosevelt Road Glen. Ellyn, XL'0137 3s 'OCKET NUMBERS 50-315 50-316
LXCENSE NUMBERS
'PR-58
'hDPR<<-74',
DATE OF XNSPECTION
/
~'I I
~
'I I
II
/II II, 1'.
s e
I ~
.';
~
~
W
~
I 6 ~ 'achin che scope op chs dna pe
REGION III==
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 JUL 18 t978 Docket No. 30-313/7& IS Docket No. 50-316 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. C.
D. Feierabend of this office on June 22 and 23, 1978, of activities at D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Operating Licenses No. DPR-58 and No. DPR-74 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. D. V. Shaller and other members of your staff at the con-clusion 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 2, 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 days of your receipt 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 con-sidered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
American Electric Power
- 2-Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company JUL 18 1978 Me villgladly discuss any questions you have conce)m1ng this inspection.
Sincerely, Gaston Fiorelli, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Reports Ho. 50-315/78-18 and Ho. 50-316/78-14
"c v/encl:
Mr. D. V. Shaller, Plant f
Manager
~"=tral Files
.production Unit NRC 20b
~'%QP
"al PDR
'BASIC TIC Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Coma)issian David D. Comey, Executive Director, Citizens for a Better Environment OFFICKi SURNAME+
DAT~
I RIII QPJOF Feierabend/b 7/17/78 RIII ~g,)
~~., )
Marnick RIII Fiorelli RIII Baker NRC ForrII 318 B {RI?Z) (1-78) NRCM 0240
~U. S. OOVCRNMENTPAINTINGOI'FICCr 5955 255415
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.:
50-315/78-18; 50-316/78-14 Docket No.:
50-315; 50-316 License No.:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, New York 10004 Facility Name:
D. C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and
Inspection At; D. C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection Conducted:
June 22-23, 1978 Inspector:
Approved By:
RFW ~
C. D. Feierabend R. F. Warnick, Chief Reactor Projects Section
F- )7-78'-
Ins ection Summer Ins ection on June 22-23 1978 Re ort No. 50-315/78-18'0-316/78-14)
Areas Ins ected:
The inspection included observation of conduct of the resident inspection function and followup on licensee event reports.
The inspection involved 13 inspector-hours onsite by 1 NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance nor deviations were identified by the inspector.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager
- B, Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager D. Wizner, Maintenance Quality Control Coordination R. Lease, Production Supervisor
- R. Keith, Operations Superintendent C. Miles, Control and Instrument Supervisor 2.
Observation of Activities The inspector observed facilities and discussed program implementation and communications with the resident inspector.
3.
Licensee Event Re orts (LER's)
The inspector reviewed the following LER's submitted by the licensee, determined that reporting requirements had been met, and that corrective actions appeared appropriate.
a.
(Closed)
RO 50-315/78-05 Boric Acid Transfer Pump Discharge Pressure.
b.
(Closed)
RO 50-315/78-13 Axial Flux Difference Exceeded Technical Specification Limits.
c.
(Closed)
RO 50-315/78-14 Tie Transformer Tripped.
d.
(Closed)
RO 50-315/78-15 - Diesel Driven Fire Pump Test Valve Open.
e.
(Closed)
RO 50-315/78-25 Inoperable Snubber, Loss of Hydraulic Fluid.
(Closed)
RO 50-315/78-29 - Hydraulic Snubber Lockup and Bleed Rates Out of Specification.
The licensee's evaluation determined that the test criteria was not appropriate for operability testing of snubbers.
The licensee's corporate engineering staff provided new test a
REGION III==
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 Juf 1i 578 Dockec No. 50-315//P )/
Docket No. 50-316 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. I. T. Yin and D. H. Danielson of this office on June 13, 1978, at the Sargent and Lundy office in Chicago in regard to the operability of safety related snubbers installed in D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The inspection was authorized by NRC Operating Licenses No. DPR-58, and No. DPR-74 and discussions were held with Mr.
J.
G. Feinstein, others of your staff, and Sargent and Lundy, EDS",Nuclear, ITT-Grinnell, and JDS-McKee representatives.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas ex-amined during the inspection.
No it;ems 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 2, 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 days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such information from public disclosure.
The application must include a full statement of the reasons for which the infor-mation is considered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is
American Electric Power Service Corporation JUL s1 1978 We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, R. P. Heishman, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Rpts. Ho. 50-315/78-17 and Ho. 50-316/78-13
REGION III==
Report No. 50-315/78-17; 50-316/78-13 Docket No. 50-315; 50-316 License No. DPR-58; DPR-74 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Facility Name:
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
Sargent and Lundy Engineers, Chicago, IL Inspection Conducted:
June 13, 1978
. z~r ..'"-'iw'-
Inspector:
I. T. Yin Accompanying Personnel:
D. H. Danielson
~r
/ jl
- /gal'.c'<+w, ~c gf ta~~-
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section
Ins ection Summar Ins ection on June
1978 (Re ort Nos. 50-315/78-17 50-316/78-13)
Areas Inspected:
Licensee action on previously identified unresolved matters regarding operability of the safety related snubbers.
The
,inspection involved a total of 6 inspector hours at Sargent and Lundy Engineers office, Chicago, by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
DETAILS Persons Contacted American Electric Power Service Cor oration (AEP)
J.
G. Feinstein, Head Nuclear Safety and Licensing R. F. Hering, Chief, Mechanical Engineering T.
W. Baker, Head, Piping and Valves Section S. Ulan, Group Leader, Special Projects ITT-Grinnell Cor oration (Grinnell D. P.. Brown, Manager, Shock Suppressors Sar ent and Lund En ineers (S&L)
E. R. Branch, Head, Engineering, Mechanical Division A. E. Meligi, Supervisor, Engineering, Mechanical Division EDS Nuclear (EDS)
B. Ritsch, NYO Project Manager T. 0. Karpinen, Division Manager JDS-McKee P
J.
