IR 05000266/1985019
| ML20138N472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1985 |
| From: | Jackiw I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138N470 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-85-19, 50-301-85-18, IEB-85-002, IEB-85-2, NUDOCS 8512240021 | |
| Download: ML20138N472 (8) | |
Text
.
.,.
---
. d- [
9;
=r EU.S..- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
'
,
REGION III
i
'
..
1 Reports No. 50-266/85019(DRP); 50-301/85018(DRP)'-
. Docket Nos.L50-266;.50-301; Licenses No. DPR-24;DPR-27
. Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Company 231 West Michigan
. Milwaukee,'WI. 53203
~ ' Facility Name:
Point' Beach Unit:1 and 2 Inspection At:
Two Creeks, Wisconsin
- Inspection Conducted
- October 1 through November 30.-1985
Inspectors:
R. L. Hague.
R. J. Leemon Approved'By: lI.
.Jackj I)
/
/
/6
~
'
Re ctor Projects Section 2B Date
'
Inspection Summary Inspection on October 1 through November 30, 1985 (Report Nos. 50-266/85019(DRP);
50-301/85018(DRP))
. Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by resident inspectors of
' operational safety; maintenance;' surveillance; refueling activities;
. surveil _ lance - refueling; spent. fuel' pool activities; maintenance program-implementation; organization'and administration; IE bulletin follow-up; and licensee event report follow-up. The inspection involved a total of 361-inspector-hours ~'onsite by two inspectors including 56 inspector-hours on-off-shifts.
-Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
8512240021 851216 E
PDR.ADOCK 05000266 G-PDR-
-
?
4,c; _.
e,
,
,
QM3 ' _ j;
-
,
- < < ~
,
, <
,
,_
a
[
t h,
_, _., _,_
Q~
y~
- p yM
. - F:[ '
.
- -
,
.
-
w
~
,
~ a,E iDETAILS-
"
%
,,-
-
%;
'
R
_
m, y
.'
'
c
.
,sq
<
-y
,
,
/M
_(1.1 iPersons1 Contacted:?
~ '
.
.
W:
,
.
Z
__,
- J. = J.3 ach,.Mariager, PBNPj ng *,
-
_~
T.LJ.:Koehler, General'Superintendentr
-
i
-
tG.JJCMaxfield,1. Superintendent, Operations ~
,...
.
- J. C. : Reisenbuechler 1 Superintendent, -Technical. Service
-
JC JW.EJ.oNerreen,; Superintendent,- Maintenance.& Construction-
-
';,
>*R.:E., Link? Superintendent,'EQR1-j
,
-
R.iSFBredvad, Health.:Physicisti a
.~ -
LR.nKrukowski, Security' Supervisor:
y l*F.'A."Flentje,l Staff-Services. Supervisor-
,-
.
s
-
- J.LE.:Knorr, Regulatory Engineer-W:V
,-
- Thiiinspector also talked lwithIand interviewed members of ',he Operation,
-
.
,
,
, Maintenance,: Health Physics,.and Instrument and Control tections,
w
- Deinotes personnel; attending' exit interviews.
'
- 2.; 10porational Safety Verification and Engineered Safety Features System
,
~
Wa'kdown.(71709 and:71710).
^
,
-
-
,
,
_
.
-
The! inspectors observed control room operations ~, reviewed applicable logs-cand conducted: discussions with. control room operators during the months.
'
- '
fof.0ctober and November,'1985.
During these discussions and. observations,
'
.
the1inspectorsLascertained_that'the operators were alert, cognizant of
+
W
' plant conditions,; attentive _to changes ~in_those conditions,:and.took-
'
.. prompt action when appropriate. The: inspectors verified the. operability;
.
-
cof; selected'. emergency systems,~' reviewed'tagoutl records and verified proper return to service of.affected components. -Tours of the Unit-2
.
Containment, the Auxiliary.and Turbine' Buildings were conducted to observe
.
plant equipment conditions, including potential fire nazards, fluid leaks, in
~
- and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been n/
initiated forLequipment in_need of maintenance.
,
,
..
LTheinspectors,byobservation.anddirect[ interview,verifiedthat.the
~ '
1 physical..securityplantwasbeingimplementedinaccordancewiththe:
'
- stationEsecurity plan.-
' ~
,
The~ inspectors observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and
. verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During.the months of;0ctober and November 1985; the inspectors walked down the
,
- accessible
- portions of the Auxiliary Feedwater, Vital Electrical, Diesel
'
-
,
, Generating,' Component Cooling, Safety. Injection, and Containment Spray:
systems to verify _ operability.'
y s
These' reviews and observations ~were' con' ducted to verify that-facility
operations were in conformance with the requirements established under
.
'
Technical Specifications, 10 CFR and administrative procedures.
,
.
t
,s e_
,
,
<.
,,~
~~
,
f7,f;';.,.
.
<
c,
- o;-
l
u
.
,W
'
Q&
m
.
"_
C
-
Y f
- 0n-October 2,?during full' power operation, a low feedpump suction, alarm
+
.,
, ',
-camerin en Unit 2 3 Operators immediately started a power reduction.to
"
?approximately.205: power preventing'a. reactor trip on low S/G 1evel.. The w
- causeLof!the..feedpump 1.ow suction pressure was:the malfunctioning of the
'
"
'
-
'
- heater? drain tank' pump discharge; valve which failed closed.
