IR 05000315/1978024
| ML17317A720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1978 |
| From: | Jablonski F, Masse R, Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17317A718 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-78-24, 50-316-78-22, NUDOCS 7811090189 | |
| Download: ML17317A720 (13) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-315/78-24; 50-316/78-22 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:
August 29-September 1,
1978 4/i.i:/
Inspectors:
L. A. Reyes J. Jablonski
~ l (~JJ,.]-
J.
F. 5tre4teh I'f..
Approved By:
J.
F. Streeter, Chief Nuclear Support Section
('('Ir'/7t
/< i/,
~ /;g';. )
Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Au ust 29-Se tember 1, 1978 (Re ort No. 50-315/78-24'0-316/
78-22)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine, announced inspection of licensee action on IE Bulletin 78-08 and Circular 78-02; organization and administration; and plant operations review for Units 1 and 2.
Implementation of ASME Code Section XI and offsite and onsite review committees for Unit 2.
'The inspection involved a total of 87 inspector-hours onsite by four NRC inspector ~
't 1:
No items of noncompliance or deviations wer e identified.
Results:
Unit 1:
o ems Unit 2:
Of the five areas inspected, no items o
nonco p
ified in three areas, one item of noncompliance was iden-ations were ident e
n r
offsite safety review fi d i one area (Deficiency - failure to process o
s e
n one a ra h 6)
three items of non-committee minutes in a timely mann'er Paragrap compliance were ident e
n ified in the other area (Infractions - failure to for um s Paragraph 7).
implement an acceptable inservice testing program or pumps
a
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Durin Ins ection
- D. V. Shaller, Plant Manager
- B. A. Syensson, Assistant Plant Manager
- R. S. Keith, Operations Supervisor L. Matthias, Administrative Supervisor
- E. Abshagen, Quality Assurance Auditor C. Murphy, Shift Operating Engineer H. Chadwell, Production Supervisor J. Wojcik, P'lant Chemical Supervisor J. Ersland, Chemical Supervisor R. Lease, Production Supervisor
- J. L. Rischling, QC Technical Department
- T. P.
Beilman, QC Technical Department
- J. F. Steizel, QA Supervisor
- R. W. Jurgenson, Chief, Nuclear Engineer (Chairman, NSDRC)
- J. DelPurcio, Engineer
- Denotes those present at the exit interview on September 1, 1978.
- Telephone contact only.
2.
Or anization and Administration Units 1 and
The inspector reviewed the onsite organization and administration with respect to changes to personnel and or titles within the last year.
V6'rious additions to staff and organizational title changes are being incorporated into a Technical Specification change package to be submitted shortly to the Commission.
The inspector also reviewed the offsite organization and found that changes within the corporate structure are being incorporated as part of the afore-mentioned package.
The review of organization and administration included a review of NSDRC and PNSRC committees for membership and qualifications relative to Technical Specifications.
The inspector also reviewed a study of plant staff qualifications relative to ANSI N18.1 which was conducted by a consultant.
All personnel are qualified to at least the minimum standards required by ANSI N18.1.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Plant 0 erations Review Units 1 and
The inspector conducted a review of the control room logs, shift operating engineer logs and various other logs and orders including jumper/lifted wire logs, clearance logs, blocked alarm logs, etc.,
for both units.
The review also consisted of primary chemistry records and associated radiological data, secondary chemistry, and station condition reports.
The inspector made tours of the station observing operations and maintenance activities to ensure that proper housekeeping, cleanliness and radiation controls were being implemented; that instrumentation functioned properly; that no unusual vibrations existed and seismic restraints functioned properly; that selected valve and switch positions were correct for existing plant conditions; that clearance permit tags were correctly logged and placed on equipment; and that control room manning requirements were met at all times.
The following items were identified as problem areas:
a.
On a tour of the auxiliary building, the inspector found an MCC breaker in the "ON" position with a red danger tag on the breaker switch.
The tag was an I&M electrical construction tag hung 2 1/2 years ago.
Several construction red tags are t'll hanging in the auxiliary building eventhough all equipment the has been turned over and is now under the cognizance of e
Station Operations Department.
