IR 05000266/1978015
| ML20027A378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1978 |
| From: | Choules N, Julie Hughes, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A377 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-78-15, 50-301-78-20, NUDOCS 7811210436 | |
| Download: ML20027A378 (11) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-_. -. _ - _ _ . . , ! . ,l.
. i . . . , U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT [ i
REGION III
i k Report No. 50-266/78-15;.50-301/78-20 j Docket No. 50-266; 50-301 License No. DPR-24; DPR-27
, Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53203 Facility Name: Point Beach Units 1 & 2 ( ' Inspection At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, WI Inspection Conducted: September 11-15, 1978 . [[ /3 Inspectors: N C Ch s AN *.-c H d l l ' . e Hughes /C//G /7)' R F LO O Approved By: R. F. Warnick, Chief 10//6/78 L / / Reactor Project.s Section 2
>
Inspection Summarv , i Insoection on September 11-15, 1978 (Reports No. 50-266/78-15 and No. 50-301/78-20) ! Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection cf plant operations, procurement, non routine event, followup on safety injection reset pro-I cedures, IE Bulletin and Circular followup, and independent inspection.
The inspection involved 49 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
! Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
, 781121 0 #3 4 A
i
_ . .- , L ' ' . , ! . . . .
. . , ! DETAILS , ! 1.
Persons Contacted !
- G. A. Reed, Manager, Nuclear Power Division t
l T. F. Deddins, Maintenance Superintendent A F. T. Rhodes, Operations Superintendent
- J. Zach, Reactor Engineer
R. R. Weedon, Health Physicist
l
- F. Zeman, Of fice Supervisor
' W. Adams, Superintendent, Quality Assurance W. Geishaker, Electrical Engineer, Nuclear Projects Office G. M. Krieser, Project Engineer, Quality Assurance l
- C. Olsen, Engineer
. es (.i The inspectors also talked with and interviewed members of the Operations, Technical Support, Maintenance and Plant Stores , ! sections.
!
- Denotes those attending the exit interviews on September 14, 1978 f
and September 15, 1978.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on September 14, 1978 only.
i
e b , W - , . ... ! , b ! s ! , -2-i [
F
. l .. _ _ _. _ _ . _ - .
- . . . . SECTION I , ! Prepared by N. C. Choules j Reviewed by R. F. Warnick, Chief l Reactor Projects Section 2
I
' . } 1.
Plant Tour The inspector performed a plant tour accompanied by a licensee { a.
representative on September 12, 1978. The housekeeping in the
plant was good. The inspector noted during the tour that ! there was water accumulating in the overflow pot, located at j I ' ' ' the eight foot elevation of the Auxilary Building. Three ! discharge pipes from the leak channels behind the spent fuel ! pool liner and transfer canal liner welds discharge into the overflow pot. The licensee indicated there was a small leak l (about a cup a day) from the pipe connected to the south pool.
! The licensee is investigating the source of this leak.
j b.
During this tour, selected " DANGER" tags were reviewed for ' proper approval and the Status log was reviewed to determine , ' if the tags were properly accounted for. No discrepancias were noted.
, c.
Selected valves for the emergency diesel generators cooling
system were checked for proper alignment and no discrepancies ( were.noted.
, . r (1) Jumper Los i The Jumper and Bypass log was reviewed and no discrepancies were noted.
(2) Logbooks f' The inspector reviewed Unit 1 and 2 control room logs, station log, and the safeguards log for selected days ! during the past three months, and confirmed that entries ! were filled out and initialed to identify the action j taken, and that the Operations Superintendent or his
assistant is reviewing and initialing the station log l , sheets indicating his review.
! (3) Special Orders and Operations Group Standina Orders i i The current subject orders were reviewed and no discrepancies were noted.
J ! l - 3_-
- .. -- . - _,. -. -- . -
. . -. . . - . . . . . t (4) Significant Operating Events ' The inspector reviewed.SOEs 50-266/78-03, 78-04, 78-05, 78-06 and 50-301/78-02. No items of concern were identified.
! (5) Reactor Coolant and Steam Generator Chemistry , i Subject surveillance records consisting of primary and i secondary log sheets were reviewed for the past three . ' months.
Review of reactor coolant logs indicated no evidence of fuel failure; and oxygen, chloride, and fluoride con-t ' centrations were well below the Technical Specification Itaits for both units.
l' i (.h Review of steam generator logs showed one leaking Unit 2 . ' main condensor tube was plugged on July 23, 1978.
{ 2.
Procurement I The inspector reviewed the plant material procurement program. The review included a tour of material storage areas, review of purchase order packages, quality assurance requirements, and receipt inspec-l tions as follows.
a.