D. Stevenson, AEP Consultant Functional or Pro ram Areas Ins ected The question relative to operability of some of the safety related snubber'nstalled in D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, was raised as a result of:
(1) RIII inspection at D. C. Cook Unit 2 on April 19-21, 1978, (Report No. 50-316/78-08),
(2) Licensee Event Report on Unit 1 inoperable snubbers, dated May 12, 1978, and (3)
licensee evaluation of adequacy of design review performed on several Pnstallation drawings.
This inspection meeting was to discuss the technical requirements for snubbers and to discuss the licensee's planned action to resolve some of the RIII inspection unresolved items.
l.
Excessive Snubber Hot Position Settin s
(HPS)
The subject concern was discussed in RIII Report No. 50-316/78-08 paragraph 5.b.(4).
During the meeting, the inspector presented his view in regard to proper HPS, and his methodology in determining what constitutes acceptable HPS.
The licensee took exception to
0
this position and stated that Grinnell would provide test data and calculations to prove that those snubbers in question are operable.
In addition, the licensee stated Grinnell would evaluate these snubbers using the RIl'I inspector's methodology and actual dimensions of the compression and tension cylinder chambers, including the "Z" measurements on the piston rods.
This item remains unresolved.
2.
Other Unresolved Items Identified in RIII Re ort 50-316/78-08 The licensee stated that:
a.
The maintenance procedure for inspecting vertically installed hydraulic snubber reservoir fluid levels has been revised.
b.
The leaky 2-FWS-9 snubbers had been fixed prior to plant return to operation.
c.
The strain gauges attached to 2-FWS-3 had been removed prior to plant return to operation.
These corrective actions will be reviewed during a future site inspection.
These items remain unresolved.
3.
Snubber 2-GRC-S-632 Tive inspector reviewed all safety related snubbers for D.
C.
Cook Unit 2.
The sub)ect snubber was found to have a design load greater than the rated cylinder capacity.
The licensee indicated that they will replace this snubber with a larger snubber in a week or two.
In the event that the relief valve should lift prior to the snubber replacement, the licensee stated they would remove the snubber and test it for possible damage.
The inspector reviewed the stress levels of the existing snubber components under the overloaded condition, and concurred with the licensee corrective measures.
The licensee further stated that a similar condition exists in Unit 1, and that it will also be replaced.
Upon completion of the licensee corrective actions, the inspector will review the installation and quality records.
This item is considered unresolved.
(315/78-17-01; 316/78-13-01)
4.
Snubber 2-GRC-S-598 This snubber was shown to have cold position settings (CPS) of 2 3/16" and HPS of 5 5/8".
The inspector questioned the operability of the snubber at the HPS with the cylinder stroke
of 5".
The licensee responded that the actual CPS should be 4 3/8" and the HPS should be 1 15/16" according to the design calculation, and that the problem of incorrect installation detail drawings had been identified prior to the questions raised by the inspector.
The licensee stated that evaluation of the A-E's review to ensure the installation drawings are in accordance with the design requirements are in progress.
The inspector stated that during a future site inspection he will review:
(1) the stress calculations involved, and (2) the A-E's quality control program in the areas of inter and intra-organizational interface, and design and drawing review.
This item was considered unresolved.
(315/78-17-02; 316/78-13-02)
5.
Licensee Event Re ort RO 78-029/03L-0 The subject report dated Hay 12, 1978, was submitted to RIll recording a large number of "out-of-specification" snubbers identified during functional testings.
The inspector discussed the definition of "operability" of the snubbers and stated that the licensee should take into consideration (1) higher acceptable lockup volocity (LV) and bleed rates (BR) based on Grinnell dynamic test data, (2) temperature correction factors for LV and BR, and (3) visual inspection acceptance in con)unction with results of functional tests.
This item is considered unresolved pending further review during a
future site inspection.
(315/78-17-03; 316/78-13-03)
Unreso3ved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
Three unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.
Exit Interview The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection pt.the conclusion of the meeting on June 13, 1978.
The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R EG ION I I I 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 JUL 1 01978 Docket No.
50 3-15/7P Ik-Docket No. 50-316 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Ms. R. J. Greer of this office on June 15, 1978; of activities at Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-58 and Construction Permit No.
CPPR-61 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. B. Svensson at the conclusion of the inspection.
The ehclosed 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.
~ ~
During. this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed Appendix A.
The inspection showed that action had been taken to correct the identified noncompliance and to prevent recurrence.
Consequently, no reply to this
,.; noncompliance is required and we have no further questions regarding this matter at this time.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, 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
knerican Electric Power Service << 2 Corporation Ind1ana and Michigan Power Company JUL 10 197S office, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such 1nformation from public disclosure.
The application must include a full statement of the reasons for which the information is considered proprietary, and should be pzepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
'Ve will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, A. B. Davis, Chief Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Enclosures'.
Appendix k, Notice of Violation 2., XE Inspection Rpt No.
SO-315/78-16 and Ho.
50-316/78-12 cc w/ehcls I D~V. Sheller, Plant Manager IP Central Piles Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR HSIC TIC Ronald Callen9 Michigan Public Sefvice Comm1ssion David D. Comey, Executive Director, Citizens foz a Bettez'nv1ronment RII RIII L
Pjl Davis OFFICE%
aker SURNA)E~
DAT~ 6/30/78
NRC Fosm 31SB (RI?I) {1-78) NRCM 0240
~II.5 OOVERNMENT PRI INO OPPICEc l999 455419
A endix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company Docket No. 50-316 Based on the inspection conducted on June 15, 1978, it appears that certain of your activities were in noncompliance with NRC require-ments, as noted below.