An item of noncompliance was recently identified in this area citing "negligence of the Clearance Permit System" by the NRC onsite resident inspector.
This is being included in this report as another example of a previously identified noncompliance.
Licensee response to this item is still forthcoming.
b.
During a control room inspection on Unit 2, the inspector noticed that an alarm entitled,
"Steam Generator No.
3 Mater Level'igh Deviation" was blocked without having been entered in the blocked alarm log.
An item of noncompliance in this area was issued earlier in the week by the resident inspector.
This is being identified in this report as another example of this noncompliance which appears to be recurring.
Licensee response to this item is still forthcoming.
c ~
SOE logs do not adequately reflect the significant items occurring during a shift, and contain inconsistencies and unc ear nclear entries.
The inspector reviewed this area with the Operations Supervisor and was assured that improvements would be made to logs.
4.
IE Bulletin 78-02 Terminal Block ualifications Units 1 and
Th 1'censee responded to IE Bulletin 78-02 in a letter to RIII, e
icens II dated February 13, 1978.
The response was All terminal blocks on safety-related circuits located inside the containments of D.
C.
Cook, Units 1 and 2 are installed in protective vented
enclosures.
These enclosures are not subject to submergence, that is, they are above flood level."
Subsequent to the February 13, 1978 response, the licensee provided the NRC further information regarding terminal blocks.
The information is in I&M letters to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, dated March 22, and April 21, 1978.
Commitments were made in both letters to replace certain terminal blocks with qualified splices.
RIII inspectors have verified imple-mentation of those commitments as documented in several IE inspection reports including 50-315/78-07 and 78-12, and 316/78-06, 78-09, and 78-11.
IE Bulletin 78-02 is closed.
IE Circular 78-08 Environmental uglification of Safet -Related Electrical E ui ment at Nuclear Power Plants - Units 1 and
During June 1978, American Electric Power's (AEP) Nuclear Safety and Licensing Section assigned responsibility for review of IEC 78-08 to AEP's Head Electrical Generating Section.
A draft report has been prepared and is being reviewed by AEP's Quality Assurance Group.
The RIII Inspector was informed by the I&M Senior QA Auditor that the report is expected to be finalized and at the D.
C.
Cook plant site by September 15, 1978.
AEP's preliminary review indicates that no corrective action will be required.
This matter will be reviewed by RIII inspectors during a subsequent inspection.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Safet Review Committee Activities - Unit 2 The inspectors reviewed documentation associated with the Nuclear Safety and Design Review Committee (offsite safety review committee)
and Plant Nuclear Safety Review Committee (onsite safety review committee)
to determine if the committee's were satisfying selected Technical Specifications requirements.
The inspectors determined from review of minutes of PNSRC meetings conducted during the period June 2 August 18, 1978, that the quorum, meeting frequency, subject matter, record, and membership requirements were satisfied.
The inspectors determined from review of minutes of NSDRC meetings con-ducted since the issuance of the operating license (December 23, 1977)
that the quorum and meeting frequency requirements were satisfied; however, there was not sufficient information available at the plant to determine if the subject matter requirement was satisfied (An inspection will be conducted at the corporate office in the near future to review subject matters considered by the NSDRC).
The inspectors also determined that the minutes of Meeting No.
(April 6, 1978) were not prepared, approved, and forwarded to the Senior Executive Vice President, Engineering and Construction, AEPSC, until more than three months (July 18, 1978) after the
meeting.
This is contrary to the 14-day requirement of Technical Specification 6.5.1.20.b and is considered to be an item of noncom-pliance of the deficiency level.
The inspectors discussed the concept of safety review committee (onsite and offsite) quorum r'equirements in the Technical Speci-fications.
The inspectors informed the licensee that-the responsibilities of the safety review committees set forth in the Technical Specifications must be discharged in the presence of an assembled quorum.
The intended purpose of the Technical Specifi-cation quorum requirements is to assure that matters are considered in a collective manner and thereby provide the opportunity for the discussion an'd interchange of ideas by. several members.
This position has recently been upheld by NRR in communications with other licensees.
The inspectors stated that it was an acceptable practice to use telephone conference calls (not polling calls) to satisfy the quorum requirements.
