ML17328A199

Responds to NRC 890809 Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-315/89-20.Corrective Action:Administrative Requirements Procedure Reviewed to Include Verification That Acceptance Criteria Have Been Fulfilled Before Operation of Equipment

ML17328A199
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	10/13/1989
From:	Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
AEP:NRC:1090K, NUDOCS 8910180322
Download: ML17328A199 (9)

See also: IR 05000315/1989020

Text

ti-.REGULATORY

INFORMATION

DISTRIBUTION

SYSTEM (RIDS)~~~~~~~~~~~~CESSION NBR: 8910180322

~DOC.DATE: 89/10/13 NOTARIZED:

NO DOCKET ACIL:50-315

Donald C.Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana&05000315 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION

ALEXICH,M.P.

Indiana Michigan Power Co.(formerly Indiana&'ichigan Ele RECIP.NAME

.RECIPIENT AFFILIATION

Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)SUBJECT: Responds to NRC'890809 ltr re violations

noted in Insp Rept 50-315/89-20.

DISTRIBUTION

CODE..IEOID COPIES RECEIVED.LTR

J ENCL I SIZE.TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice, of Violation Response NOTES'ECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD3-1 PD INTERNAL: AEOD AEOD/TPAD NRR SHANKMAN, S NRR/DLPQ/PEB

NRR/DREP/EPB

10 , NRR/PMAS/I

LRB 12 OE N J G FILE RGN3 FILE 01 ERNAL: LPDR NSIC 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 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME GIITTER,J.

AEOD/DEIIB

DEDRO NRR/DEST DIR NRR/DOEA DIR 11 NRR/DREP/RPB

10 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT

OGC/HDS 1 RES MORISSEAUg

D NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 1.-2 2 1 1 1 1 1'1'NCTE IO ALL t'RIDB1'ECIPIENXS

PIEASE HELP US'IO REDUCE HASTE!CGA'ACT'IHE DOCUMERI'GPIBOL

DESK RXN P1-37 (EXT.20079)K)EIZMQCQR KKR NAME FBCM DISTK33VZZQN

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES~REQU

REP: 6%7%ENCL 23

Indiana Michigan Power Company P.O.Box 1663>Cofufnbus, 0H 432 I6 lNEWAMA NiCHIGAN PMfER AEP:NRC:1090K

Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Docket No.50-315 License No.DPR-58 INSPECTION

REPORT 50-315/89020;

RESPONSE TO UNRESOLVED

ITEM'.S.Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.20555 Attn: A.B.Davis October 13, 1989 Dear Mr.Davis: This letter.is in response to R.W.Cooper's letter dated August 9, 1989, which forwarded the.report of the special safety inspection

conducted from May 22 through May 25, 1989, and on July 7, 1989, on activities

at Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1.Our letter (AEP:NRC:1090G)

of September 8, 1989, responded to the severity level IV violation cited in the Notice of Violation attached to Mr.Cooper's letter.Through subsequent

'discussions

with your staff we understand

that the originally

cited level IV violation has been reduced-to severity level V, We appreciate

your favorable consideration

of our request in this area, Mr.Cooper's letter also requested a description

of actions we have taken with regard to an unresolved

item identified

during the inspection.

Due to an oversight this information

was not included as part of our September 8 response to the Notice of Violation.

The attachment

to this letter provides the requested response to the unresolved

item.This document has been prepared following Corporate procedures

that incorporate

a reasonable

set of controls to ensure its accuracy and completeness

prior to signature by the undersigned.

Sincerely, M.P.Alex ch Vice President ldp Attachment

~>~g<1 f'R

Mr.A.B.Davis-2-AEP:NRC:1090K

cc: D.H.Williams, Jr, A.A.Blind-Bridgman R.C.Callen G, Charnoff NRC Resident Inspector-Bridgman NFEM Section Chief

Mr.A.BE Davis-3-AEP'NRC:1090K

bc: S.J.Brewer/B.P.Lauzau T.0.Argenta/R.

F.Kroeger P, A.'Barrett-w/o J.G, Feinstein-w/o M.L.Horvath-Bridgman-w/o J.F~Kurgan-w/o J.J.Markowsky J.B.Shinnock-w/o S, H.Steinhart/S.

P.Hodge J.Giitter, NRC-Washington, D.C.DC-N-6015.1

AEP:NRC:1090K

ATTACHMENT

TO AEP:NRC: 1090K RESPONSE TO UNRESOLVED

ITEM 315/89020-02

Attachment

to AEP:NRC:1090K

Page 1 NRC Unresolved

Item During the Region,III

inspection

of maintenance

activities

performed on the Unit 1 CD emergency diesel, the following unresolved

item was generated:

";..the inspector noted that the measurement

of main bearing clearance for No.4 bearing required by Paragraph 7.2.1 of Procedure 12MHP4030.STP.046,"Emergency

Diesel Generator Syst: em 18 Month Inspection," Revision,l, was recorded as.09.The acceptance

criteria specified in the procedure was.007 to.014.The recorded value was more than six times the maximum allowed value.This recorded deviation was not noted by licensee personnel prior to engine start or on subsequent

reviews and therefore, there was no assurance that inspection

requirements

were met.Based on discussions

with the licensee, it appeared that the value was improperly

recorded.In addition, because of the overspeed problem, the bearing was changed and new measurements

were taken.These measurements

were well within the specified tolerances.

Due to the bearing change, no hardware problems were evident, however, it appeared that additional

management

attention should be provided.in this area as future incidents of this type could result in significant

hardware damage.This matter is unresolved

pending review during a subsequent

inspection

(315/89020-02)." Response-to Unresolved

Item Our investigation

of the instance cited in the unresolved

item concluded that the initial main bearing clearance measurements

were within the acceptance

criteria but were incorrectly

recorded in completing

the maintenance

procedure in that 0.09 inch was recorded versus the actual measured clearance of.009 inch, The decimal point in the recorded value was indistinct

and the recorded value was therefore apparently

misread during subsequent

review.Consequently, the error in the recorded value was not identified

in the course of normal supervisory

approval of the completed.

procedure, The unresolved

item stated above also raised the more general issue of the adequacy of existing controls in ensuring that, following maintenance/inspection

activities, equipment is not operated until it is confirmed that all hardware acceptance

criteria have been satisfied.

We have reviewed our procedures

of the type identified

in the unresolved

item and have confirmed that supervisory

reviews of the completed procedures

include verification

that acceptance

criteria have been fulfilled before equipment is operated.Our review of the existing administrative

requirements

in this area has.therefore concluded that'the procedural

controls presently in place are appropriate

to minimize the potential for post-maintenance/

Attachment

to AEP:NRC:1090K

Page 2 inspection

damage to equipment resulting from operation of the equipment before all acceptance

criteria have been fulfilled.

We will, however, reemphasize

to involved personnel the importance

of ,accurate documentation

of the completion

of procedure steps and compliance

with the requirements

of existing procedures.

In addition, we will monitor this area through our condition report s'stem to ensure that any adverse trends can be quickly identified

and appropriate

corrective

action taken.