ML17325B380
| ML17325B380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1990 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17325B381 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003140285 | |
| Download: ML17325B380 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1989031
Text
Docket No. 50-315
Docket No. 50-316
Company
ATTN:
Mr . Milton P. Alexich
Vice President
Nuclear Operations Division
1 Riverside
Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Gentlemen:
This refers to the special
maintenance
team inspection
conducted
by Mr. Z. Falevits
and others of this office on December
4 through 8,
and December
18 through 22,
1989.
This inspection
covered activities at the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant,
Units
1 and 2,
as authorized
by
NRC Operating
Licenses
No.
The inspection findings were discussed
with Mr. D.
H. Williams, Jr., you and
others of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection
on January
18,
1990.
The inspection
was conducted to assess
and evaluate your support
and
implementation of maintenance
to assure
that plant structures,
systems,
and
components reliably perform on demand.
Various activities were evaluated
to
determine if maintenance
was accomplished,
effective,
and adequately
assessed
by your own quality verification process.
The enclosed
copy of our inspection report identifies specific areas
examined
during the inspection.
Within these
areas,
the inspection consisted
of a
selective
examination of procedures
and representative
records,
observations,
and interviews with personnel.
In an attempt to focus
on those activities
that are most risk significant, insights were
used
from the Donald
C.
Cook
Nuclear Plant Probabi listic Risk Assessment
Study were
used to select
systems
and components
important to safety.
Overall, the inspection
team concluded that maintenance
was satisfactorily
performed at the Donald
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant;
however,
based
on the deficiencies
identified, significant improvements
seem warranted
in your maintenance
program
and implementation of it.
Section 3.0 of the inspection report provides
a
synopsis of the effectiveness
of your maintenance
program.
The most significant weaknesses
identified were:
(1) lack of or ineffective
action to correct
numerous self identified maintenance
problems identified in
February
1988,
many of which were identified by the team during this inspection;
(2) an ineffective preventive maintenance
program that resulted,
for example,
in failures of 4kV circuit breakers;
(3) an extensive
backlog of non-outage
corrective maintenance
job orders partly caused
by lack of integrated
planning
and scheduling
methodology;
(4) poor material condition especially
as evidenced
by the high number of oil, steam,
and water leaks;
(5) inadequate
trending, root
cause
analysis
and action to correct, for example,
numerous
leaking safety
relief valves;
and (6) in several
instances
procedures
were not followed, were
poor or did not exist especially in the balance of plant area.
9003140285
900301
ADOCy, 05000315
0
PNU
i)(
~gpl
Company
1 1990
Your performance
in response
to the self identified problems is considered
a
significant weakness.
In addition to respondinq to the violations that are
described
below,
we request that you provide us
a written response
describing
your corrective actions to address
the weaknesses
discussed
above.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared
to be in violation
of NRC requirements,
as specified in the enclosed
Notice.
A written response
is required.
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations,
a copy of this letter, the enclosures
and your response
to this letter will be
placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room.
The responses
directed
by this letter and the accompanying
Notice are not
subject to the clearance
procedures
of the Office of Management
and Budget
as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss
any questions
you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report No.
50-315/89031;
50-316/89031
cc w/enclosure:
A. A. Blind, Plant Manager
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee
Management
Branch
Resident Inspector, RIII
James
R. Padgett
EIS Coordinator,
USEPA
Region
5 Office
Michigan Department of
Public Health
Commissioner Curtiss,
OCM/JC
K. Hart,
NRR/LPEB
Director/Division of Reactor
Safety, RI, RII, RIV, RV
H. J. Miller, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
RIII
Falevits/lc
2/gF/90
RI
RIII
Ja
onski
,
Coope
2/bS/90
~
. 9// /90
'I t9
RII
QX
RIII
R II
.I
M'9$
s
-~
tirL'lier
2/
/90
9/i + i /90
P/( /90