ML17317B367
| ML17317B367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1979 |
| From: | Baker K, Masse R, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17317B364 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-79-05, 50-315-79-5, 50-316-79-05, 50-316-79-5, NUDOCS 7907270407 | |
| Download: ML17317B367 (22) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1979005
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Repor t No.
50-315/79-05;
50-316/79-05
Docket No.
50-315;
50-316
License
No.
Licensee:
American Electric Power Service Corporation
and Michigan Power
Company
2 Broadway
10004
Facility Name:
Donald
C.
Cook, Units
1 and
2
Inspection At:
Donald
C.
Cook Site,
Bridgman, Michigan
Inspection
Conducted:
March 5-9, 12-16,
19-23,
26-31 and
April 1-6,
1979
/F40 4
Inspectors:
R.
E. Masse
RFN L.
K. R. Baker
5"-9-7
(Date)
(Date)
Approved By:
R. F. Warnick, Chief
Reactor Projects Section
2
(Date)
Ins ection
Summar
Ins ection on March 5-9
12-16
19-23
26-31
and
A ril 1-6
1979
(Re ort No. 50-315/79-05
50-316/79-05)
Areas Ins ected:
Review of plant operations
including security;
maintenance;
new fuel receipt (Unit 1); preparation for refueling
(Unit 1); incore
excore detector calibration; training and re-
qualification training; radiation waste
system operations;
manage-
ment meeting;
licensee'
actions
on previous inspection findings;
IE bulletins and circulars;
QA program review; procedures;
and
safety injection event of March 23,
1979 (Unit 1).
The inspection
involved 197 inspector-hours
onsite
by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance
were identified in six of the
areas
inspected.
One item of noncompliance
was noted in each of
the two remaining areas.
(Infraction Failure to implement locked
and sealed
valve procedure
Paragraph
10;
and Infraction Failure
to use jumper logs as directed
Paragraph
2).
() $ p ) {)Q $
1
Details
1.
Persons
Contacted
J.
Dolan, Vice Chairman- Engineering
& Construction,
AEP
R. Jurgensen,
Chief Nuclear Engineer,
AEP
R. Kroeger,
gA Manager,
AEP
- D. Shaller, Plant Manager
- B. Svensson,
Assistant Plant Manager
- R. Lease,
Operations
Superintendent
R. Dudding, Maintenance
Superintendent
- E. Smarrella,
Technical Superintendent
- H. Chadwell, Production Supervisor
- C. Murphy, Production Supervisor
- J. Stietzel,
QA Supervisor
The inspectors
also contacted
a number of operators,
technicians,
and maintenance
personnel
during the course of the inspection,
- Denotes those present
at one more of the exit interviews.
2.
Review of Plant
0 erations
(Includin
Securit
)
The inspectors
maintained
continuous
cognizance of operations;
reviewed logs and operating records,
data sheets,
chart recorders,
and records of malfunctioning equipment;
and checked for trends
and significant changes.
The review included checks of:
a.
Control Room Logs
b.
Shift Operating Engineer
Log
c.
Auxiliary Logs (Radwaste,
Evaporators,
Makeup Plant,
Turbine Room, etc.)
d.
Operating Orders
e.
Standing Orders
f.
Jumper/Lifted Lead/Blocked Alarm Logs
g.
Condition Reports
The inspector noted that Temporary
Change
number
3 to Procedure
1-OHP 4021.032. 001, "Starting, Loading, Paralleling
and Shutting
Down Diesel-Generators"
requires
an entry into the Lifted Lead
Log when pulling and replacing field flash fuses for Unit 1
Diesel-Generator
starts.
Contrary to this procedure,
the
1
CD Diesel was started
on Harch 26,
1979 without a corresponding
entry into the log.
This finding represents
apparent
noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.8.1 relating to implementation of approved
procedures.
The inspectors
made several
tours of various areas
of the plant,
with observations
of the following:
a ~
b.
c ~
d.
e.
Instrumentation
was functioning adequately.
Radiation controls were adequate
General plant housekeeping
was adequate.
Fluid leaks were minimal.
Piping vibrations appeared
acceptable.
Selected
valves
and switches
were positioned in accordance
with existing plant conditions.
go
Equipment that was out of service
was tagged properly.
h.
