ML17324B022
| ML17324B022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1986 |
| From: | Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Dolan J AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORP., INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17324B023 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608150226 | |
| Download: ML17324B022 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1986015
Text
~R REOy
%p
+
~
0
~
Cy
4g
0O
I
C
Vl
+~ ++**+
UNITEDSTATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
August 12,
1986
Docket Nos.
50-315
and
50-316
Licensee
Nos.
DPR-58 and
8 Michigan Electric
Company
ATTN:
Mr. John
Dolan
Vice President
c/o American Electric Power Service
Company
One Riverside
Plaza
Columbus,
43216
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION NOS. 50-315/86015;
50-316/86015
Enclosed is the report of the
team inspection
conducted
by Mr. A. R. Johnson
and other
NRC representatives
on April 21 to -25,
1986 at your Columbus corporate
office, and
on April 29 and 30,
1986 at the D.C.
Cook Nuclear Station, of activ-
ities authorized
by
NRC License
Nos.
DPR-58 and
The team's findings
were discussed
with members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspec-
tion.
The inspection
reviewed your implementation of a program
as required
for establishing
and maintaining
the qualification of electric equipment within
the scope of 10 CFR 50.49.
The inspection also included evaluations of the
implementation of equipment qualification corrective action
commitments
made
as
a result of (1) identified deficiencies
in the January
11, 1985, Safety Evalua-
tion Reports
(SERs),
the January
17,
1983
and October 28,
1982 Franklin
Research
Center Technical
Evaluation Reports
(TERs)
and; (2)
a proposed
method
of resolution for each of the
Eg deficiencies
documented
in responses
from you
(January
17, June
12, October
18,
and
December
10,
1984,
and January
25, June
28,
September
17, September
30,
and October 21, 1985).
Within these areas,
the
inspection consisted of the examination of selected
procedures
and records
interviews with personnel,
and observations
by the inspectors.
Although the inspection
determined
that you have
implemented
a program to meet
.the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.49, six significant deficiencies
in the program
implementation
were observed.
Of particular
concern
to us is the finding iden-
tified as
Item
1 in Appendix
A relating to the audi tability of your
El} files.
The other findings represent
failures to fully document
the qualification of the
following types of equipment:
Conax electrical
(600v and below)
8b0815022b
Sb0812
PDR-
ADOCK 05000315
8
e
~ .
aI
& Michigan Electric
-2-
Company
August 12,
1986
models
2325-8386-01
thru -11 and -15,
Haveg Kapton insulated penetration
feed
through extension wire, Brand
Rex triaxial cable
type RG11/U, Limitorque motor
operators,
ASCO Solenoid valves
and Foxboro differential transmi tters.
These
findings are classified
as Potential
Enforcement/Unresolved
Items
and will be
referred
to the
NRC Region III office for further action.
Fifteen concerns
are classified
as
Open
Items
and
a future
NRC inspection will review your actions
concerning
them.
Details of all deficiencies
and concerns
are discussed
in the enclosed
inspection
repor t.
Me note that your letters of Nay 29 and June
17,
1986 provided additional infor-
mation concerning
a number of the inspection
issues
and described
actions that
you have taken or will take to resolve
these
issues.
This information is being
reviewed
and will be considered
in the final resolution of these
items.
Me are available
to discuss
any questions
you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
o ert F. Heishman,
Chief
Vendor Program Branch
Division of guality Assurance,
Vendor
and Technical Training Center
Programs
Office of Inspection
and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Inspection
Report Nos.:
50-315/86-015,
50-316/86-015
August 12,
1986
DISTRIBUTION:
DCS~
VPB Reading
DQAVT Reading
RStarostecki
BGrimes
HMiller
AJohnson
UPotapovs
RHeishman
RLasky
SAlexander
GHubbard
RWilson
NLe,
MYost, INEL
JFehringer,
INEL
MJacobus,
AGautam, RIII
RSmeenge,
RIII
RWestberg, RIII
JMuffett, RIII
- See previous
page
r concurrences.
