ML17319B100
| ML17319B100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1981 |
| From: | Hunter R INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17319B099 | List: |
| References | |
| AEP:NRC:0621, AEP:NRC:621, NUDOCS 8112210343 | |
| Download: ML17319B100 (10) | |
Text
INDIANA L MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY P ~ O. 80X 18 Bo WLING G R E EN ST ATION NEW YORK, N. Y. 10004 Oc,goober 19, 1981 AEP:NRC:0621 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
1 and 2
Docket Nos.
50-315 and 50-316 License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-315/81-19; 50-316/81-22 Nr. James G. Keppler, Regional Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region III Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Nr. Keppler:
This letter and its attachments.
respond to Nr. C.
E.
Norelius'etter of August 31, 1981.
Attachment 1 addresses the two violations noted in the above mentioned Inspection Report and the corrective actions taken.
Attachment 2 provides you with information on the actions we have taken and plan to take to resolve Hr. I. Yin's concerns as described in Item 7 of the "Details" part of the subject report.
An extension up to October 19, 1981 to answer the report was granted to us by Mr. D.
W. Hayes of your Staff.
Very truly yours, Vice President cc:
John E. Dolan - Columbus R.
C. Callen G. Charnoff R.
W. Jurgensen D. V. Shaller - Bridgman Joe Williams, Jr.
Region III Resident Inspector-Bridgman I'112210343 81121S~
PDR ADQCK OS00031S I
1 PDRg OCT 26 iSI
)
4.i 8I l
li Q4 r
C l'.
E
I AEP:NRC 0621 STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
R.
S.
- Hugger, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a Vice President of the licensee Indiana 8 Michigan Electric Company, that he has read the foregoing response to I.E. Inspection Report Nos.
50-315/81-19 and 50-316/81-22 dated August 31, 1981 and knows the contents thereof; and that said contents are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Vice President Sworn and subscribed
- o before e this,e pr c.g~
'r Notary Public C. ROBERT ROLL'OTARY PUBllC, STATE OF NEW YP)g No. 41-3332850 Queli/ied in Queens County Qnuaission Expires Msrch 30, +8~
UV, Q
pi h
nr- ~9,'=
P.
~ ~
1
ATTACI9fENT 1 TO AEP:NRC:0621 Res onse to Item 1:
This item in the inspection report refers to AHP Design Division Organization and Procedures
- Manual, General Design Procedure No.
8, Rev.
2 dated October 31, 1980 and notes that the engineering calculations must be stamped,'igned and dated by the originator and the checker.
The inspector noted
- that, contrary to the
- above, AEP calculation No.
2-258, dated December 3,
1979 had not been signed and dated by the checker.
Me have verified our document files and noted that the computer input data for Problem 2-258 was checked and signed by both the originator and checker and that the signed copy existed in the Supervising Designer's file at the time of Hr. Yin's audit.
Since then the copy of the calculation which Hr. Yin audited has been signed and dated.
To avoid the possibility of having unsigned copies of the original computer calculations being filed in the problem folders, Procedure No.
8 is being revised to include the requirement that the copies of computer calculations in the record files should show the evidence of a check and be dated.
This revision to the procedure will be issued prior to October 31, 1981 under Revision'No.
4.
Res onse to Item 2:
This item refers to paragraphs 6.a.(4) and 6.d.(1) of the inspection report.
These refer to EDS calculations No.
2-215 "Chemical and Uolume Control, 1-CCS-5, 3" and 4" CS Line from CPN-37",
Revision 1,
dated October 18,
- 1980, and THS caldulation No.
2-178, "Technical Report, TR-4128-2, Stress Analysis of Essential Service Mater to Auxiliary Peed Pump Piping (2-HSV-5) for D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant,"
dated January P,
1980 The computer analyses showed that portions of these piping sy. tems were stressed in excess of our ESAR allowable value for an earthquake loading.
The inspector noted that modifications were made to these piping systems to reduce the stresses to be within our PSAR
'allowable limits but that a written report had not been sent to thc NRC Region IIIOffice.
As an immediate corrective action, Indiana
& Michigan Electric Company reported these two problems to the NRC Region III office on September 16, 1981, via LER No. RO-81-044/03L-O.
In addition, we are reviewing the 393 package compiled a..
a result of our efforts to comply with the requirements of IE Bulletin 79-14.
Me initiated this review program shortly after Mr. Yin's visit to our New York offices with the purpose of identifying those instances where reporting of pipe stress values exceeding the PSAR allowable limits was not done.
The review effort includes not only identifying reportability problems, but also a
QA check on all packages to assure proper problem documentation closure.
et J
During this review some cases of stress values exceeding the PSAR allowable limits have been found and will be reported.-
Ve anticipate that this review will be completed by December 31, 1981.
Me believe that we have satisfactorily responded to the requirements of the Bulletin as evidenced, in part, by our decision to shut down Unit 2 on December 24, 1979, due to significant nonconformances found in the hydrogen skimmer syst: em which possibly could have resulted in an operability problem.
Additionally, we note that following a
December 29, 1980 management meeting between the NRC and X&11ECo.,
our professionalism and responsiveness to the Bulletin was favorably commented upon by members of the NRC Staff.
vtJys
ATTACHMENT 2 TO AHP:NRC:0621 This attachment provides you with information on our. activities concerning item 7 on the "Details" Section of Mx. Yin's report.
Westinghouse has advised u" that the setting of the reer pump restraint gap clearance to 1/16 inch + 1/32" - 0" was satisfactory.
Xn addition, we have gone to Westinghouse with all measured
- gap, information on the major reactor coolant loop restraints in an effort to resolve other discrepancies with the Westinghouse recommended values.
Westinghouse has advised us that the present restraint gap clearances for both units is not a safety issue.
- However, Westinghouse-suggests that the gap settings be changed to agree with what they are recommending for nuclear plants today.
Where required, we are measuring and xe-shimming the gaps in Unit 2 during the current outage and it is our intention to have the same operations done in Unit 1 duxing an upcoming outage so as to meet the Westinghouse recommended settings.
I k
h 0