Control room manning was in accordance
with Technical
Specifications.
Operators
were knowledgeable of Control Room conditions
and annunciators.
Selected
LCO's (Limiting Conditions for Operation)
and
LSSS (Limiting Safety System Setpoints)
were within
Technical Specifications.
k.
Fire controls
and equipment
were adequate.
Shift turnover in Control Room (nightshift to dayshift)
was in accordance
with procedure.
m.
Chemical analysis
techniques
were adequate.
n.
Random checks of various aspects
of security to ensure
security procedures
were being adequately
implemented.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
3.
Maintenance
The inspectors
observed various maintenance activities including
rewiring of auxiliary feedwater valve controls,
maintenance
of
Diesel-Generator
tachometer circuitry, and instrument adjustments
and calibration of a Rod Control System Module.
The inspectors
verified the following with regard to these activities:
a.
Required approvals
were obtained prior to initiating work.
b.
Approved procedures
were used.
c.
Work was inspected
by appropriate
personnel.
d.
Functional testing, etc.,
was used
to verify operability
following maintenance activities.
e.
Work was accomplished
by qualified personnel.
f.
Activities surrounding the maintenance
did not involve
a Reportable
Occurrence.
g.
Plant status
was such that maintenance
could be accom-
plished.
h.
Associated
systems
or components
were properly tagged.
Limiting conditions for operations
were met.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
4.
New Fuel Recei t (Unit 1)
Prior to inspection of new fuel, the inspector verified that
approved,
technically adequate
procedures
were available
covering receipt,
inspection,
and storage of new fuel.
The
inspector
observed
inspection
and storage of four new fuel
assemblies
and verified that these activities were in accor-
dance with procedures.
The inspector reviewed all documentation
associated
with fuel receipt
and inspection of all new
assemblies
to be installed in Unit 1 reactor during the re-
fueling outage.
All deficiencies
were of a minor nature
and were resolved
adequately.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
5.
Pre aration For Refuelin
(Unit 1)
Unit 1 was shutdown April 6,
1979, for a refueling outage
scheduled
to last approximately
50 days.
Prior to this shut-
down,
the inspector reviewed
the approved refueling procedures
and verified their adequacy.
Included in these procedures
were
the following:
a.
Fuel handling, transfers,
verifications.
b.
Fuel inspection.
c.
Handling and inspection of other core internals.
d.
Licensee's
overall outage control.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
6.
Incore-Excore Detector Calibration
The inspector
observed portions of an incore-excore
detector
calibration on Unit 2 and verified that the test
was in accor-
dance with procedures
(12-THP 4030.STP.362)
and was within the
frequency specified
by Technical Specifications.
The inspector
verified for the portions of the test
observed
that Axial Flux
Difference
(AFD) was maintained within specifications,
that
rods were above insertion limits, that procedures
including
prerequisites
and initial conditions were followed,
and that
data taking and documentation
were in accordance
with procedures.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
7.
Trainin
and
Re ualification Trainin
The inspector discussed
training with management,
staff, operators,
technicians,
maintenance
personnel,
administrative
and clerical
personnel.
The discussions
included the following aspects
of
training.
a.
Administrative controls
and procedures.
b.
Radiological health
and safety.
c.
Industrial safety.
d.
Security.
e.
f.
Ouality assurance.
g.
On-the-job training
{OJT)
h.
Technical training.
Fire brigade training.
The inspector also verified that females
are required to sign
a statement relating to instructions provided concerning pre-
natal radiation exposure,
and that these
statements
become
a
part of each individual's permanent
personnel
record.
The inspector attended
the initial orientation training including
Radiation Protection training to verify the adequacy
of train-
ing in these selected
areas.
The"inspector also attended
an operator requalification program
lecture pertaining to Mode
6 Technical Specifications
and veri-
fied the adequacy of the technical content of the presented
information,
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
8.
Radiation Vaste
S stem 0 erations
/
The inspector reviewed recent records of gaseous
and liquid
releases
and verified that releases
were properly sampled
and
approved prior to the release
and were in accordance
with pro-
cedures.
The inspector
has observed
portions of several liquid
releases
recently and reviewed associated
documentation for
each.
