ML17325B560
| ML17325B560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1999 |
| From: | Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Powers R AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER CO., INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17325B561 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-99-03, 50-315-99-3, 50-316-99-03, 50-316-99-3, NUDOCS 9904290251 | |
| Download: ML17325B560 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1999003
Text
April 23,
1999
Mr. R. P. Powers
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation Group
American Electric Power Company
500 Circle Drive
Buchanan, Ml 49107-1395
SUBJECT'RC INSPECT(ON REPORT 50-315/99003(DRS); 50-316/99003(DRS)
Dear Mr. Powers:
On March 26, 1999, the NRC completed a special inspection conducted at your Buchanan
Michigan Corporate facility. This inspection was an examination of activities under your license
as they relate to your implementation of the Expanded System Readiness
Review (ESRR)
program at your D. C. Cook Units 1 and 2 reactor facilities. The NRC understands that these
reviews are intended to identify design and materiel condition issues that willrequire resolution
before restart to provide assurance
that safety-related plant systems fulfilltheir design basis
safety functions.'ffective implementation of the ESRR process willaddress portions of Case
Specific Checklist Items No. 3, "Programmatic Breakdown in the Maintenance of the Design
Basis," and No. 13, "Systems and Containment Readiness Assessment," that were established
through the NRC's Manual Chapter 0350, "Staff Guidelines for Restart Approval." The NRC will
continue to monitor and assess
the effectiveness of the problem identification phase of your
system readiness evaluations.
The enclosed report documents the results of this inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the
inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative
records, and
interviews with personnel
~ At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with
you and members of your staff.
Overall, the initial implementation of the ESRR process was effective. Significant programmatic
issues and technical concerns have been identified by the ESRR teams, including cable
separation concern, seismic mounting deficiencies, and spray header obstructions.
Management has maintained active oversight of the ESRR process through the System
Readiness
Review Board. This oversight function has addressed
the technical rigor and
consistency of the individual ESRR team products.
Several system walkdowns by the ESRR teams were observed by NRC staff to have identified
design and configuration deficiencies and were effective. Most ESSR teams performed
walkdowns using comprehensive checklists to verify design parameters;
however, we observed
specific walkdowns that initiallyappeared to focus more on materiel conditions and did not verify
certain design parameters.
The specific walkdown weaknesses
were subsequently addressed
by your staff.
vvoeavoasx
evoeas
f
ADOCK 050003K 5;.
8
PDR ~
R. Powers
-2-
Based on the large number of condition reports being initiated, the threshold for identifying and
documenting problems appeared conservatively low. Some problems were noted where
condition report information was either incorrect or missing in the new computerized database
'nd
where the condition reports had limited or incorrect descriptions of the issue or did not
consider design requirements.
While we recognize that the electronic corrective action program
(ECAP) is.early in its implementation, these issues represent a continuing challenge in the
proper categorization and resolution of the problems identified by the ESRR process, and
warrant continuing management oversight to assure effective ECAP implementation.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC'S "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, the
enclosure, and your response to this letter, ifyou choose to provide one, will be placed in the
NRC Public Document Room.
We willgladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Original'/s/ John A. Grobe
John A. Grobe, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket Nos. 50-315; 316
.
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 50-315/99003(DRS); 50-316/99003(DRS)
cc w/encl:
A. C. Bakken III, Site Vice President
M. Rencheck, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering
D. Cooper, Plant Manager
R. Whale, Michigan Public Service Commission
Michigan Deparfment of Environmental Quality
Emergency Management
Division
Ml Department of State Police
D. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists
See Attached Distribution
DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRSiDCC99003.WPD
To racehre a
ofthd document, Indtcate In the bosn 't
~
without attachmenuendosura
%'
wtth attachmenvendosure
'N ~ No
OFFICE
Rill
I
Rill
Rill
Rill
NAME
Holmber:jp/s
'acobso
Ve el
Grob
DATE
044 /99
04/n/99
04@>/99
04/g'9
OFFICIA
RECORD COPY
0
R. Powers
Distribution:
RRB1 (E-Mail)
RPC (E-Mail)
Project Mgr., NRR w/encl
J. Caldwell, Rill w/encl
B. Clayton, Rill w/encl
SRI D. C. Cook w/encl
DRP w/encl
DRS w/encl
Rill PRR w/encl
PUBLIC IE-01 w/encl
Docket File w/encl
GREENS
IEO (E-Mail)
DOCDESK (E-Mail)