IR 05000315/1979020
| ML17318A358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17318A357 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-79-20, 50-316-79-17, NUDOCS 7910250185 | |
| Download: ML17318A358 (7) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-315/79-20; 50-316/79-17 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:
Donald C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, Michigan Inspection Conducted:
August 29, 1979 Inspector:
I. T. Yin C
Approved By:
D.
. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section
g/po Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Au ust
1979 (Re ort No. 50-315 79-20 50-316/79-17)- 4, No. 79-04 and No. 79-02, including general discussion on NRC requirements, work procedure review and observation of work.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
~ X
DETAILS Persons Contacted Indiana and Michi an Power Com an (MPC)
- D. V. Shaller, Plant Manager
- B. A. Svensson, Assistant Plant Manager
- J. D. Gove, Construction Manager
<P. J. Wyckoff, Head, Mechanical Construction Department
- C. Jerz, Maintenance Engineer
- T. P. Beilman, Acting QA Supervisor
+Denotes those attending the exit interview.
USNRC - RIII R. E. Masse, Resident Inspector Functional or Pro ram Areas Ins ected 1.
General IEB 79-04 "Incorrect Wei hts for Swin Check Valves Manufactured b
Velan En ineerin Cor oration" dated March 30 1979.
In a licensee response letter dated May 8, 1979, it was noted that Velan valves of 3", 4", and 6" had been installed in D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and a reanalysis was performed by the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP).
In discussion with the site personnel, it was determined that all analytical basis and calculations were kept in AEP.
Furthermore, the plant did not believe that they were qualified to discuss this issue.
The inspector stated that he will review this matter at the AEP offices.
"Pi e Su ort Base Plate Desi n Usin Concrete E
ansion Anchor Bolts " Revision
dated June
.1979.
The inspector reviewed the status of licensee actions on IEB 79-02.
As of the date of this inspection, testing plate height and thickness measurements and the replacement program for all expansion type anchor bolts had been completed for both Units 1 and 2 inside the containment.
For the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building, the anchor bolt tests have been completed, and the plate measurements for flexibility studies will be completed by May, 1980.
For the Unit 2 Auxiliary Building, of the total 1973 expansion type bolts identified, the licensee has inspected 1957 and accepted 1818.
Plate measurements are scheduled for completion by December 1979.
"2"
IEB 79-14 "Seismic Anal sis for As-Built Safet -Related Pi in S stem "
Revision
dated Jul
1979.
In a licensee response letter dated August 3, 1979, it was stated that only CCW and SI Systems would be inspected because of the stringent control exercised by gA/gC during construction.
Subsequently, the licensee informed RIII, in a letter dated August 23, 1979, that because of discrepancies identified in the CCW and SI systems, they will inspect all safety related seismic category systems in Unit 1 only.
Inspections of accessible portions of CCW S
SU systems have been completed by the site personnel.
Data, including discrepancies identified, has been forwarded to AEP for evaluation.
The inspector stated that he will review AEP measures to verify system acceptability and to determine the significance of the nonconformance and NRC reporting requirements.
Procedure Review The inspector reviewed licensee procedure No. 12-gHP-SP.002,
"Seismic Class I Piping System Field Inspection For Conformity with Design Documentation of Seismic Analyses", Revision 0, dated August 6, 1979.
The inspector commented that the procedure did not include the following IEB 79-14 requirements:
a
~
Evaluation process after nonconformances have been identified including:
(a) specific time allowance for reporting to NRC, i.e.
an engineering judgement within 2 days followed by an analytical engineering evaluation within 30 days, and (b)
licensee connective actions and criteria for allowing temporary plant operation if system operability is in jeopardy.
b.
Verification of pipe sizes, schedules, and materials.
c.
Piping seismic restraint clearance including gaps on U-bolts, directional restraints or guides, and excessive gaps in pin connecting bolt holes.
d.
Verification of pipe clamp tightness or required torquing to ensure functionability of the restraint system.
e.
There appeared to be a lack of procedural provisions to establish qualification requirements for the workers.
Provisions should include introdination and training in the classroom and on the job.
f.
There appeared to be a lack of instructions on how to conduct indirect measurements, i.e. using plumb lines and weights, and the determination of the accuracy of such indirect measurements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Records Review The inspector reviewed the licensee's Unit 1 CCW isometric inspection drawing records that showed more than three descrepancies.
The licensee's
"Summary of Isometric Non-Conformances and Comments" for the following Piping Isometrics were reviewed:
1-CCW-l, Revision 4 1-CCW-2, Revision 5 1-CCW-5, Revision5 1-CCW-7, Revision
1-CCW-8, Revision
1-CCW-24, Revision
1-CCW-25, Revision
1-CCW-40, Revision
1-CCW-49, Revision
1-CCW-50, Revision
1-CCW-53, Revision
1-CCW-71, Revision
1-CCW-76, Revision
1-CCW-98, Revision
1-CCW-105, Revision
1-CCW-107, Revision
12 discrepancies 7 discrepancies 6 discrepancies 13 discrepancies 25 discrepancies 5 discrepancies 6 discrepancies 6 discrepancies 9 discrepancies 5 discrepancies 4 discrepancies 5 discrepancies ll discrepancies 12 discrepancies 15 discrepancies 14 discrepancies The inspector's summary of his record review is as follows:
No valve drawings were included in the inspection finding data and records did not contain valve measurement data.
A majority of the discrepancies involved (1) piping geometry, (2) support and restraint locations, (3) support and restraint design, and (4) piping clearance.
The inspector stated that for this type of discrepancy, an evaluation should be made to ensure seismic requirements had been met.
Additional expansion bolts had been installed per original or modified requirements.
No evidence that evaluation criteria had been established by AEP for determining the significance of the discrepancies after the field inspection to assure operability of the system during a seismic event and to meet NRC reporting requirements.
4.
Observation of Work The inspector observed some of the ongoing measurement work in progress in the Unit 1 Easr RHR Pump room. In discussion with the workers,.it appeared that the task was being performed in accordance with the procedure.
j 4 -'
During the IEB 79-14 observation, two 2 1/2" hydraulic snubbers, MK No.
1-GRH - S7A and MK. No.
1-GRH - S7B installed on the 8" RHR pump discharge line, were observed installed on "Uni-Strut's".
Subsequent drawing review identified that the snubber's were designed for 570 lbs., that the "Uni-Strut's" would probably be adequate to handle the loads.
The inspector had no further questions.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on August 29, 1979.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.