The inspector verified that release
procedures
require
testing prior to the actual release
of trip valves which would
terminate releases.
Instrumentation
setpoints
for control of
the valves are checked at that time.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
9.
Mana ement Meetin
A meeting was held with licensee
management
on March 30,
1979
at the Donald
C.
Cook site to discuss
the regulatory performance
of the D.C.
Cook Units
1 and 2, the Revised Inspection Program,
and other current topics.
IE Attendees:
J.
G. Keppler, Director, RIII
R. F. Heishman,
Chief, Reactor Operations
and Nuclear Support
Branch, RIII
J.
A. Hind, Chief, Safeguards
Branch, RIII
R. F. Warnick, Chief, Reactor Projects
Section
2, RIII
K. R. Baker, Resident
Inspector, RIII
R.
E. Masse,
Resident
Inspector, RIII
Licensee Attendees:
J.
E. Dolan, Vice Chairman,
Engineering
and Construction
R.
W. Jurgensen,
Chief Nuclear Engineer
D. V. Shaller, Plant Superintendent
The licensee outlined plans
and actions which were being taken
to improve performance.
These actions included:
a.
Adjustments to improve personnel retention.
b.
Improved outage co-ordination
c.
Organizational
changes.
d.
Procedural
improvements.
e.
Physical
improvements.
10.
Licensee's
Actions on Previous Ins ection Findin s
The inspector reviewed
the licensee
actions regarding
the
findings from the following inspections:
(Closed)
IE Inspection Reports
(50-315/78-27;
50-316/78-31:
The licensee'
actions with respect
to the items of noncompliance
contained in the report were reviewed.
The licensee
actions
are as indicated in his December
21,
1978 letter.
(Closed)
IE Inspection Reports
(50-315/78-25:
50-316/78-23):
Licensee
has taken actions
as indicated in his October
16,
1978 letter.
(Closed)
IE Inspection Reports 50-315/78-09;
50-316/78-07):
Licensee
has taken actions
as indicated in his letter dated
August 10,
1978.
(Closed)
IE Inspection Report
(50-316/78-17):
Licensee is
or has taken actions
as indicated in his letters dated
September
29,
1978,
June
30,
1978,
and June
29,
1978.
(Open)
IE Inspection Report (50-315/77-24):
The licensee
replied to the violation contained in this report in a letter
dated February
17,
1978.
During earlier inspections
the in-
spector
had verified the licensee
was reviewing and revising
procedures
as indicated in his reply.
Included was the develop-
ment of a program to control locally operated
valves through
the use of seals
or locks.
The procedure
was
OHP '4030 STP.035,
"Locked or Sealed Valve Position Logging".
The procedure
was
revised in December
1978 to include
ASME B and
PV Code Section
XI requirements
also.
On April 4,
1979 the inspector
attempted
to audit implementation
of the procedure.
A notebook with log pages
and procedure is
maintained in the Shift Operating Engineer's office.
The pro-
cedure in the notebook
was
2
OHP 4030 STP.035
Rev.
1; dated
December
12,
1978.
The correct procedure revision was later found
to be 12
OHP 4030 STP.035
Rev.
2, dated Harch 13,
1979.
Revision
1 required 1-WD-230-1,2,4,5,7
and 8,
Gas Decay Tank Release
Isolation Valves to be sealed
closed
(Rev.
2 requires locking).
Log entries did not disclose
the position nor the method of
controlling the position (seal or lock) of these valves.
The
procedure requires valves listed in its Attachment
1 to be locked
or sealed in position and that "after changing position on any
valve on the Attachment
1 log entries
are to be made."
The
inspector
observed
the valves were locked not sealed.
A review
of records for gas
decay tank releases
revealed
that
on kfarch 28,
1979 number
7 gas decay tank had been released.
This requires
the changing of position of valve 1-WD-230-7.
No log entries
were made for the changing of position.
It was also noted that
the position of a number of other valves
such
as
2-RH-104 E,
104
W,
106 E,
106
W,
109 E,
109
W, 113 E,
and
113
W were not
logged.
This appears
to be in noncompliance with Technical Specification 6.8.1 requirements
to implement written procedures.