The following item is an infraction.
Contrary to Technical Specification 2.1.1.2, the maximum condenser hT for Unit 2 exceeded 17 F + 1 F on May 16, 1978.
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-315/78-16; 50-316/78-12 Docket No. 50-315; 50-316 License No. DPR-58; CPPR-61 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Facility name:
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection at:
D.
C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection conducted:
June 15, 1978 Inspector:
.
R. J.
Greer Approved by:
~ >g.
H.
,
ief Environmental and Special Projects Section Ins ection Summar Ins ection on June 15, 1978 Re ort No. 50-315/78-16 No. 50-316/78-12
'dditional environmental sampling information for Unit 1, and to review the circulating water excess temperature differential occurrence on May 16, 1978, for Unit 2.
The inspection involved 4 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the two areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in one area; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area (infraction - circulating water temperature differential occurrence Paragraph 3).
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- B. Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager T. Kriesel, Environmental Coordinator
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s (Closed)
Unresolved item (50-315/78-10):
Number of stations sampled for phytoplankton during short surveys.
Technical Specification 4.1.2.1.1.2 requires eleven stations to be sampled for phytoplankton during the short-survey months.
However, the D.
C.
Cook annual environmental report states that nine stations were sampled for phytoplankton.
The inspector reviewed a letter from Dr. J. Ayers, Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, in which he stated that eleven stations were actually sampled.
The inspector has no further questions at this time and this item is considered resolved.
3.
Abnormal Environmental Occurrence AEO 78-02 r
On~May 16, 1978, the circulating water temperature differential for Unit 2 increased to 19.5oF, in violation of the Technical Specification limit of 17oF + loF.
Investigation of the incident revealed that the condenser discharge valyes had been partially closed to assist in maintaining the circulating water side of the condensers full of water.
After this adjustment, the alarm point for the circulating water Q T was improperly set to 22oF (the limit for Unit 1) instead of 17 F.
After discovery of the error, the A T was reduced to less than 17 F.
The limit of 17 F was not recorded on the log used for recording
.
circulating water temperature.
This log has since been revised to include this limit, and the Q T alarm has been adjusted to its proper setting.
The inspector has no more questions concerning this item.
This represents noncompliance with Technical Specification 2.1.1.2.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representative denoted in Paragraph
at the.,conclusion of the inspection on June 15, 1978, and discussed the scope and findings of the inspection.
~pP AE0y Wp.
O~
"<<u'
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD '"~
'LEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 JUL 06 )9F8 Docket No. 50-315 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection of your D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, conducted on June 7-9, 1978, by Mr. J.
P. Patterson of this office and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. B. Svenson, Assistant Plant Manager, and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Your activities pursuant to Title 10 CFR Part 70,
"Special Nuclear Materials" as they pertain to License No.
DPR-58 were the subject 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.
Areas examined during the inspection concern a subject matter which is exempt from disclosure according to Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Conse-quently, our report of this inspection will not be placed in the Public Document Room.
) ~~>>30268 A I I ACHHEIXT COilTAIHS 10 CFR 2.7'"0 (d) lllFORMAJlQIN
~
~
~
'
~
~ ~ ~
'
'
~
~ \\I
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ '
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
'I,
~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
II
~
~
'I ~
I
'I
~
~
~
~ I
) I
~
At
/.~
~
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.
50-315/78-15 Docket No. 50-315 License No. DPR-58 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, N.Y. 10004 Facility Name:
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Inspection At:
Bridgman, Michigan Inspection Conducted:
June/-9, 1978 Inspector:
. P. Patterson Approved By: ~J.
A. Hind, Chief Safeguards Branch Si FcF Ins ection Summa Ins ection on June 7-9 1978 (50-315/78-15)
Areas Inspected:
Material control and accountability including facility organization and operation; measurement and controls; shipping and receiving; storage and internal control, inventory, records and reports and management of material control system.
The inspection involved 20.5 inspector hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the course of this inspection.
Attachment:
Details (Part 2.790(d) Information s-" - pS-f3 S'c".y
o=~ co~'es L C'
~, 'vaa sa LS xi'
a vl v
AP ROV.L O. R-II
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted D.
- B AE.
"Dr.
- C kJ ~
W.
Shaller, Plant Manager Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager Smarrella, Technical Superintendent V. Vanderburg, Nuclear Engineer Ross, Nuclear Materials Manager Stietzel, Quality Assurance Supervisor T. Gillett, Performance Engineer
- Denotes those in attendance at the exit interview.
2.
Facilit Or anization and 0 eration The 'D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant is owned by the Indiana and Michigan Power Company, which is a subsidiary of the Indiana and Michigan Electric Company.
This latter company is a subsidiary of the American Electric Power Company, (AEP)
an investor owned electric utility holding company.
The plant organization is under the functional direction of American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), which is the servi'ce organization of AEP.
The Nuclear Materials Management Group (NMMG), composed of three members of the plant organization plus a fourth member appointed by the AEPSC Treasurer, has responsibility for control and a
REGION III==
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 Jut O7 1978 Docket No. 50-315 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs.
J.
E. Kohler and L. A. Reyes of this office on May 17 and 28-30, 1978, of activities at D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, authorized by NRC Oper-ating License No. DPR-58 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. B. Svenson and others of your staff at. the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas exami'ned during the inspection.
Mithin these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.'o 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 2, 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 days of your receipt 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 con-sidered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company JUL 071978 We wQ.l gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Gaston Piorelli4 Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-315/78-14
REGION III==
Report No. 50-315/78-14 Docket No. 50-315 License No. DPR-58 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Facility Name:
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
Inspection At:
D.