Five Procurement packages were reviewed, including purchase e requisitions, purchase orders and quality assurance records.
The packages reviewed were PO's A-09645, A-09646, A-09273, A-14505 and A-16689. No discrepancies were noted in the review of chase packages.
! - b.
Procurement records and storage for the following items stored ( ! onsite were reviewed: , ! (1) Safety injection pump motor, PO A-87846.
l . (2) RHR pump motor, P0 A-87054.
E (3) Containment fan motor, PO A-90138.
t (4) Globe valve, PO A-77423.
! No discrepancies were noted in the review of the above.
c i i l t-4-
i r .
. - - - -- __ ._ .. _ __. .._ j i
l - ! ' 3.
Reportable Occurrence ' , RO 50-266/78-13.1 - Containment spray pump P-14B Breaker found
tripped, was reviewed onsite by the inspector and no items of concern regarding licensee actions were identified.
l 4.
Safety Injection (SI) Reset Procedures The inspector revleved the licensee's emergency operating pro- } cedures to determine if they contain instructions regarding j required operator actions if a loss of offsite power or an accident ! occurs af ter the SI has been reset and before the engineered safety feature equipment is returned to the automatic starting sequence mode. ' Also, procedures were reviewed to see that they prevent the f operator from moving any equipment out of the emergency mode prior ! , to reset. The following emergency procedures were reviewed.
l (_* ~; EOP-1A Large loss of Reactor coolant E0P-2A Steam line break EOP-3A Steam Generator tube rupture i The licensee made modifications to the safety injection circuit,
such that if a loss of offsite power occurs after SI has been reset j that the sequence of SI loads will start over again and no operator , action is required to restart equipment. The procedures contain j instruction to accomplish the above where applicable, except that , there are no instructions to remind the operator that for a spurious
SI the originating SI signal must be cleared to return the system ! ' to the automatic SI mode. The licensee stated for spurious SI's they would add instructions for the operator to clear the SI signal [ and to warn him that SI must be initiated manually for an actual l SI, whed SI has been reset and the SI signal has not been cleared.
[ ,- i < ( 5.
IE Bulletin and Circular Followup > , , , >
a.
IEB 78-06 and 78-10 ! t As stated in the licensee's response 2/3/ o these bulletins, j
-- t they do not have any of the relays or accumulator spring coils l identified in the bulletins and therefore, the bulletins are l not applicable to the licensee.
! t h[LER50-266/78-13-OIT-0,WEPtoRII,dtd7/14/78.
Ler WEP to REGION dtd 6/21/78.
-3/ Ler WEP to REGION dtd 6/25/78.
. -5- , ! > l , --v-
y.. -- e y -, ..,,---.e, .-,,y-,,--.- -, y . .--.m-
._.
. - - - _.
- .- -.. - .. -.. J . i . . l
] b.
IEC 78-09 The licensee has determined they do not have any of contactors ' referenced in the circular in safety related circuits.
, c.
IEC 78-13 The licensee has preheat capability to keep ice from forming on the forebay for the service water pumps. The licensee performs inspections of the forabay each refueling, which includes check-ing for silt. The licensee plans no further action in regards to this circular.
. d.
IEC 78-15 (N The licensee has determined that they do not have any of the ' - tilting disk check valves.
e.
IEC 78-16 ' The licensee has some of the limitorque valve actuators mentioned in the circular; however, they are not used in the manual mode routinely. The licensee performs preventive maintenance on these actuators every five years and feels that no further action is required.
6.
Observation of New Fuel Unloading The inspecj:or observed the unloading of recently received new fuel assemblies. No discrepancies were noted.
( 7.
Exit Interviews l The inspectors (Choules and Hughes) met with the licensee representa-tives (denoted in Persons Con'/seted paragraph) at the plant site on September 14, 1978.
Mr. Choc as met with the licenses representatives (denoted in Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection at the plant site on September 15, 1978. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. Inspection items in Section II were discussed in detail, t-6- , l l l l f I _., _ _ __. - .. - .. .._- -,-__..,_.- - -. _ _- - _ - .-
- - . _ .-.--. - -~
' I e . , Section II , ,. h i Prepared by J. Hughes - Reviewed by R. L. Spessard, Chief ! ! Engineering Support Section 1 ! ' . , . 1.
Licensee Action on IE Bulletin 78-02 The Region III inspector reviewed licensee response to IE Bulletin 78-02 and verified that: licensee management forwarded
i - copies of the bulletin to appropriate onsite management k representatives; information discussed in the licensee's response was accurate; and action taken, if any was as described [ in the response.
l ('/ ' - I . The inspector determined that the licensee had performed a i j systematic review of the facility to ensure that no unprotected ' terminal blocks of any type are used on safety-related systems ! within the containments of Unit 1 and Unit 2.
j A tour of the Unit 1 containment was made by the inspector to verify that i there were no terminal blocks in safety-related systems.
i No items of noncompliance were identified.