IE Bulletin/Circulars
The inspector
reviewed the licensee's
response
and actions
associated
with the following:
(Closed)
IE Circular No. 78-05; Inadvertent
Safety Injections
During Cooldown:
Licensee
has reviewed the circular.
(Closed)
IE Circular No. 78-06; Potential
Common Mode
Flooding of ECCS Equipment
Rooms at
BWR facilities:
Licensee
reviewed facility design for generic aspects.
(Closed)
IE Circular No. 78-16; Limitorque Valve Actuators:
Licensee
reviewed the circular and adapted
procedures
to in-
sure valves are test operated after manual operation.
(Closed)
IE Circular No.
78-17;
Inadequate
Guard/Training
Qualifications
and Falsified Training Records:
Licensee
has reviewed circular and is taking appropriate action.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
The inspector reviewed
changes
in the licensee's
QA Program
and implementing procedures.
There have
been
no changes
in
the program within the last year.
A number of changes
have
been
made to the implementing procedures.
These
changes
were reviewed to determine that they were in conformance
with the program.
No items of noncompliance
were observed.
13.
Procedures
The inspector
reviewed selected
procedures.
The procedures
reviewed are listed below with comments.
The inspector
verified the procedures
had been reviewed
and approved
as
specified in the Technical Specifications.
12-OHP 4021. 001. 012 Determination of Reactor
Revision 6.
Procedure is somewhat
confusing
as it contains
temporary
changes
which are not applicable
to both units.
The licensee
agreed
to review this area
and provide separate
procedures
where
a procedure can't
be made applicable to both
units.
12-OHP 4021. 004. 001
CVCS Demineralizer Operation,
Revision 2.
Step 4.2 refers to a step which is not contained in the pro-
cedure.
The procedure
appears
to be basically
a valve manip-
ulation procedure
but it does not provide adequate
interfacing
of the operation.
For example,
the procedure
contains
a pre-
caution regarding boron changes
which may occur if unborated
resins are used;
however, it does not provide guidance
as
how to place the units in service to minimize the effects.
It does not provide interfacing with other departments
such
as informing the chemistry group that
a new demineralizer is
in operation
so that samples
can be obtained to determine
proper operation.
The inspector noted that the valve lineup for the demineralizer
isolated
the demineralizer vessel
completely
(no vent or drain
open)
when it was not in service.
A review of the prints
revealed
there was no relief on the demineralizer to protect
against
overpressure
caused
by temperature
changes.
table 9.2-1 states
the demineralizers
are
ASME B and
PV Code
Section III class
C vessels.
The code appears
to require
overpressure
protection.
The licensee is reviewing this.
This
is considered
an unresolved
item.
1-OHP 4021. 002. 007 Pressurizer
Pressure
and Spray Control
System Operation Revision 1.
The maximum heatup rate allowed
by the procedure is 200
F/hr.
Technical Specification allows
a maximum of 100 F/hr.
The procedures
reference
as to the point
0
in the startup
a bubble is drawn is not in accordance
with the
licensee's
present
startup procedure.
The licensee
agreed
to
revise the procedure.
1-OHP 4024.120.001-100
Annunciator No.
20 Response,
Station
Auxiliary "CD".
When the procedure
was
compared
to the alarm
panel it was noted that there were two alarms which were not
in the procedure.
"DG CD room Vent damper abnormal"
(20) and
"1CD D/G load shed relay abnormal"
(30).
The licensee
agreed
to provide procedures
and is in the process
of comparing all
his response
procedures
to the annunciator
panels
to insure
a procedure exists for all alarms.
THP
6030
IMP 145 Pressurizer
Level Control.
No comment.
THP
6030 Rod Control/Rod Insertion.
No comment.
THP
6030 NI Detector Test
and Replacement.
No comment.
THP
4030
STP 058 Spent Fuel Area
(RMS-5).
No comment.
12
OHP 4030
System Leak Test,
Rev.
3.
Acceptance critieria only deals with unidentified leakage it
does not provide values for identified limit.
The procedure
appears
to restrict makeup additions during the test which
is impractical during certain periods or when leakage is high.
Calculation provided in the procedure
allows accounting for
makeup,
but the procedure
does not record the data.