C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection Conducted:
May 17, 28-30, 1978 Inspectors:
J.
E. Kohler L. A. Reyes Approved By:
J. F. Streeter, Chief Nuclear Support Section l Ins ectidn Summar Ins ection on Ma
and 28-30 1978 Re ort No. 50-315/78-14)
Areas Ins ected
Routine announced inspection of the performance of the l978 D. C.
Cook Unit 1 CILRT and analysis of the test data.
The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours of onsite inspection by two inspectors:
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted J
B. Svenson, Assistant Plant Manager E. Kant, Performance Supervising Engineer G. Weber, Performance Engineer J. Etzweiler, Engineer NY J.
Dancu, Performance Engineer E. Smarella, Technical Supervisor 2.
-1978 D.
C.
Cook Unit 1 CILRT The 1978 D.
C. Cook, Unit 1 CILRT was performed during May 28-29, 1978.
At the conclusion of the test, the licensee measured a
leakage rate at the upper 95% confidence level of approximately
.06 w/o/day.
The test was performed at a pressure of 12 psig.
Technical Specifications require the containment leakage rate to be less than 75% of.25 w/o/day.
The test demonstrated that the containment leakage was less than Technical Specification limits.
3.
Su lementar Test At the conclusion of the CILRT a supplementary test was performed in which an induced leak rate equivalent to approximately
.22 w/o/day was superimposed.
The licensee measured approximately
.31 w/o/day.
This is within the 25% La criteria specified by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J,
and is confirmatory of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> measured CILRT value.
4.
e C Penalt Type, C leak tests were performed on lines that could not be drained for>the CILRT.
The combined leak rate of these lines was equivalent to a leak rate of less than
.05 w/o/day.
When added to the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> CILRT measurement of.06, the combined leakage rate was still less than the Technical Specification limit.
5 ~
Containment Valve Lineu The inspector reviewed the valve lineup for the test and determined that sources of pressurized air and nitrogen were isolated, During stabilization excessive leakage was measured.
The leakage was attributed to valve lineup errors which were corrected.
In the first case, drain valves from certain drained systems were
- left in the open position and should have been closed.
The second case involved the unintentional venting of the secondary side of the steam generators through temporary tubing installed on the steam generator.
6.
Test Procedure The inspector reviewed the test procedure prior to and during the test.
The procedure was complete and included the appropriate sign-off.
7.
Instrumentation Calibration data associated with performance of the CILRT was reviewed.
All calibration was completed and certification available prior to the test.
Difficultywas encountered with dewpoint measuring equipment during the test.
The output of some of the hygrometers tended to cycle or spike periodically.
The inspector stated that the necessary repeat-ability was not being obtained and suggested that another type of dewpoint device using a saturated salt be investigated for use in the future.
In addition it was suggested that three dewpoint devices with independence from each other be obtained for some containment compartments.
With three dewpoint devices, any failure will leave two independent measurements.
With only two instruments, a failure in any one leaves only one instrument with no precise method of determining if spiking or instrument drift is occuring.
The licensee stated that the dewpoint measurement system would be reevaluated.
8.
Flowmeter a ~
Brooks flowmeter was used to measure the induced leakage rate during the supplemental test.
The flowmeter had a valid cali-bration at 12 psig.
However, the valve lineup used had the flow-meter at 0 psig.
A conversion formula was used to correct from 12 psig to 0 psig.
There was some difficulty on the licensee's part in reading the flowmeter and making the conversion.
The inspector requested the licensee obtain a calibration curve at atmospheric pressure to confirm the induced leakage flow.
The licensee will provide certification of the accuracy of the flowmeter in the three month report CILRT report.
9.
Ins ector Leak Rate Calculation During the test, the inspector selected various data points and checked that the weighting factors described in the procedure actually yielded computer generated values for temperature and dewpoint.
The dewpoint conversion equation was reviewed and found to yield values equivalent to the inspector.
The following summary shows that there was acceptable agreement between inspectors and licensee calculations of the measured leak rate.
CILRT Twelve Hour*
Su lementar Test Licensee Inspector
.06149
.06549
.3099
.3067
- 95% upper confidence level 10.
Test Performance The inspector found that the licensee had overcome the major diffi-culties experienced during the preoperational Unit 2 CILRT (Inspection Report 50-306/77-23)."
Specifically the following areas showed improve-ment:
Containment Model description/documentation Redundancy of dewpoint measurement system Improved working conditions Latest available ice condenser ice weight Keypunch operators onshift
, Redundant Computer Facilities ll.
Mana ement Exit A management exit was held at the conclusion of the inspection in which the results of the inspection were summarized.
The inspector stated that coordination between the operating and performance departments appeared to need improvement.
However, the performance of the CILRT was organized and well run.
The licensee stated that further automation in data management is being investigated to improve the system to measure the leak rate.
~p,II IIEC(j Wp0
+
'l
)
()
(jN
+n +t*W+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 JUN 28 1978 Docket No. 50-315 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs.
E.
W. K. Lee and K. D, Ward of this office on April 18, 20-22, 25-27, May 3-5 and 11-12, 1978, of activities at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Powex Plant, Unit 1 authorized by NRC Opexating License No.
DPR-58 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. D. V. Shaller and others of your staff 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 repres'entative 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 2, 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 days of your receipt 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.
hmerican Electric Power
- 2-Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company JUN 38 1978 We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, R. P. Heishman, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
XE Inspection Rpt No. 50-315/78-13
REGION III==
Report No. 50-315/78-13 Docket No. 50-315 License No.
DPR-58 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Facility Name:
Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Donald C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection Conducted:
April 18, 20-22, 25-27, May 3-5 and 11-12, 1978
~~~ z.g'6=-
Inspectors:
E.