The valve was
<
, repaired and the Unit:was.returnedsto 1005. power.. During,the transient,. _
,
-
'
~ 5the' alarm for low. low rod insertion bank D came'in.' :Although a check of-
,
- Technical Specifications. revealed: actual rod insertion limits were not.
?
.
>
exceeded,"theilicensee committed to include-a warning in'the Significant:
>.
.
xOperating 4 Event'reportC to be used for training, that. insertion limits are'.
'
most criticalfat~end"of' life and although the-low low' alarm"is' set
- approximately 10 steps above the Technical' Specification limit, this
.
(parametermustbeactively.considaredduringthe.recoveryfromsucha (transient.
.
,1 p
,
P~
' Unit 2 was taken off-line at.2:11 a.m., October 5,1985, to start f n
refueling:ll. 'At.6:37:a.m. on November.21, 1985, the Unit was:taken
'
L
^
(critical completing the~ refueling outage. -Major evolutions accomplished
' '
during theioutage included condenser tube replacement, feedwater heater b
i,
-
' replacementF spli.t pin inspection and replacement of those with h.,-
indications. The' Unit was placed on line at 9:16 p.m. on November.24,
-
.E
','
1985, Land was taken off li~ne at 7:53 a.m., November 25, for turbine L
L overspeed testi_ng. 1After, successful overspeed testing, the Unit was again
-
'
lplaced'on linefat 9:57 a.m.-on November 25, 1985.
iAt 2:29 p.m.Lon October 2, 1985,'at the completion of a Unit 1 containment'
finspection at 1005 power, while the: operators were leaving the upper air.
"
'
lock, both air-lock doors were.open at the same time for a period of about i
t'~
10 seconds.. The' containment was at a slightly negative pre sure so air flow was into containment; At:1530, maintenance personnel = attempted to
'
'
'
'
' enter the air' lock to investigate the' malfunction.of the interlocks.
Upon
- opening the outer door, the inner door. again came off it's seat and was
,
-
-immediately reclosed.1 Again air flow'was:into containment.
Inspection of
'
the: interlock disclosed.that-the:can mechanism which prevents both doors p~
'
~
-
ifrom being open at'the same' time was bent and misaligned sufficiently to
allow both. doors to'be. operated.
On October 3, 1985, maintenance
' personnel entered containment _through the lower air-lock.andfplaced
>'
dogging devices on the, inner upper air lock door. This prevented the F,
.
,
. inner door from inadvertently opening again when they opened the outer
<
door to affect repairs to the interlock.
The interlock was repaired and w
A
-
tested satisfactorily.
- .
43.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)-
,
_
O The inspector observed technical. specifications required surveillance
[
testing on the Reactor Protection and Safeguards Analog Channels and-LNuclear Instrumentation and' verified that testing was performed in s'
-
'
L " y :(
-
laccordance with: adequate procedures, the test instrumentation was
' calibrated,-that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal
,y i;
V j'
.
"
'
-
/'
.j
.
.
~.
- - -
-
-
- -. -
-.- -. -.
A
@
n n;
- .;;a,
.
,
_.
- and ' restoration of'the affected components were accomplished,.that. test
~
results conformed with technical specifications'and procedure
_ requirements and were reviewed by personne1~other than the individual
'
. directing the _ test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed.and resolved by. appropriate management
'
" personnel.;
~
$
The' inspector also' witnessed or reviewed' portions of the following test
~
'
activities:
TI-01-
. Inservice Testing of High Head Safety Injection Pumps and Valves
' WTP 6.1} Core Power Distribution
REI'6.0 : Flux Mapping At 10i07 a.m., October 9, Unit 1 experienced a momentary runback from 100
,
to 97.5% power.. The runback' occurred during the performance of ICP 2.7,
-
-
'N42 Power Range Surveillance Testing, an instrument and control. technician-was performing a procedure step which called for returning the operation selector switch to normal.
The technician inadvertently returned the
^
runback bypass switch to normal.
He'immediately realized his error.and
-
returned the switch to the bypass position terminating the runback after about.75 seconds.
4.1. Monthly Maintenance' Observation (62703)
Station maintenance activities on safety related systems and components listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain'that they were conducted in accordance with' approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry-codes or standards and in conformance with technical specifications.
The following items'were considered during this review:
the limiting
-
coaditions, for operation were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were t
inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were
-
,
-performed prior'to returning'coeponents'or systems to. service;' quality
!
control records'were~ maintained;' activities.were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials'used were properly certified;
!
radiological controls.were implemented;-and. fire prevention controls were i
. implemented.
~
-
1 -
'
,
.
'
.
!
Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and
.
.
to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment
^
maintenance which may affect system performance.
The following' maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
,
Removal and Inspection'of Unit'2 "A" Reactor Coolant Pump Motor
,
Steam Generator Safety Valve Testing
,
Rebuilding Unit 2 Containment Snubbers r
'
.
