IR 05000315/2007502

IR 05000315-07-502 and IR 05000316-07-502; on 08/13/2007 - 08/17/2007, D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Biennial Emergency Preparedness Exercise Baseline Inspection

ML072640440
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	09/20/2007
From:	Eric Duncan Plant Support Branch II
To:	Nazar M Indiana Michigan Power Co
References
IR-07-502
Download: ML072640440 (12)

Text

September 20, 2007Mr. Mano K. NazarSenior Vice President andChief Nuclear OfficerIndiana Michigan Power CompanyNuclear Generation GroupOne Cook PlaceBridgman, MI 49106SUBJECT:D. C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2BIENNIAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE BASELINEINSPECTION REPORT 05000315/2007502(DRS);05000316/2007502(DRS)

Dear Mr. Nazar:

On August 17, 2007, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspectionat your D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents theinspection findings, which were discussed on August 17, 2007, with Mr. M. Peifer and othermembers of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewedpersonnel. Specifically, this inspection focused on emergency preparedness, including yourstaff's determinations of performance indicators for the Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone.On the basis of the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter andits enclosure will be available electronically for pub lic inspection in t he NRC Public DocumentRoom or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/Eric Duncan, ChiefPlant Support BranchDivision of Reactor SafetyDocket Nos. 50-315; 50-316License Nos. DPR-58; DPR-74Enclosure:Biennial Emergency Preparedness Exercise Baseline Inspection Report 05000315/2007502(DRS); 05000316/2007502(DRS); w/Attachment: Supplemental Informationcc w/encl:J. Jensen, Site Vice PresidentL. Weber, Plant ManagerG. White, Michigan Public Service CommissionL. Brandon, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Waste and Hazardous Materials DivisionEmergency Management Division MI Department of State PoliceState Liaison Officer, State of MichiganW. King, FEMA, Region V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000315/2007502; 05000316/2007502; on 08/13/2007-08/17/2007; D. C. Cook NuclearPower Plant, Units 1 and 2, Biennial Emergency Preparedness Exercise Baseline Inspection.The report covers a 1 week baseline inspection by one regional emergency preparednessinspector, a resident inspector, and a reactor engineer. The inspection focused on theEmergency Preparedness Cornerstone in the Reactor Safety strategic performance area duringthe biennial emergency preparedness exercise. This inspection also included a review ofrecords related to the three emergency preparedness performance indicators for the periodApril 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors isdescribed in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 4, dated December 2006.A.Inspector-Identified and Self-Revealed Findings

None.

B.Licensee-Identified Violations

None.

2

REPORT DETAILS

REACTOR SAFETY

===Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness1EP1Exercise Evaluation (71114.01)

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the August 14, 2007, biennial emergency preparednessexercise's objectives and scenario to ensure that the exercise would acceptablytest major elements of the licensee's emergency plan and to verify that theexercise's simulated problems provided an acceptable framework to supportdemonstration of the licensee's capability to implement its plan. The inspectorsalso reviewed records of other drills and exercises conduc===

ted in 2005, 2006, and2007, to verify that those drills' scenarios were sufficiently different from the scenarioused in the August 14, 2007 exercise.The inspectors evaluated the licensee's exercise performance, focusing on the risk-significant activities of emergency classification, notification, and protective actiondecision making, as well as implementation of accident mitigation strategies in thefollowing emergency response facilities:Control Room Simulator (CRS);Technical Support Center (TSC); andEmergency Operations Facility (EOF).The inspectors also assessed the licensee's recognition of abnormal plant conditions,transfer of responsibilities between facilities, internal co mmunications, interfaces withoffsite officials, readiness of emergency facilities and related equipment, and overallimplementation of the licensee's emergency plan.The inspectors attended post-exercise critiques in the CRS, TSC, and EOFto evaluate the licensee's initial self-assessment of its exercise performance. Theinspectors later met with the licensee's lead exercise evaluators and managers toobtain the licensee's findings and assessments of its exercise participants'performances. These self-assessments were then compared with the inspectors'independent observa tions and assessments to assess the licensee's ability toadequately critique its exercise performance.These activities completed one of one inspection sample.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA1 Performance Indicator (PI) Verification

Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness.1Reactor Safety Strategic Area

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's records associated with each of the threeemergency preparedness PIs to verify that the licensee's program was implementedconsistent with the industry guidelines in the applicable revision of Nuclear EnergyInstitute Publication No. 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance IndicatorGuideline," and related licensee procedures. Specifically, licensee records related tothe performance of the Alert and Notification System (ANS), key EmergencyResponse Organization (ERO)members' drill par ticipation, and Drill and ExercisePerformance (DEP) were reviewed to verify the accuracy and completeness of the PIdata submitted to NRC for the period from April 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. Thefollowing three PIs were reviewed:

Common*ANS;*ERO Drill Participation; and*DEP.These activities completed three of three PI samples.b. FindingsNo findings of significance were identified.

The inspectors noted that the licensee's submittal for the Alert and Notification SystemReliability Performance Indicator was in error because the fourth quarter 2007 datasubmittal indicated 141 sirens of 210 sirens were tested successfully instead of 140 of209 sirens tested successfully. The regularly scheduled test for May 5, 2007, had only69 sirens tested because one siren was not tested because of a local parade. Thesiren taken out-of-service for the regularly scheduled monthly siren test was tested onMay 4, 2007, however, this siren test has to be counted for the NRC's ANSPerformance Indicator as a non-opportunity per the guidance in NEI 99-02, Revision 5,"Regularly scheduled tests missed for reasons other than siren unavailability (e.g.,out-of-service for planned maintenance or repair) should be considerednon-opportunities." This error was entered into the licensee's corrective action systemas AR-00817132, "PI Data Submitted Late to the NRC."

44OA5Other.1(Closed) Severity Lev el III Violat ion 05000315/

316/2006502-01: A Severity Level IIIViolation was identified for the licensee's failure to maintain a standard emergencyaction level scheme.The inspectors reviewed the licensee's action request 00801675 which includedcauses, extent of condition, and corrective actions. No concerns or issues wereidentified and appropriate corrective actions have been implemented. This violation isclosed.4OA6Meetings.1Exit MeetingOn August 17, 2007, at the conclusion of the on-site inspection activities, theinspectors presented preliminary inspection results to Mr. M. Peifer and othermembers of licensee management. The inspectors asked the licensee whether anymaterials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. Noproprietary information was identified.ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

M. Peifer, Vice President Site Support Services

R. Crane, Compliance Supervisor

H. Etheridge, Regulatory Affairs Specialist

J. Gebbie, Plant Engineering Director

C. Graffenius, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator

Q. Lies, Acting Plant Manager

J. Newmiller, Regulatory Affairs Specialist

A. Rodriguez, Emergency Preparedness Manager

D. Schroeder, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator

C. Springman, Principal Nuclear Specialist

R. Sieber, Chemistry Manager

J. Zwolinski, Performance Assurance ManagerNuclear Regulatory Commission

B. Kemker, Senior Resident Inspector

J. Lennartz, Resident Inspector

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

None

ClosedNOV

05000315/316/2006-502-01Failure to Maintain a Standard EAL Scheme.

Discussed

None

2

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

The following is a list of documents reviewed during the inspection.

Inclusion on this list doesnot imply that the NRC inspectors reviewed the documents in their entirety but rather thatselected sections of portions of the documents were evaluated as part of the overallinspection effort.

Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply NRC acceptance of thedocument or any part of it, unless this is stated in the body of the inspection report.