M. K.
ee
>fAl fiA Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section
Ins ection Summar Ins ection on A ril 18 20-22 25-27 Ma 3-5 and 11-12 1978 Re ort No. 50-315/78-13)
Areas Ins ected:
Program, documents and work activities relative to inservice inspection, pipe support and restraint system.
The inspection involved 83 onsite inspection hours by two NRC inspectors including eight hours attending the health physic class.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Em lo ees M. Brown, QC Implementation Coordinator W. Cornell, Maintenance Engineer
+A. P. Papai, ISI Supervisor
- D. V. Shaller, Plant Manager
- J. F. Stietzel, QA Supervisor Southwest Research Institute (SWRI F. Mengden, Inspection Engineer F. Leonard, Level II Examiner Factor Mutual Insurance Com an D. Young, Authorized Inspector The inspector also talked with several other licensee employees of the maintenance staffs and contractors NDE examiners.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Functional or Pro ram Areas Ins ected l.
Review of Inservice Ins ection (ISI Pro ram The inspector reviewed Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)
Nuclear Quality Assurance Program Manual dated March 11, 1977, and Project Plant No. 78-1MP-DCC-1/2-1-1, dated February 1978.
The inspector verified that 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements applicable to ISI were met.
The inspector also reviewed the Unit 1 ISI program for this refueling outage and the 10 year ISI plan. It was determined that the ISI program and plan met the requirements of the Technical Specification and/or the 1971 ASME B&P Code Section XI. It was further determined that examinations to date have met the code requirement for the 1/3 inspection interval.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2.
Review of ISI Procedures The inspector reviewed six ultrasonic examination procedures, one liquid penetrant examination procedure, one eddy current examination procedure, one magnetic particle examination
procedure, one visual examination procedure, two ultrasonic instrument calibrations, twenty-two transducer certifications and eighteen NDE personnel qualifications.
It was determined that the above documents met the ASME B&PV Code,Section XI and procedural requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Observation of ISI Work Activities The inspector observed the following work activities:
a.
MT examination of RPV stud No. 54.
No reportable indication was found.
b.
UT examination of RPV nozzle No. NIB and flange to shell weld.
No reportable indication was found on the flange to shell weld, several geometric reflectors were identi-fied on the RPV nozzle.
The inspector determined that the above examinations were con-ducted in accordance with the applicable procedures.
It was further determined that personnel performing the examinations were qualified and that the equipment used was calibrated.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Review of ISI Records The inspector reviewed four ultrasonic examination, three liquid penetrant examination and four visual examination reports.
The reports reviewed were RPV to flange weld, RPV nozzle weld, R.C. piping weld, RPV nuts and washers.
The inspector determined that
(1) The reports were reviewed as required by procedure, (2) the applicable procedural requirements were met and (3)
several indications were recorded on the UT reports and they were evaluated as geometry reflectors.
Eight linear indications were found on RPV nozzle to safe-end weld No. 1-RPV-2-01 by liquid penetrant examination.
The length of the indications were ranging from 1/8" to 1 1/2".
The licensee plans to remove the indications by grinding.
Special Test Procedure No. 0.028 was prepared for this repair.
This procedure was reviewed and determined to be acceptable by the inspector.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Surveillance of Pi e Su ort and Restraint S stems a.
Review of Pro ram and Procedures The inspector reviewed procedures No.
12MHP 5021.001.028, Rev.
1, No. 12MHP4030.STP.004, Rev.
6 and No.
12MHP4030.
STF.003, Rev. 1. It was determined that the procedures are acceptable and met the Technical Specification requirements, b.
Observation The inspector independently inspected five hydraulic snubbers inside the containment,.
one hydraulic snubber in the Auxiliary Building, five spring hangers inside the containment and the associated supporting structures for the above items.
The inspector determined that (1) deformation or forced bending are not evident, (2) bolts and nuts appeared to be tight and secure, (3) spring hangers appeared to be in their appropriate positions, (4) fluid in the hydraulic snubbers does not appear to be leaking and (5) deterioration and corrosion are not noticeable.
c, Review of Records The inspector reviewed the hydraulic snubbers test and inspection reports performed by the licensee during this refueling outage.
It was determined that the inspections and tests were conducted in accordance with the Technical Specification and procedure requirements.
It was also noted that because of high failure rate, all snubbers were bench tested, ad)usted and/or repaired.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on May 12, 1978.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
In addition, the inspector stated that (1) it is his understanding that all safety related snubbers in Unit 1 will be inspected to assure that the reservoir is in the correct position prior to returning Unit 1 to power and (2) the resoltuion for Unit 2 snubbers relative to piston (stroke) position will also apply to Unit 1.
The licensee acknowledged the information.
~p,4 4KQII(
I (4 Wp0
~e %~
)f >>*4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSfON
REGION III
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS GOI37 ItEIIlBALF!L""S Docket No.
50 3-15J7t /2 Docket No. 50-316 American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company ATTN:
Mr. John E. Dolan, Senior Executive Vice President Engineering 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. K. R. Baker of this office on April 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 19-21, 24 and 26-29, 1978, of activities at D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Operating Licenses No. DPR-58 and No. DPR-74 and to the dis-cussion of our findings with Mr. D. V. Shaller and other members of your staff at the conclusion'f the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection.
Mithin these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed Appendix A.
The inspection showed that action had been taken to correct the identified noncompliance and to prevent recurrence.
Consequently, no reply to this noncompliance is required and we have no further questions regarding this matter at this time.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, 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
t P
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company JUN 08 1978 twenty days of your receipt 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 con-sidered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, Gaston Fiorelli9 Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
Enclosures:
l.
Appendix. A, Notice of Violation 2.