VPB:DQAVT
SC/VC:DQAVT
BC/VP
- DQAVT
AJonnson:tt*
UPotapovs
eishman
07/09/86
/)M/86
/I /86
-
/
1
J
r
gl
'4
i
~ 't
'>,5
August 12,
1986
DISTRIBUTION:
VPB Reading
DQAVT Reading
RStarostecki
BGrimes
HMi lier
AJohnson
UPotapovs
RHeishman
RLasky
SAlexander
GHubbard
RWilson
NLe,
MYost, INEL
JFehringer,
INEL
MJacobus,
AGautam, RIII
RSmeenge,
RIII
RWestberg, RIII
JMuffett, RIII
- See previous
page
r concurrences.
I
VPB:DQAVT
SC/V
- DQAVT
BC/VP
- DQAVT
AJohnson:tt*
UPotapovs
eishman
~
~
07/09/86
$/('k/86'fg/86
Jq
Appendix
A
Potential
Enforcement/Unresol ved Items
As
a result of the special
equipment qualification inspection of April 21-25,
and 29-30,
1986,
the following items
have
been referred to
NRC Region III as
Potential
Enforcement/Unresolved
Items {paragraph references
are to detailed
portions of the inspection report).
1.
Contrary to paragraph (j) of 10 CFR 50.49,
the American Electric Power
Service
Company
{AEPSC) Eg documentation files were not audi table to the
extent that the organization of documentation
was not readily understand-
able
and traceable
to permit independent verification of conclusions
(Para-
graph 4. F(1), Item 50-315/86015-01;
50-316/86015-01) .
2.
Contrary to paragraphs
(f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49,
and Section 5.2.5 of
the
DOR Guidelines,
the
Eg files for (1) Conax electrical penetration
assem-
blies
(600 volt and below),
model
2325-8386-01
through
11 and 15; (2) Haveg
Kapton insulated penetration
feedthrough
and pigtail extension wire; and
(3) Brand
Rex triaxial cable,
type
RG ll/U, did not adequately
demonstrate
qualification because
of failure to show that the equipment functional per-
formance requirements
were satisfied.
No analyses
were found which address
how measured
parameters
taken during the type test (IR readings
as
an exam-
ple) would affect plant circuits,
when used in units
1 and
2 (Paragraphs
4. F(2), 4. F(3), 4. F(4), I tern 50-315/86015-02;
50-316/86015-02)
.
Contrary to paragraphs
(f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49
and Section 5.2.2. of
the
DOR Guidelines,
the installed configuration of seven Limitorque motor
operators
(four in unit
1 and three in unit 2) were not the
same
as qual-
ified by type test, in that undocumented
wire was identified within the
limit switch assembly
housings
(Paragraph
4.F(6)a,
! tern 50-315/86015-03;
50-316/86015-03).
4.
6.
Contrary to paragraphs
(f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49
and Section 5.2.2. of
the
DOR Guidelines,
the installed configuration of Limitorque motor operator,
DC Cook Tag
No.
IM0-54, located inside
the unit 2 containment,
was not
the
same
as qualified by type test in that "T" drains
{motor housing)
and
grease relief valves
(gearbox
housing)
had not been installed
(Paragraph
4.H(1)a,
Item 50-316/86015-04).
Contrary to paragraphs
(f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49
and Section 5.2.2 of the
DOR Guidelines,
the installed configuration of ASCO solenoid valve,
Model
NP-8316-54
V,
DC Cook Tag No.
XSO-122 was not the
same
as qualified by type
test in that moisture seals
were not provided at the cable entrance.
(Para-
graphs 4.H{2)a, Item 50-316/86015-17)
Contrary to paragraphs
(f) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49
and Section 5.2.2 of the
DOR Guidelines,
the installed conf~guration of Foxboro Differential Trans-
mitters,
Model No. NE13-DM-H1H22,
DC Cook Tag No.
FFC-230
and
FCC-241 was
not the
same
as qualified by type test in that
no weep hole was installed
in the low point of the connecting conduit and the cable termination conduit
was not sealed with silicon sealant
as alternately permitted
by the plant
construction
drawing.
(Paragraph
4.H(3)a,
Item 50-315/86015-21)