! ' Licensee Action on IE Circular 78-08 ! 2.
The Region III inspector verified that the licensee has ! a.
reviewed qualification requirements and other areas of concern j identified in the circular, as pertains to appropriate docu-i ! mentation for safety-related electrical components for his facility.
( , t s , , b.
The Region III inspector determined that the licensee had ! assigned the responsibility for review of references listed ! in the circular and that the licensee had compared his plant [
with lessons identified in the references.
' , The Region III inspector reviewed documentation for the ! c.
following components: (1) Connectors (IE Bulletins, 77-05 and 77-05A) were previously inspected, and the results are documented in NRC Inspection Report numbers 50-266/78-07 and 50-301/78-14 dated June 23, 1978.
' t t-7- . ' . > ! l . t r i ! ! !
. - . . . ... .. , - _ _... _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . - . -. _- _. _. _ _.
. _.
. .- . -. _,. . . . _ _ _ _ - _ , ... -.---. ..... .. .. l " , , P t . . , . (2) Penetrations (IE Bulletin 77-06) were previously in-spected, and the results.are documented in NRC inspection [ report numbers 50-266/78-07 and 50-301/78-14 dated
June 23, 1978. This matter was left open because the ! , licensee did not have documentary evidence that the ! penetrations had been tested for environmental conditions.
j During this inspection, the Region III inspector reviewed ! Westinghouse letter PEN-RLK-3-16-01 dated May 22, 1978, l to the licensee, stating that test reports prepared for j the Brunswick Plant are applicable to the Point Beach j Plant; the applicable test reports were also reviewed.
j i Accident Environment Test Report for temperature, pressure j > and steam environment indicated the following: during j the test, the penetration was checked for leakage; and l (s electrical insulation resistance measurements and dielec-l e , tric strength tests of the conductors were made before l and after the accident environment exposures.
l i Westinghouse letter PEN-TR-78-45 dated May 15, 1978, ! titled " Boric Acid Effect on Medium Voltage Ceramic Seal-Bushing" indicates that the test was performed from October 12, 1976 to October 19, 1976, and that the , bushing was immersed in borated water (4000 PPM solution, ! Boric acid and NaOH to PH 8.5) for the seven day period.
[ Resultg3of the test were: insulation resistance was l i 3 X 10 ohns;therewasnoevigenceofchemicalattack; i ~ i and leak rate was less than 10 standard ec per second.
! The conclusion was that Boric acid spray does not adversely l . affect the ceramic to metal brazed assembly.
I - During the review, the inspector was unable to determine ! ( if a radiation exposure test had been conducted. This ! matter was discussed during a telephone conversation on ' September 14, 1978, between Region III and IE Headquarters j personnel, and Region III was informed that this matter i ' had been identified and determined to be acceptable
during the NRC's staff review of the licensee's response ! to IEB 77-06 and documentation submitted by other licensee's, l which have shnilar electrical penetrations. Therefore, i the inspector has no further questions on this item.
l
, t (3) Limit Switches (IE Bulletin 78-04) were previously ' inspected, and the results are documented in the NRC Inspection Report numbers 50-266/78-07 and 50-301/78-14
dated June 23, 1978.
' ,
! -8-I ' l
! ! ... - ._ - . __ .-.- - -- .. - -
.. , - -.. -.- -.. . . -.. ...., l
9 . . l . . . (4) Cable Splices vero previously inspected, and the . results are documented in NRC Inspection Report num-bers 50-266/78-07 and 50-301/78-14 dated June 23, ., 1978, and 50-266/78-13 and 50-301/78-17 dated f ! August 17, 1978.
(5) Electrical Cables were reviewed by the Region III inspector during this inspection, and the findings j ' are as follows: Westinghouse WCAP-7410-L, Volume II, Section 6, titled, , , " Topical Report Environmental Testing of Engineered ! Safety Features Related Equipment" states, "The results j of this program indicate that cables and splices will i i - perform their required function during and af ter a loss-of-coolant accident." Subsequent to the inspection, f Region III was informed by NRR that Westinghouse ! WCAP-7410-L is under a generic review by them.
l Therefore, the inspector has no further questions
j on this matter.
Boston Insulated Wire and Cable Company certified [ test report for instrument cable (Bechtel Corporation l P. O. Number 6118-E-30A) includes: vertical flame i test results, bonfire test results, containment environ- , mental test results, results of tests on cable after ! exposure to Radiation and electrical production test ! results. The Region III inspector determined that ! the test results were acceptable.