IE Inspection Reports No. 50-315/78-12 and No. 50-316/78-11
REGION III==
Report No. 50-315/78-12; 50-316/78-11 Docket No. 50-315; 50-316 License No. DPR-58; DPR-74 Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Facility Name:
Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:
D.
C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection Conducted:
April 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 19-21, 24 and 26-29, 1978 Inspector:
Approved By:
>F9'.
R. Baker Py F LU.u~~~
R. F. Marnick, Chief Reactor Projects Section
7f,'ns ection Summar Ins ection on A ril 3 5-7,
12-14 19-21 24 and 26-29 1978 Re ort No. 50-315/78-12'0-316/78-11)
Areas Ins ected:
Unannounced inspection by the resident inspector of Unit 2 testing, test xecords, observations of operations, tours of the facility, review of licensee event reports, preparations for refueling, observations of refueling, review of operation, reactor system decon-tamination, IE Bulletins, and cable replacement/splicing.
The inspection involved 115 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the ten areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in seven axeas.
Three items of noncompliance were identified in the remaining three areas.
Two infractions regarding procedure adherence (Paragraphs 3 and 4), and one infraction regarding refueling surveillance requirements (Paragraph 8).
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Durin the Ins ection
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager
+B. Svenson, Assistant Plant Manager R. Dudding, Maintenance Supervisor
+E. Smarrella, Technical Supervisor
- R. Keith, Operations Supervisor
- J. Stietzel, QA Supervisor
- R. Lease, Production Supervisor H. Chadwell, Production Supervisor V. Vanderburg, Nuclear Engineer D. Palmer, Radiation Protection Supervisor J. Fryer, Radiation Protection Foreman E. Kant, Performance Supervising Engineer A. Blind, Performance Engineer G. Weber, Performance Engineer C. Litwinski, Performance Engineer D. Duncan, C6I Supervisor
- T. Kriesel, Environmental Coordinator T. Beilman, QC J. Risching, QC The inspector also contacted a number of engineers, operators, technicians and maintenance personnel during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those present at one or more exit interviews.
2.
Test Review The inspector reviewed portions of the records associated with the following tests:
2-P0-060-610, 2-P0-070-701, 2-P0-070-710, 2-P0-050-597, Post Core Load Hot Functional Test.
Initial Criticality.
Low Power Physics Tests.
Radiation Surveys and Shielding Effectiveness.'he inspector observed portions of the following tests:
1-P0-080-810, Power Test, Unit 1 Generator Trip From 100%.
2-P0-080-810, Power Test, Unit 2.
1 THP4030 STP 217, Diesel Load Shedding and Performance Test.
During the performance of 1THP4030 STP 217 it was noted that when power was removed from the AB buses to cause automatic starting to the AB diesel, all four reactor coolant pumps tripped.
This was somewhat surprising as only two pumps are supplied from the AB buses.
When the CD bus portion of the test was run, no trips were received even on the pumps supplied from the CD bus.
The licensee is reviewing the design of the relay logic to determine if its correct.
During the Unit 1 100% generator trip the steam dump system did not appear to operate correctly in that instead of modulating closed at 547 F they cycled on the low low Tave interlock.
The licensee is investigating.
No items of noncompliance were observed.
Records Reviewed Tours and Observation of 0 erations Condition Reports:
1/3/78-152, 1/4/78-158-205 Unit 1 Control Room Log:
3/31-4/3 Unit 2 Control Room Log:
3/27-4/3, 4/3-5, 4/8-12> 4/13, 4/13-19 Test Log, 2-PO-080-810:
3/27-4/3, 4/3-5, 4/8-12, 4/13, 4/13-19 SOE Log:
3/27-4/3, 4/3-19 Partial Tours of the Facility:
4/10, 12, 20, 26, 27, and 29/78 Observed Operations:
Unit 1:
4/6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, and 29/78 Unit 2:
4/3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, and 20/78 During the tour on April 10, 1978 the inspector observed two doors leading to high radiation areas that were unlocked.
The licensee was contacted and the doors were locked.
The doors were the entrance to Unit 1 E RHR pump room and N CVCS holdup tank room.
Posted surveys of these rooms indicated radiation levels greater than 100 mrem/hr but less than 1000 mrem/hr.
The facilities Technical Specifications do not require the doors to be locked, but the licensee had adapted procedures for control of entry into these areas which require locking.
Specifically, PMP 6010 RAD 002 "Entry into High Radiation Areas" requires high radiation areas be secured by a lock and key.
The above would appear to be noncompliance with Technical Specifi-cation 6.8.1 requirements to implement written procedures.
As corrective action the various departments issued memos to remind personnel to lock the doors upon exit.
OHP 4030.001.001 was changed to require logging of operator who entered areas so that responsibility for leaving doors unlocked can be affixed.
Doors which were locked by padlock are being modified to the type of door locks which lock upon closing.
4.
Reactor S stem Decontamination The inspector reviewed the licensees use of chemical decontamination solutions.
The licensee has used and plans to continue to use hydrogen peroxide additions to the reactor coolant system prior to refueling to reduce activity levels.
The hydrogen peroxide increases the solubility of crud.
The unit is cooled to about 140 F and a
30%
solution of unstabilized hydrogen peroxide is added to the system until a 0.5 ppm residual is obtained.
Purification flow is maintained until activity levels reach acceptable values.
The licensee selected this method of decontamination based upon NSSS vendor recommendations, NSSS vendor data, EPRI data, the fact that hydrogen peroxide is generated during normal operation, and hydrogen peroxide is easily removed from the system by its natural disasso-ciation.
The licensee does not believe it has any potential to affect the
. strength of the pressure boundary based upon data review, short contact time and that it doesn't remove enough crud to bare the base metal.
The licensee believes observation of surfaces during refueling, normal ISI program and leak checks following refueling are appropriate to assure the system is not degraded.
