ML17328A017
| ML17328A017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1989 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17328A018 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905050265 | |
| Download: ML17328A017 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1988028
Text
A,C CEMPATED
D1STKBt'Tt04
DEMO~STRAT10N
SYSTEM
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
DOCKET g
05000315
05000316
ACCESSION NBR:8905050265
DOC.DATE: 89/05/01
NOTARIZED: NO
FACIL:50-315 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana
&
~
~
~
~
50-316 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana
&
UTH.NAME
AUTHOR AFFILIATION
LLER,H.J.
Region 3, Ofc of the Director
RECIP.NAME
RECIPIENT AFFILIATION
ALEXICH,M.P.
(formerly Indiana
& Michigan Ele R
SUBJECT:
Forwards Safety Insp Repts 50-315/88-28
& 50-316/88-32
881212-890316
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IE01D
COPIES
RECEIVED:LTR
ENCL
SIZE:
TITLE: General
(50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Vio ation Response
NOTES
I
on
RECIPI ENT
ID CODE/NAME
PD3-1
INTERNAL: AEOD
AEOD/TPAD
NRR SHANKMAN,S
NRR/DLPQ/PEB
11
NRR/DOEA DIR 11
NRR/DREP/RPB
10
NRR/PMAS/ILRB12
OE L~g
N J
G FILE
ERNAL: LPDR
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RECIPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
STANG,J
AEOD/DEIIB
DEDRO
NRR/DEST DIR
NRR/DLPQ/QAB 10
NRR/DREP/EPB
10
NRR/DRIS DIR 9A
NUDOCS-ABSTRACT
OGC/HDS 1
RGN3
FILE '1
NRC PDR
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R
I
D
llRZ~II RECZ PIERS
PIZASE HELP US K) REDUCE WASTE!
OZG'ACI'HE DOCUNEVZ CONSOL DESK
ROOM P1-37
(EXT. 20079)
T0 ELZKINM'E YOUR NAME PKK DZSTRZKTZZQN
LISTS FOR DOCQKNZS YOU DON'T NEED)
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES
REQUIRED:
LTTR
24
ENCL
24
MAY i
1989
Docket Ho. 50-315
Docket Ho. 50-316
Company
ATTN:
Nr. Hilton P. Alexich
Vice President
Nuclear Operations Division
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus,
OH
43216
Gentlemen:
This refers to the special
safety 'inspection
conducted
by Nr. J.
H. Jacobson
and others of this office during the period December
12,
1988 through
March
16,
1989, of activities at D.C.
Cook Nuclear
Power Station,
Units
1
and 2, authorized
by
NRC Operating
Licenses
Ho.
and
No.
and
to the discussion of our findings with fir..D. Williams, Jr.
and others at
the conclusion of the inspection.
The purpose of=this inspection
was to assess
the extent
and significance of a
SALP identified weakness
in the area of design control.
Within these
areas,
the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures
and
representative
records,
observations,
and interviews with personnel.-
From
a positive perspective,
the engineering staff was considered
well
trained
and technically competent.
Additionally, craft personnel
at the
plant were considered
highly qualified and were able to compensate
for certain
weaknesses
identified in the design
process.
Self assessment
programs
have
identified problem areas
as well as potential
improvements
which resulted
in a
design basis reconstitution effort and the reorganization
of the engineering
department.
On the other hand,
the quality of documentation
associated
with certain
modification packages
was considered
inadequate.
The design interfaces
between
the Columbus engineering staff and site engineering
were not well
defined.
Furthermore,
the adequacy of the overall design control process
appears
to be questionable.
Several
examples of problems identified are:
Two examples
were found where the design organization incorrectly
specified the location of new pipe supports.
In one case,
a support
on
the Chemical
and
Volume Control System
was specified
and installed
on the
wrong piping system.
In the other case,
a support for the Chemical
and
Volume Control Crosstie
was specified
and installed approximately four
feet
away from the location used in the piping analysis.
890505026
890501
ADOCk 05000315
O
Indiana l1ichigan Power
Company
MAY i
1989
Fillet welds for socket welded fittings and branch connection
weld joint
details
were not specified
by the design organization.
As a result,
welders
had to determine
weld sizes
and joint configurations
in order to
meet
Code requirements.
Numerous calculation discrepancies
and inadequacies
were identified,
including mathematical
errors.
Load directions
were transposed
and
inaccurately transcribed.
Support
components
were not evaluated.
Loads
induced into the support were not used to evaluate
interconnected
components.
Support evaluations
did not consider the worst case
load combination
and
anchor bolt evaluations
did not account for prying action.
While these discrepancies
are attributable to modification work that was performed
in the recent past,
problems disclosed
during both the modification process
and
the Inservice Inspection
Program for piping supports
indicate that there
may be
original construction or IE Bulletin 79-14 concerns
as well.
The bases for these
concerns
are the following items found during this inspection.
Small bore piping for the reactor
coolant
pump seal leakoff lines
was found inadequately
supported to the extent that not only were the
design stress
allowables
exceeded
but the seal leakoff line was
considered
due to the large overstress
condition.
Support
components
on the Chemical
and
Yolume Control System
had to
be replaced with stronger
members
even though the
new evaluations
utilized loads that were one-third of the original design
loads.
As-built support configurations
on the pressurizer
spray lines were
not in conformance with original design
and modifications were
required.
Taken individually, the safety significance of the above
problems is small.
However,
when taken
as
a whole and considered
in conjunction with findings in,
Inspection Reports
No. 50-315/88003;
50-316/88004
and
No. 50-316/88012,
a
generic concern for design
adequacy
and design control exists.
It should
be
stressed
that these
concerns
are generic in nature
and any corrective actions
taken should include but not be limited to the specific examples outlined in
this report.
During this inspection,
certain of your activities appeared
to be in violation
of HRC requirements,
as specified in the enclosed
Notice.
A written response
is required.
As noted above,
please
address
the generic implications
and your
basis for concluding the acceptability of past practices.
We also request that you respond to the 'unresolved
items identified in
Paragraphs
3.b. (16), 3.b. (17), 3.b. (18), 3.b. (19), 3.b. (20),
4 and
6 of the
attached
Inspection Report.
In responding,
we request that you address
what
actions will be taken to determine the extent of the deficiencies
in the
associated
programs.
Company
MAY i
1989
t
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
'e
will gladly discuss
any questions
you have concerning this inspections
Sincerely
Enclosures
1.
Notice of Yiolation
2.
Inspection
Reports
No. 50-315/88028(DRS)
No ~ 50-316/88032(DRS)
cc w/enclosures
W.
G. Smith, Jr., Plant Manager
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing
Fee
Management
Branch
Resident
Inspector, RIII
Ronald Callen, Michigan
Public Service
Commission
EIS Coordinator,
USEPA
Region
5 Office
Michigan Department of
Public Health
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY W.
SHAFER
(FOR)
Hubert J. Miller, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
+e5
RIIIi
RJ, II
R~ II
RIIg
RI
Westberg
Danie"ison
B
gess
t
(ss f6'i
-/g r /qg
0
>i@
'f/ai
+5
//w
RIII
RIII
>dj
ac
son/ lms/1 c
Liu
gaA(l a
4'/89
Yl~/i'/'l~i-