However, such use of telephone conference calls is not expected by the NRC to be routine.
The inspector also informed the licensee that the quorum requirements do not prevent the use of techniques to expedite the committee review process such as forming subcommittees and routing documents.
However, the results of the use of such techniques must subsequently be reviewed in the presence of an assembled quorum.
The licensee stated that the PNSRC currently discharges its respon-sibilities in the manner discussed above.
The licensee stated that the NSDRC has not in the past discharged its responsibilities in that manner but would do so in the future.
7.
Pum and Valve Inservice Testin Unit 2 The inspector conducted a review of the implementation of the inservice testing of Class 1, 2 and 3 pumps and valves in accord-ance with the Technical Specifications and Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 1974 Edition and Addenda through Summer, 1975.
No problems were identified with the testing of valves; however, the following items were identified as problem areas with the testing of pumps:
a
~
The surveillance procedures did not provide for a test duration of 30 minutes when measuring bearing temperature and did not specify a stabilization criteria for bearing temperature.
b.
The records of inservice tests for the period January 20, 1978, through March 3, 1978, did not include the identification of
i
instruments values, and information Section XI, d
comparisons with allowable ranges of test use
, co 1 i of deviations.
Failure to includ e this ana ys s o ASME Code in the test records is contrary to ASM Subarticle IWP-6240.
C ~
urin the The records of the inservice tests performed dur ng 1978 on ECCS Train B were not accessible to those records for audit.
Failure to have accessibility o
is contrary to ASME Cod Section XI, Subarticle IWP-6260.
e e licensee's reviews of test data did not Documentation of the c
reviews had been a
ear to include enough information to ver y rev n 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> after completion of tests as required 3220 Thi tt
'll b
ASME Code Section XI, Subhrticle IWP-
.
s an ins ector's review'f the licensee s
'I be reviewed further during an nspec o
III 1 tter to corrective actions associated ated with Item B of the R
e ort 50-316/78-10).
the licensee dated July 24, 1978 (Reference Report e.
evera s
S 1 di crepancies were noted betweenn test data used to trend pump conditions and values recorded in data sh eets.
The Au ust 22, 1978 results of a component cooling water pump t 8 1978 results of a essential service II f 2E test were in the "Required Action Range o
water pump 2E test were n
Table IWP-3100-2 of ASME Code Section XI.
T p
p he um s were not declared inopera e.
s bl Thi is contrary to ASME Code Section XI, Subarticle IWP-3230.
ther exam les were noted where pump test results were 100-2 and the frequencies in t e until the causes of the deviations of testing were not doubled unt e
icle IWP-3230.
were determine an d
d corrected as required by Subartic e
f. are examples of failure to implement an NOTE:
Items b., c.,
and f. are ex p
as re uired by Technical acce table inservice testing program for pumps as requ re y
Specification 4.0.
.a.
an c
1 d
onstitute an item of noncompliance of the Infraction level.
g ~
1978 results of a turbine driven auxiliary feedwater The June
,
res pump surve ance ill e test required by Technical Speci c
le ( um discharge
1 i dicated the pump to be inoperable (pump ressure and flow < values in Technical Specificat'on 4.7.1.2.a.l d b Technical Specification 3.7.1.2 was not le status within taken.
Failure to restore the pump to operable s
a u ours or to be in Mode 4 within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> is contrary to Technical Specifications
.
.
.
an of noncompliance of the Infraction leve h.
Testing conducted on April 11, 1978, did not verify discharge pressure of the centrifugal charging pump due to a leaking pressure gauge (/PI-253) coupling.
Retesting was not con-ducted after corrective maintenance was completed on the gauge coupling on April 12, 1978.
Technical Specification 4.5.2.f.l requires that the centrifugal charging pump be demonstrated operable every month by verifying the indicated discharge pressure to be less than 2405 psig.
Failure to demonstrate operability of the pump during a monthly test is contrary to Technical Specifications 4.5.2.f.l and is considered an item of noncompliance of the Infraction level.
8.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on September 1, 1978.
The items of noncom-pliance described in paragraphs 6 and 7 were discussed.