During a review of the procedures used for hydrogen peroxide additions for Unit 1's first refueling the inspector noted that the procedure was not reviewed and approved as required by Technical Specification 6.8 and the Plants Procedures which implement the Specification.
Discussion with personnel reveal that the PNSRC discussed the use of hydrogen peroxide but these discussions were not documented in the minutes of the meetings.
The Plant Manager was aware of and verbally had approved it.
The above appears to be in noncompliance with Technical Specification 6. 8.1 requirements to implement written procedures in that the methods for documenting the review and approval of procedures as contained in PMI 2010 were not used.
The licensee subsequently approved and issued a procedure for the use of hydrogen peroxide in accordance with PMI 2010.
5.
IE Bulletin The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions regarding the fol-lowing IE Bulletins:
77-03, On-Line Testing of Westinghouse Solid State Protection System.
Actions taken were as stated in the licensee's letter dated November 10, 1977 and the necessary procedures were revised.
77-02, Potential failure in certain AR type relays.
Licensee has taken action to insure none of the suspect relays are installed in safety systems or contained in plant spares.
The licensee's letter of November 10, 1977 stated three relays of the questionable lot had been found and replaced in Unit 1.
This statement is not correct.
Three relays were originally thought to be from the suspect lot but were subsequently found to be from an acceptable lot so no relays were replaced or in need of replacement.
The licensee stated a
letter would be submitted correcting the November 10, 1977 response.
6.
Licensee Event Re orts (LER The inspector reviewed the following Licensee Event Reports and the licensee's action regarding:
Unit 1:
77-32, 78-23, 78-22 Unit 2:
78-03, 78-12 The inspector has no further questions regarding the above at this time.
During the reviewing of Unit 2 LER 78-06 the inspector noted that there were inconsistancies in dates between the LER, condition report and job order.
The licensee was requested to explain and resolve the inconsistancies.
The licensee's review revealed that there had been a number of problems of a similar nature over the period March 9-15, 1978.
The licensee stated that a complete review would be made and additional LER's submitted as required.
7.
0 erator Trainin The inspector discussed the operator training planned as the result of modifications being installed in the Auxiliary Feedwater system.
The training department had no plans to conduct training, as they had not been informed of the change, nor would they until the change was completed on both units.
This would probably be after 'the return of Unit 2 to service with the modification installed.
The Production Supervisor did plan to issue a memo. regarding the change, to the operators prior to returning the system to service.
8.
~Refuelin The inspector reviewed the licensee's plans for refueling Unit l.
Included in this was the review of the following procedures FP-AEP-R2, 120HP 4030 STP.037, PMSI 048, 047, and 045.
The inspector observed fuel movements April 27 through 29, 1978.
The inspector verified selected limiting conditions for operations, proper manning, and adherence to approved procedures.
During a review of records associated with refueling the inspector noted that the licensee had commenced core alterations on April 22, 1978 when the full length control rod drive shafts were uncoupled with the reactor vessel head removed.
Technical Specification 4.9.2 requires a channel functional test of the source range nuclear flux monitors within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> prior to the initial start of core alterations.
Technical Specification 4.9.5 requires direct communi-cation between the Control Room and personnel at the refueling station be demonstrated within one hour prior to the start of core alterations.
The licensee did not appear to complete either surveillance requirement within the required time frame.
The ommission appears to have been caused by personnel not identifying the start of core alterations properly.
The licensee initiated changes to the procedure, 12-OHP 4030 STP.037, to insure the surveil-lance is performed at the proper time during future refuelings.
9.
Cable Re lacement and S lices Prior to the licensee starting the work, the inspector reviewed RFC-DC-12-2269 and 2270, Special Procedures 022 and 023 which were used to replace terminations on terminal blocks, replace Continental Cable, and reroute certain circuits to be used for long term post accident monitoring.
The licensee had informed the NRC of their plans in their letter dated April 21, 1978 to the Acting Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
10.
Exit Interviews The resident inspector conducted the following exit interviews to discuss inspection findings for the previous week:
April 7, 1978 a.
Inservice inspection of pumps and valves were discussed.
b.
1THP 4030 STP.217 Diesel Load Shedding and Performance Test was discussed.
The licensee stated the procedure would be revised to reflect experiences gained to date and to incor-porate items to insure Technical Specification compliance.
c.
The licensee stated that the operation of Unit 1 steam dump system would be reviewed.
d.
The licensee stated the relay logic for tripping reactor coolant pumps on loss of power would be reviewed.
April 14, 1978 a.
PMP 6010 was discussed.
b.
The apparent noncompliance with the respect to procedural adherence on procedure approval and locking of High Radiation Area doors was discussed.
April 21, 1978 a,
The number of Licensee Event Reports was discussed.
b.
The licensee stated a formal correction would be made to their reply to IE Bulletin 77-02.
c.
Operations trends were discussed.
April 28, 1978 a.
The licensee stated a corrected LER would be submitted for 50-316/78-06.
b.
Maintaining a clear area around the fence was discussed.
c.
The licensee stated a review would be conducted to determine if improvement could be made in the training of operators on facility changes.
d.
The apparent item of noncompliance regarding surveillance for refueling was discussed.
Attachment:
Preliminary Inspection Findings
N
~
~
,~ 1 OFFXCE OF XNSPECTXON AND XNFORCEHEN'i
~
~
',,PREL&XNARY'XNSPECTXON FXNDXNGS
,
';<
'
'e LlCENSEE
" American Electric. Power Svc.
Corp.,:;!,':".:,'ndiana
& Michigan Power Company
':
'<'!.
2 Broadway.
New York, NY 10004.
D. C.
Cook Unit 1:
Bridgman, MX D.
C.