The
licensee
agreed
to revise the procedure.
-10-
1-OHP 4021. 028. 002 Lower Containment Ventilation Revision 2.
Step
5. 8 requires reducing the lower containment
temperature
if a reactor cavity vent fan is lost.
The procedures
does not
provide guidance
as
how to do this.
The licensee
agreed
to
review the procedure.
1-OHP 4021. 028. 011 Auxiliary Building Ventilation.
No comment.
1-OHP 4021. 082. 008 Placing In/Removing From Service of Vital
Instrument
Buses.
The procedure
contains
a check off sheet.
The sheet
contains
no check offs nor is its use specified.
The licensee
agreed
to review the procedure.
1-OHP 4021.002.006 Pressurizer
Relief Tank Operation.
Step
0
4.1 specifies
a maximum temperature limit of 120 F.
Step
6.3.2 specifies
125
F.
The licensee
agreed
to correct the
procedure.
1-OHP 4022.012. 005 Full Length Rod Misalignment Rev.
3.
Pro-
cedure
does not address
detection
and
how to comply with
Technical Specification 3.1.3.1 action item (a) if the binding
is mechanical.
The procedure will not,
by itself, lead to
full compliance with the Technical Specification
and associated
action items.
The licensee
agreed
to revise
the procedure.
1-OHP 4023.019.001
Loss of Essential
Service Vater Rev.
0.
The procedure
appears
to be designed
for Unit 1 in operation,
Unit 2 under construction.
The licensee
agreed
to revise
the procedure to reflect two operating Units.
12
OHP 4023.001.004
Tube Rupture,
Rev.
2.
Step 4. 2. 2 appears
to contradict
2. 1 in that one requires
isolation of steam from the affected generator
to the auxi-
liary feedwater
pump.
The other step requires isolating both
supplies.
Step
4. 2. 1 requires
implementing,
under certain
conditions,
the emergency plan.
The emergency
plan does not
deal with monitoring and estimating
the releases
from this
type of accident.
The licensee
stated
procedures
would be
corrected
by the 15th of April, 1979 by temporary
changes
and later by revising the procedure or Emergency Plan.
1
OHP 4023. 002. 001 High Reactor Coolant Activity.
No comment.
No items of noncompliance
were observed.
-11-
14.
Safet
In ection Event March 23
1979
On March 23,
1979 at 1549 hours0.0179 days <br />0.43 hours <br />0.00256 weeks <br />5.893945e-4 months <br /> Unit 1 tripped
and received
a
B train safety injection (SI)
(A train did not activate).
The trip and safety injection was due to a loss of power to
GRID I and II (instrument
power buses).
The safety injection
signal was reset at 1558 hours0.018 days <br />0.433 hours <br />0.00258 weeks <br />5.92819e-4 months <br />.
Reactor trip breakers
were
closed
again at 0125 hours0.00145 days <br />0.0347 hours <br />2.066799e-4 weeks <br />4.75625e-5 months <br />
on March 24,
1979.
The following
.items were noted by the inspector during his review of the
event:
a.
Log entries did not provide a complete description of the
event.
Such as the event
caused all four reactor coolant
pumps to trip or that reactor pressure
was reduced for
maintenance
on the pressurizer relief tank.
The licensee
agreed that the logs were deficient and stated
actions were
being taken to improve the information contained in the
logse
b.
It is not clear the licensee
attempted
to comply with
technical specification requirements
to have at least
one train of automatic
SI available in Mode
3 as reactor
trip breakers
were not closed until 0125 hours0.00145 days <br />0.0347 hours <br />2.066799e-4 weeks <br />4.75625e-5 months <br />
on the
24th restoring train B to automatic.
The closing of the
trip breakers
appeared
to be for testing prior to starting
rather than restoring SI.
The licensee
appears
to have
made no attempt to evalute
why train A did not activate
or if it was functioning properly during the time from the
first SI until the breakers
were closed.
The inspector's
review reveals
the licensee
complied with technical
specifications
during the time, but it appears
more the
result of circumstances
than logic and actions
taken.
The need to close the trip breakers
upon resetting
was discussed
with the licensee.
