IR 05000315/1978038

IE Insp Repts 50-315/78-38 & 50-316/78-39 on 781211-15,18-22 & 31.Noncompliance Noted:High Radiation Area Gates Were Found Unlocked & Maint of Logs Was Found Ineffectual in Producing Corrective Action

ML17317A997
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	01/26/1979
From:	Baker K, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML17317A995	List: IR 05000315/1978038 ML17317A994 ML17317A996
References
50-315-78-38, 50-316-78-39, NUDOCS 7903150359
Download: ML17317A997 (7)

Text

U. S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COlQ1ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No. 50-315/78-38; 50-316/78-39 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, N.Y.

10004 Facility Name:

Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and

Inspection At:

Donald C.

Cook Site, Bridgman, MI Inspection Conducted:

December 11-15, 18-22, and 31, 1978 gFGV C~

Inspector:

K. R. Baker g p AJ anrM>

Approved By:

R. F. Warnick, Chief Reactor Projects Section

f

>>P Ins ection Summary Ins ection on December 11-15 18-22 and 31, 1978 (Re ort No. 50-316/78-3S;

~i Areas Ins ected:

Observations of surveillance, calibrations, maintenance and security activities; review of operations and followup of events occurring during the inspection.

The inspection involved 57 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.

Results:

No items of noncompliance were discovered in five of the areas inspected.

In the sixth area one item of noncompliance was noted (Infraction - Implementation qf procedure, paragraph 4)

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted

• D. Shaller, Plant Manager

• B. Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager C.

Shay, Resident Management Advisor R. Dudding, Maintenance Superintendent E. Smarrella, Technical Supervisor R. Lease, Production Supervisor H. Chadwell, Production Supervisor

• J. Stietzel, QA Supervisor L. Matthias, Administrative Supervisor R. Keith, Operation Superintendent 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.

2.

Review of 0 erations The inspector conducted a review of operations.

This review consisted of direct observation of activities, verification of limiting conditions for operations, tours of the facility, and review of records.

The following is a summary of the inspector's activities:

a.

Observations Unit 1 Control Room Operations, December ll, 14, 15, 18-22, and 31, 1978 Unit 2 Control Room Operations, December ll, 14, 15, 18-22, and 31, 1978 b.

Records Unit 1 Control Room Log December 8-22, 1978 Unit 2 Control Room Log December 8-22, 1978 SOE Log December 8-22, 1978 Clearance Permits Jumper Logs Data Sheets Radiation Control Logs Radwaste Logs Condition Reports

c.

Tours of the Facilit Portions of the facility were toured by the inspector on December ll, 14, 15, 18-22, and 31, 1978.

d.

Tours and observations on December 14, 20, and 31, 1978 were performed during other than normal day shift hours.

e.

The inspector also observed maintenance activities on safety related equipment (2-MRV-221 and R-S).

f.

During tours and observations the inspector observed that the licensee was complying with security requirements.

No items of noncompliance were noted.

3.

Gas Deca Tank Releases The inspector observed the preparations for and a portion of the planned release of the contents of number 8 gas decay tank on December 21, 1978.

The release was conducted in accordance with procedure 12-OHP 4021.023.002,

"Release of Radioactive Gaseous Haste from Gas Decay Tanks."

The inspector noted that though the release path is normally via the Unit 1 stack there is a possible path via the Unit 2 stack.

A Radiation Monitor R-26 is installed in both units'to automatically stop the release.

The procedure only tested Unit 1 R-26.

The licensee initiated temporary change, TP-2, to the procedure to test both Units R-26's and to insure the cross tie, which could allow release through Unit 2, is closed.

The inspector discussed other improvements which could be made in the procedure, such as verification of valve position of other gas decay tanks discharges to the release header.

This might decrease the probability of inadvertent release of other gas decay tanks while intentionally releasing one.

The licensee is considering the comments.

No items of noncompliance were noted.

4.

Condition Re ort Initiation On December 11, 1978, the inspector reviewed and discussed a log book which was being maintained in access control to record instances where high radiation area gates were found unlocked.

The inspector noted that condition reports had not been initiated for these events.

Discussion revealed that the personnel who were maintaining the log felt they had been instructed to stop

initiating condition reports about these events as the condition report system was ineffectual in producing corrective action and was only creating hard feelings between the various departments.

The log contained about 22 entries dealing with high radiation gates that were found unlocked.

These events occurred between June 20, 1978 and December ll, 1978.

Discussion with responsible supervisory and management personnel revealed that they had requested the log be maintained to help determine any trends and to aid in finding a solution to people leaving the gates open.

They had not intended to stop condition report initiation.

After discussion with the personnel involved the inspector believes it was a misunderstanding generated because of poor communication and that there was no intention to hide the problem from management.

A series of meetings were held subsequently by the licensee to re-establish the requirement to initiate condition reports for these events.