Cook Unit 2
. Bx'id man MiX
,2o REGXONAL OFFXCE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Xnspec tion b Enfor cement; RXXX 7&9 Roosevelt Road Glen.Ellyn, XL'0137 I<
~ <<<
3 ~ 'OCKET NUMBERS 50-315 50-316
~
.
LXCENSE NUMBERS
'PR-58
'DPR-74" 5 ~
DATE OF XNSPECTXON
~
~
p ~
/~ 6.. Within the scope of the. inspection, no items of noncompliance ox'eviations
'ere found.
/~'I~,,"..The. following mattex's are prel'iminary"inspect'ion findingsc
"',<'",.",."".:
I I
~ 4 I
~ <
~
w
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~ I
/~
8o<
These preliminary<inspection findings will be reviewed by NRC Supexvision/'Management at the Region XXX Office and they Millcorrespond with you concerning any enforcement action. ".:.,;,'.-,.
r Nuclear Regul'atory Commission Xnsp
OPPXCE OP XNSPECTXON AND XHPOi<Cii%'NT
, PRELQGNARY XHSPECTXON PXNDXNGS
~ r r ~
r
~
r
\\
'
~
~
r
~
I ~
r
2.
REGXONAL OFFXCE 1>>
LICENSEE
... 'r'~'
>>
~
~
'merican Electric Power Svc. Corp.;
Xndiana 6 Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 D.
C.
Cook Unit 1:
Bridgman, MX D.
C.
Cook Unit 2
. Brid man MX h
Yr
".II
~ II
,
I'I VI I,
II
~
I l
1'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Xnspection 6 Enforcement, RXXX
~
7&9 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, XL'0137 3. " DOCKET NUMBERS 50-315 50-316 5>>
DATE OP XNSPECTXON
/
4..
LXCENSE NUMBERS
'PR-58
'LDPR<<74 I
III'.
I I ~ I j
II
I'I I,",
II I'
~ i+I s
~ r
/ / 6., Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance ox deviations
'.'W/
7 ~,-.The, following matters are preliminary",inspection findingst ",I",.",,"',:,:,-".'., '
r
~
r rl I
~ '
~
I
~
...'.I @P, g@P'."gZO;jo::>,'::~.....~::.. '<'
~
~
,
~
~
r I
r These preliminary'inspection findings villbe reviewed by NRC Supervision/'anagement at the Region XXX Office and they Millcorrespond with you concerning any enforcement action. '.:...',.
I r
I
~
~
~
~
.
~
,I
~ f
~
~,
r ~
uclear Regulatory Commission Xnspec
l ~
~'
le LlCENSEF'
'
'mex'ican Electx'ic. Power Svc. Corp.
Xndiana
& Michigan Power Company
.
'> 2 Broadway
.
New York, NY 10004 D.
C.
Cook Unit 1:
Bx'idgman, MX D.
C.
Cook Unit 2
. Brid man MI
.2 ~
REGXONAL OFFICE
~
~
U.S. Nucleax Regulatory Commission Office of Xnspection
& Enforcement,"
RXXI.
799 Roosevelt Road Glen. Ellyn, XL'0137 l
OFFXCE OF XNSPECTXON AND NJ.'ORGY%'5'!.'
~
~
',PRELBQHARY XNSPECTXON FXNDXNGS
~ Il 3 ~ " DOCKET NUMBERS 50-315 50-316
LXCENSE NUMBERS
'PR-58
'iDPR-74',
5.
D TE OF XNSPECTXOiV zo M<t P
rP I
~"I
~
~
I ~
~
'I r
r Within the scope of the inspection, no i'terna of noncompliance or deviations
."~
were found. ',.',.;,,::'.:
'".:;",:-'.,';. "..;'."..:.::.: >',.!",, ~ "."..".... ~
l
'r,
~
\\
~
I
/~ 7.;
.The. following matters are prel'iminary".'inspection findings c '".","., ",,":..','.
'
I I
II I
II
~ l
'!
i l
~ I
\\
~
~
/ / 8<"
These preliminary'inspection findings villbe reviewed by NRC Supervision/'anagement at the Region XXX Office and they Villcorrespond with you concerning any enforcement action. '.:",
~,
.
Nuclear ReguXstory Commission Xnspect r
'
~ I
~
~
'7 OPPXCE OP XNSPECTXON AND XHPORCEHLPN'l',PRELXMXNARY XNSPECTXON PXNDXNGS
'I'
,
~
I
~
I II!'I
<<
I'
<< ~
i 1'
~
I I,I I
II.
I).
I'
<<
7 ~,
'1's LICENSEE
~ 'x"".:."!':
'merican Electric Power Svc. Corp;,:
"...:,'ndiana
& Michigan Power Company 2 Broadway
.
New York, NY 10004, D.
C.
Cook Unit 1:
Bridgman, MX D.
C.
Cook Unit 2
. Brid man MX 2.
REGXONAL OFFXCE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Xnspection
& Enforcement; RXXX 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, XL'0137 3s'OCKET NtJiiBERS 50-315 50>>316 4,,
LICENSE NUMBERS 5.
DATE OP XNSPECTXON
'r>PR-sR 'IIPR-7c.:
Y <q Z< Z7~zt I
/ / 6s'ithin the scope of the, inspection, no items of noncompliance or deviations '".
/W V.. '.The. following matters are prel'iminary",'inspectio7n findingsc
".I'",:;."'-;,:-.:,'..:','
<<
I
'7
~
I
<<
~,
I 7 ~ '.
I
<<
8.'hese preliminary'inspection findings willbe reviewed by NRC Supervision/'anagement at the Region XXX Office and they Villcorrespond with you concerning any enforcement action. '.
<<
I
~
~
I
, ~
Nuclssz RsCuZscosp Commission Inspscc<<