The licensee
acknowledged
the inspectors
comments
and agreed
a procedure
would be
provided to reset
the SI logic even if the breakers
could
not be closed
due to a standing" trip such
level.
-12-
i
C ~
The loss of power to the GRID's appears
to have been
caused
by equalizer
charge being conducted
on the
CD
battery causing
a higher than normal voltage to the CRID's
inverters which caused
a failure.
The licensee
agreed
to investigate
and to take action to reduce
the potential
for this occuring again.
d.
When the inspectors
attempted
to review the event it
appeared
that the licensee
had not completed
a detailed
review of the event to determine if the plants
response
had been proper
and if equipment
had functioned properly.
'Discussions
subsequently
inidicated that individuals had
probably looked at the various aspects
and determined
their limited areas
were proper,
but there
had been
no
overall review to insure. items had not fallen into "cracks"
nor was there any documentation
of these
reviews or opinions.
The licensee
agreed
to consider
the inspectors
comments.
15.
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
13.
16.
Exit Interview
The inspectors
met with licensee
representatives
(denoted in
Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of weekly inspections
on March 9,
23,
30 and April 6,
1979.
The inspectors
summarized
the scope
and findings of the inspections.
Attachments:
Preliminary Inspection Findings
-13-
'
,ZKEil<QHARY XNSPECTXON FXNDXhGS
~ ~
~
~
~
I
1 ~
LICENSEE
'merican Electric Power Svc.
Corp.
Xndiana
b Hichigan Power Company
2 Broadway
.
New York, NY
10004
D. C.
Cook Unit 1:
Bxidgman,
YX
D.
C.
Cook Unit 2
. Brid man
YX
2.
REGXONAL OFFICE
1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Office of Xnspection
b Enforcement,
RXXX .
799 Roosevelt
Road
Glen Ellyn, XL'0137
~
~
3 e
DOCKET Nl7i&ERS
50-315
50-316
4 ~
LXCENSE NUYiBERS
5 ~
DATE OF
XNSPECTXON
'PR-58
.'DPR-7a'
I i/i P/
.
'/7
~
/
/ / 6.'ithin the scope of the inspection,
no i'tems of noncompliance ox'eviations
were found.
V.;.The following matters ate pre3:iminary".'inspection
X'indingss'
/ 8<'hese
preliminary'inspection findings willbe'reviewe'd
by'NRC Supervision/'.
Management at the Region
XXX Office and they Qill correspond Mith you
concetnint any eniotcement
'action.
y
~
~
~
~
Nucleat Retulatoty
Commiecion Xnopectot
e
)
) '
) ~
)
L
~
)
/
~
~
~
'l
L
~
~
~ ~
I
3. ~
LiCENSEE
,'merican Electric. Power Svc. Corp.
'ndiana
& Hichigan Power
Company
2 Broadway
.
New York, NV
'10004
D. C.
Cook Unit 1:
Bridgman,
D. C.
Cook nit 2
'
B
2.
REGXOHAL OFFICE,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Office of Xnspection
& Enforcement,
RXXX
799 Roosevelt
Road
Glen Ellyn, XL'0137
~
~
I
. ~
3e 'OCKET NEfBERS
50-315
U
rid man
4.
LICENSE NPisBERS
5o
PATE OF
XNSPECTXON
50-316
'
'PR-58:DPR-74:
'
CZ '6 ~2'3
~'
I)~
~
~
L'
Pg 6.'ithin the scope of the inspection,
no items of noncompliance or deviationo
~ 'ere
found,
/~'7 :The'following 'matters ate preliminary".'inopect'ion 'findingos'
L
'
L
~ 8<'hese
preliminary'inspection findings villbe reviewed by'NRC
Supervision/'nnagement
at the Region
XXX Office and they @G,1 correspond with you
concerning any enforcement action.
~ )-,,
~
~
~
~
~
L.:~
~
~
~
~ I
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~
, ~,......,'....'",. '..." "',
unclear Regulatory
Commission Xnopectox
~
~
~
~
~
- ~'
L
S
~ I
~ )QELX LX~LV XXAglleQ <Lh(i~hi
3
~
~
<i i I
~ I
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
I ~
'dXbOXNGG '"?
