IR 05000315/2004011

IR 050000315-04-011(DRS); IR 50000316-04-011(DRS); 9/13/2004 - 9/17/2004; D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant; Routine Biennial Evaluations of Changes, Experiments or Tests, and Permanent Plant Modification Inspections

ML042730550
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	09/29/2004
From:	Dave Hills Division of Reactor Safety III
To:	Nazar M American Electric Power Co
References
IR-04-011
Download: ML042730550 (13)

Text

ber 29, 2004

SUBJECT:

D. C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC EVALUATIONS OF CHANGES, EXPERIMENTS, OR TESTS AND PERMANENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS INSPECTION REPORT 050000315/2004011(DRS); 50000316/2004011(DRS)

Dear Mr. Nazar:

On September 17, 2004, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a routine baseline inspection at your D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. The enclosed report documents the inspection findings, which were discussed on September 17, 2004, with Mr. D. Fadel and other members of your staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and to compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.

Specifically, this inspection focused on the baseline biennial inspections for evaluations of changes, tests, or experiments (10 CFR 50.59) and permanent plant modifications. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.

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, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publically Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/

David Hills, Chief Materials Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316 License Nos. DPR-58; DPR-74 Enclosure: Inspection Report 050000315/2004011(DRS);

50000316/2004011(DRS)

w/Attachment: Supplemental Information cc w/encl: J. Jensen, Site Vice President M. Finissi, Plant Manager G. White, Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Emergency Management Division MI Department of State Police D. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 050000315/2004011(DRS); 50000316/2004011(DRS); 9/13/2004 - 9/17/2004; D. C. Cook

Nuclear Power Plant; Routine Biennial Evaluations of Changes, Experiments or Tests, and Permanent Plant Modification Inspections.

This report covers a five day period of announced baseline inspection on evaluations of changes, tests, or experiments and permanent plant modifications. The inspection was conducted by three Region III inspectors. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 3, dated July 2000.

A. Inspector-Identified and Self-Revealed Findings Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity No findings of significance were identified.

Licensee-Identified Violations

No findings of significance were identified.

REPORT DETAILS

1R02 Evaluations of Changes, Tests, or Experiments

.1 Review of 50.59 Evaluations and Screenings

a. Inspection Scope

From September 13, 2004, through September 17, 2004, the inspectors reviewed six evaluations performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 requirements. The evaluations related to permanent plant modifications, setpoint changes, procedure changes, conditions adverse to quality, and changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The inspectors reviewed the evaluations for thoroughness and to determine if prior NRC approval was obtained as appropriate. The inspectors also reviewed 23 screenings where the licensee had determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not necessary. In regard to the changes reviewed where no 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was performed, the inspectors reviewed the changes to determine if they met the threshold to require a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation. These evaluations and screenings were chosen based upon a consideration of the risk significance of samples from the different cornerstones. In addition, the inspectors reviewed six applicability determinations to verify that a screening or evaluation per 10 CFR 50.59 was not required. The list of documents reviewed by the inspectors is included as an attachment to this report. The inspectors used, in part, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 96-07, Guidelines of 50.59 Evaluations, Revision 1, to determine acceptability of the completed evaluations, and screenings. The NEI document was endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.187, Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments, November 2000. The inspectors also consulted Inspection Manual, Part 9900, 10 CFR Guidance: 50.59.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

1R17 Permanent Plant Modifications

.1 Review of Recent Modifications

a. Inspection Scope

From September 13, 2004, through September 17, 2004, the inspectors reviewed 17 permanent plant modifications, including 2 that affected barrier integrity. These plant modifications were divided among the various programs that the licensee used to make changes to the plant, including design changes (4), equivalency evaluations (6),commercial grade dedications (4), and setpoint changes (3). The modifications were chosen based upon a consideration of its probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) significance.

The inspectors reviewed these modifications to verify that the completed design changes were in accordance with the specified design requirements and the licensing bases, and to confirm that the changes did not affect any systems safety function.

Calculations, which were performed or revised to support modifications, were also reviewed. Design and post-modification testing aspects were verified to ensure the functionality of the modification, its associated system, and any support systems. The inspectors evaluated the modifications against the licensee's design basis documents and the UFSAR. The inspectors also used applicable industry standards, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code, to evaluate acceptability of the modifications. The list of documents reviewed by the inspectors is included as an attachment to this report.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems

.1 Routine Review of Condition Reports

a. Inspection Scope

From September 13, 2004, through September 17, 2004, the inspectors reviewed a selected sample of condition reports associated with permanent plant modifications and 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and screenings. The inspectors reviewed these issues to verify an appropriate threshold for identifying issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions. In addition, condition reports written on issues identified during the inspection were reviewed to verify adequate problem identification and incorporation of the problem into the corrective action system. The specific corrective action documents that were reviewed by the inspectors are listed in the attachment to this report.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

4OA6 Meetings

.1 Exit Meeting

The inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. D. Fadel and other members of licensee management on September 17, 2004. The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary.

No proprietary information was identified.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

D. Baker, Configuration Control

D. Fadel, Vice President Engineering

J. Gebbie, Engineering Programs Manager

B. Kovarik, Performance Assurance Assessment Supervisor

P. Mangan, Configuration Control Manager

M. Mieran, Performance Assurance Manager

J. Newmiller, Regulatory Affairs Specialist

T. Woods, Regulatory Affairs Compliance Supervisor

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

I. Netzel, Resident Inspector

LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened, Closed,

Discussed

None.

Attachment