The inspector's review and discussion with personnel indicate that condition reports will be initiated in the future for these events.

The facility Technical Specifications exempt the facility from locking high radiation areas with fields less than 1000 mrem/hr.

These areas where the unlocked gates were found were less than 1000 mrem/hr.

Approved facility procedures require that they be locked.

Plant Hanager Instruction 7030, "Condition Reports",

requires condition reports be initiated when events such as these are found so that corrective action can be achieved.

This would appear to be in noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.8.1 requirements to implement approved procedures.

5.

Exit Interviews The inspector conducted exit interviews on December 15 and 22, 1978, to discuss inspection findings.

Included in these discussions were:

a.

The item of apparent noncompliance with Technical Specifications.

b.

Improvement which could be made in the gaseous release procedure.

Attachment:

Preliminary Inspection Findings

~

\\

I

~

s PRELXiiXNARYXNC7'('

"XNJ)XNGS

~ I ~

s s'

~

~

I I,

~

sI

~

~

>>

~

s

~

~

'I

~

~

~

~

s s

~

~

I ~

sl

~

(I I

~

~

s ~

.2.

REGXONAL OFFXCE

,

U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commisoion Office of Xnopection 6 Enforcement, RXXX

~

799 Roosevelt 'Road Glen Ellyn, XL'0137

~ ~ ~ >>

I s

I

,I

~

1 ~

LICENSEE

~

~

~

~

.'merican Electric. Power Svc. Corp.

~ Xndiana 6 Michigan Power Company-2 Droadway

.

New York, NY 10005 D.

C.

Cook Unit 1 'ridgman, MX D.

C.

Cook Unlr 2

. Drdd man MX I

~

~

~

~

I ~

~

>>

j 3 ~

DOCKET NUKIERS

~

~.

4 ~.

LXCENSE NUYiMRS

~

5 ~

DATE OF XNSPEC'ZXON 50-315 50-316

'

'PR-58

'DPR>> 4 I

Is IIs',

I ~

I s

I

~

I I

I s

>>

s I

I I

/ / 6.'ithin the scopo of the inspection, no i'tems of noncompliance ox deviations

> wexe found.

s

>>I,',,Th'awol,la>>sing maaaora ar.o praldmds>>ar>>s" dnop.'aoodon ddnddngas'

~

~

~ a>>

~'

I I>>

ggj

~

~

s

~ s

~

I C

s I

,A,

~

~

~

~

I I

I

~ I I'

s

~

~

>>

s

~

i I

s I

~

I

~'

~

~

>>

'>>

I'

," I

~

~

I;

~

~

~.':

I I

s

>>

~ ~ ~

a>>

~

~'*

'

I l 8 ~'. These preliminarysinopection'findings vi3.1 bo'roviowe'd by'NRG Supervision/'anagement ot tho Region XXX Offico and they Qil3. oorreopond with you concerning any enforcement octione..I";';,.

~

~

~ I ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

'I~

~

~

~

~ I Nuclear Ret;uÃotory Commiooion Xnopcc

~

o

~.

~

~

r.,

I

~

~

~

ss J

~

~

~

I

~

~

',ZRELiNiNARV'iNi'~C'i>C~""XND'iNGS

~

~

~

~

~

'll s

~ ~

~

~

~

~

\\

~

~

~

~

~

I

~

~

i

~ I s

~ ~ ~

\\

~

LICENSEE

~

~

~

~

,'merican Electx'ic. Power Svc.

Corp.

~ indiana &,Michigan Power Company

.

2 Broadway

.

~

'ew Yorlc, NY 10004 D. C.

Coolc Unit 1 'ridgman.,

MX 2o REGXONAL OFFXCE

~

~

U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~ Office of Xnspection

& Enforcement, RXXX 7&9 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, D '0137

~

~

D.

C.

Coolc Unit 2

. Brid man MX 3 ~ " DOCKET NUMBERS

..

4, LXCENSE NUMBERS

.

5 ~

DA E OF XNSPECTXON 50-315 50>>316

'PR-58

DPR-

~

~

6+i'ithin the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance ox'eviations were ifound<

I

/~ V,,:The.fo3.lowing matters ado px'elimijary".'inopact'ion fiadkagsc'

~

~ ~

~

I

~ I

~

~

I

~

~ ~

~

I

~

~

I

~

~

I

~

~

~ ~

) ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

I

, I

~

~

~

I ~

~

~

~

~

~

I I ~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

~

/~ 8 ~'. These preliminary'inspection findings villbe reviewe'd by'NRC Superviskon/'ianagement at: the Region XXX Office and they Villcorrespond with you concerning any enforcement actions.',.~:,',",;~.

~

~

~

~

~

~ I I

~ '

~ l

~ i '., ',,'. ',,','.:.i.',",.'-'

!" I',~:

. Nuclear Regulatory Cotmaission pat