< (6) Electrical Transmitters were reviewed by the Region , I.
III inspector during this inspection, and the findings ! are as follows: ! i WCAP-7410-L, Volume I, Section 4, titled " Topical Report Environmental Testing of Engineered Safety i ' Features Related Equipment" includes the following instruments that were identified by the licensee as i being required to function during an LOCA or steam line break: Pressurizer pressure, Pressurizer level, high-head flow and accumulator pressure transmitters.
' The environmental testing in stesm, pressure and tem-perature was performed by the Franklin Institute
Research Laboratories (FIRL) and is documented in their final reports F-C2639 and F-C2667. The Foxboro l transmitters, Models 611 and 613 series, became inoper-acive during the irradiation test performed by the . b-9-
r I - -- . = - - -, - -..,. -, ,. _.
, , ..., _ -, - - ~ _ _.. _ . _... _ _.
- ' . t - . ' FIRL, and a Foxboro letter dated July 14, 1969 to Westinghouse Electric Corporation recommended that these transmitters be modified to meet maximum credible i accident conditions. The recommended changes included: more liberal use of RTV be made in the conduit part section of the transmittsr; remove breather assembly and replace with new pressure relief assembly (blowout ! disc type); change zero and cover 0-rings to viton; i and change integral amplifier lead wires from PVC
to caflon coated.
l ! The inspector requested to see documentary evidence ! - that the above modifications had been made to the i Foxbcro transmitters installed at Point Beach 1 and 2.
The licensee could not provide the documentation; however, an Instrument Control Engineer, who was working . (, at the site during the construction phase, informed the ! ' inspector that he observed these modifications being made to the transmitters prior to their installation at ,
the Point Beach plants. The licensee stated that they
would obtain the necessary documentation from Westinghouse.
! The inspector has no further questions in this matter.
{ Westinghouse WCAP-7410-L is under a generic review by
] NRR, as identified in subparagraph (5) above.
l (7) Reactor Contain= ant Fan Cooler (RCFC) motors were f reviewed by the Region III inspector, and the results l are as follows: } ! Westinghouse WCAP-7410-L, Volume II, Section 4 includes , , test results on radiation and temperature effects on
" WF-8AL Thermalastic Epoxy insulation and the bearing f lubricant (Westinghouse 5#773A773G05). The results f( demonstrate the ability of Thermalastic Epoxy insula-t tion and the bearing lubricant to withstand the tem- [ perature and radiation levels associated with the ' design basis accident. The inspector has no further j questions on this matter. Westinghouse WCAP-7410-L l is under a generic review by NRR, as identified in ! subparagraph (5) above.
i (8) Limitorque Valve Operators were reviewed by the Region , III inspector, and the results are as follows: i Franklin Institute Research Laboratories test report , F-C2232-01 dated November 1968, titled "Limitorque ' Valve Operator under a simulated Reactor Containment t ! i , - 10 - j ! ! i ! I ' . - _. ..- - .- ._.
- - - . -.
_.
-. _ . -. . - - - - _ _. - -- ' > .
. , . ~' ' Post-accident Steam and Chemical Environment" indicated i ' test conditions of saturated steam pressure to 60 psig l and boric acid spray (1.5% solution by weight, buffered
to a PH of 7.85 with sodium hydroxide) simulating
those existing in water-moderated reactor containments
following a loss of coolant accident.
( i Westinghouse WCAP-7410-L Section 5 states that " environ-l mental t'esting in the steam, pressure, temperature and i chemistry environments were performed on valve operators - with both class H and class B insulation on the motor.
! In addition to post accident steam and chemical tests.
[ a radiation test was performed on a production valge & i motor with Class B insulation to a level of 2 X 10 rada.
f I (~ The inspector has no further questions on this matter.
l Westinghouse WCAP-7410-L is under a generic review by { NRR, as identified in subparagraph (5) above.
i ! ' , (9) The Region III inspector requested to see the environ-f I mental qualification of the Residual Heat Removal ! (RHR) pump motors. The licensee was unable to provide t documentary evidence that the RHR uotor insulation I I was qualified to withstand radiation exposure during and after a LOCA. Point Beach PSAR page 7.5-11 states I "that thg RER motor is installed in a high radiation ! area, 10 rads".
This matter is unresolved (50-266/78-15-01) i (50-301/78-20-01).
i
- 'No items of noncompliance were identified.
i i (, 3.
Unresolved Matters [ Unresolved items are matters about which more information is ! required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, l items of noncompliance or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Section II, Paragraph 2c(9).
j - . Y l ! ! l ! l i [ ! - 11 -
) . . - -. . ._ - - _. - .-. . .. - _ }}