~
~ ~
I
~
~
~
~ y<
I
II I.I
I ~ ~ >>
~
I
~
I
~ '
i
I ~
~
LICfNSEl'
I I
," Amol'ican Elects.'ic
PoweY Svc.
Cox'p.;.::..";:
i Xndiana
& NXchigan cowes,Company
'
2 Broadway
.
'
,
~
'ow
York,
NV
10004.
D.
C.
Cnok Unit 1
l
Bx'iaaf,raan, iQ
D.
C.
Cook Unie 2
. Bx'id man
NX
.2 ~
REGXOINAL Oi'ZXCE
I
~ ~,
~
~
~
U.S.. Nuc3.eax'egulator/
Commioaion
~ G. icc of Xnapeceion
& Rnfox'cement
~
7P& Booseve3,e
Road
G3.en F13yn, D '0l37
I
~
~
I
~
~
~
I
~
~ <
RXXX
<
I I
3e'OCi<EY
~ I
~ \\
'
's
NiMBERS
~
4
LXCEN<SF NU BERS
, 5
AVE OP
XNSP
CVXON
So-SlS
So-Sl6
'PR-SS
- DPR- ~: '
~A'4"
I
I
~
~
~
l~ 6.I'thin ehe scope of ehc Mapaceion,: no ~'terna of nonctomp3Ãanco.'pd,cLcvAae4ono,
',.
'i
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
>>
~
~
~
~
~
I '
~
~.
~
. ~
<
'Ii'<'che,
go?LXoving maeeoÃa
aho prod,"miqa J'.Riia>aceion',4 ~<~> s,;.",,:";,i;,'<I,,',
Ten?Pd~<?'i'ANIC e <?'<I~CMA:Ojr:'!$
--: 'jj': :'f:">>,NH.f?"M6 4'i 'FRIZZ.'.<Pl.
<<ImS:;:i.'lI',;<i8 :I<T>;..jjjpi,'4,i-pji'j"~/~+r<<j ':8645-,LaG '; du/l~
'
':.
P"i-"!?i<'<?fi?: FA.P~<'- !4<i,':;~~j<'g',:;Pv~g;.'a<?."Vl'i dSC'i.'-'.
(
I I~
I
ICO~~L1,Ve :"P,g":,A<<-<<o'VE: <ij<<i,.;,"3-,ZS'-7<f'lj'
/t?,tuAS,'. S~AA,
iIJ i'A( nl<?
Ci/Ri<'.S'SPIIP?>I?i<?: ~Ii'g.;g", lj<i<PfE:, L>b I
".':, .'; '
~ I
1
tH(5 Fld b]gb ~p~~M,.pjppg~v',."+yQ.MHi Ll.AP~
": ~Sci< piCRi
/PE"< fi,iiAjPs'j5
b.Q'I::than'A PIl? <'e4
lHPi M
Tio?-'<
'4?'i,
": '...':::::"
.
I
I
? I
~
~
I,
l
>>
~
I
~
~ I
~
~
I
I
I
~
I
~
~
~ I
~
~
~
~ I
'
~ I
I
'
~
~
I ~
I
I
I
~'Ii
~
~
I ~ ~
~ ~ '
ll
~
~
~
~
~
~
0>', Thcoa px'olfmfnax'y'inspect;ion find%~?o VA3.3. bo'iaviawc'd'by'NRC
Supoariolon/'nnageiMne
at: Cho Region UX Odiico.and ahoy'QQ,L oofics'pond Mich you
i ', oodcomQig any'nfovccmenr.
ac',ekoa. ',.I';,," i; ~
I
'i
I
~?
'
~
~ ~ '
~
~
~ 'II '
~
eI~
s?+
?
"
II,<
I
~
~
.
~
~
~
~
~ ~
I
~
~
~
~ I
. I
~
4
~
~
~ . ~
u
~
~
5
~
5
5
~
~
~
~
5
~
~
~
~
~
I I ~
~
~
I
~
I
~
1
'
~
~ '
5
~
~ I
~
5
'
~
5
~
5
~
~ I
~
~
5
r /
/
]1
I
5
5
I
~
5
II
~
~
~
5
5
~
~
5
~
~
~
~
II
5
~
1 ~111
5 I
'0
5
'
l
I