,
- - -
-
4=-e-
.
, - - + -
c
... - - -.
.+,,.,,--#--,r.~.mw.,v,-.,---,.-,y.,
,:-
.-%w,ey,,..,.,,vp,
,,--~,,-.-v-7--,.
-,,,,, -
<,, - -
-
k{.~'N
)/d fhM * 1 jf 3:-
.
,,
'
~
'
'
.
,.
h. '
$
'
y ;'y.
-
.
+
.
-
-
,
,
.m
,,
,
ew
.
.y c
,
"
n
- 1 c
.
~
.
.&
cm
.
,
j l,
- 5 6 kefuelina-Activities;
- (60710);
'
A ;The inspector verified'that prior.to-the handling of fuel in dhe core, all
&-
L
' surve111anceLtesting required by the Technical Specifications and -
'
,
111censee's proceduresLhad been completed; verified that-during the outage
-
,
the periodic. testing of_ refueling related equipment was performed as v
. required _by Technical: Specifications;-' observed;5 shifts of the fuel handling operations (removal, inspection and insertion)'and verified the
,'
,
.
- activities.were performed-in accordance with the Technical Specifications-
-
- and approved procedures;' verified that containmentuintegrity was '.
. maintained as: required by Technical Specifications;.' verified that goodt
'
%' ' v
,
.
- housekeeping was maintained =on'the refueling area; and, verified thats
~ staffing during refueling was.in accordance with Technical Specifications-
.
, land approved procedures.
e
_
[
6.
Surveillance - Refueling f(61701)
'
'
...
.
.
..
.
.
-
iThe-inspector obser'ved refueling outage related surveillance testing on
'
'
- Unit?2 to verify that_ the tests were covered by properly approved
- procedures; that the procedures used were consistent with regulatory requirements,-;1icensee. commitments, and administrative controls; that (minimum crew requirements were met, test-prerequisites were completed,
_
special. test: equipment was calibrated and in service, and required: data was recorded for final. review and analysis; that the qualifications ofi
'
.
.. personnel conducting the; test'were' adequate; and that the test results'
'
' n ere adequatet :The. inspector witnessed all_or portions.of the following-w
~
<
itests::
.
' ~
/
IORT No'.111
' Flow Test of: Safety Injection Pumps"-
"
,
ORT Not 2L
" Flow Test of RHR Pumps"
'
.
'
~0RTLNo.-3
"" Safety Injection Actuation with Loss of Engineered LSafeguards AC'?.
,
q.,
' TSE No.:30
'"Highand-Low Head Safety Injection Check Valve Leakage-
.
' Test"
.
~
'
At 7:35'a.m.,-October 5, after the completion of hot rod drop testing on
,
.
- Unit'2, rod D-10 was" dropped and : stuck 'at 178 steps. This rod had dropped successfully during the'surveillince-testing.
The rod was_ stepped out
'
<
three steps and'out motion was verified.
The rod was'then stepped in successfully past the point at.which it had stuck.
During the refueling
"
. outage.the guide ~ tube, control rod, and drive shaft were inspected.
No
.
>
- abnormalities were identified.
The control rod was replaced from_ spares
-
and post refueling rod drop testing was performed satisfactorily.
- '
' During-the. outage, steam generator, tube eddy current testing was
. accomplished.
Details of the scope of the. inspection are given in,
'-
- Licensee' Event Report 50-301/85-003.
The licensee plugged 10 tubes in'the
"A'? ' steam generator and 44 tubes -in the "B" steam generator.
Also during
,
P
1
5
'
'
m.
g, q
_.... _
_. _
_
,
_
___ _
__
.
w :
,
<
r
._..q ft
~
.
A
,
L:k [ ',
-
,
~
<
-
'
the. outage,ultrasorkictestingoflthe-guidetubesplitpinswas
"
~
,
accomplished.5 One additionalssplit pin was found to have a retractable indication, three-others had been identified during the last outage..All
~
,
four_ split pins were replaced.
i7 o Spent Fuel Pool ActivitiesJ1(86700)
.
.
>
- During
- the operating cycle,(it was noted that primary coolant activity for t
. Unit'2 took~a step 1: crease in-July about halfway through the cycle.
tAlthough! actual activity. levels remained.below.1 uc/cc, which is less
'
i
..'
ithan~10% of the Technical Specification limit, some fuel damage was
? suspected due to"thefabnormal step increase.
After the fuel' offload, a w
.
- visual inspection of.the fuel assemblies disclosed two assemblies, L56 and
>L59h which exhibited significant flow induced fretting primarily at the grid, straps,.but also at other' locations along the rodlets. - : Assemblies L56 and L59.had=been-located at core positions M6-and F1 respectively.
These core positions represent two of eight positions at which the baffle
"
, ~ late joint is. formed with a rabbet joint which had been peened over in p
~
,
1977.to prevent this type of flow induced fuel damage.
The differential ~
'
- pressure across' the' baffle plates varies from 15-25 lbs./sq.in. at.the top
,
Lto 3-5 lbs./sq.in.:at the bottcm.
Therefore, any gapping of the joints' '
l
!
-
-
would allow coolant to flow from.outside the baffles into the fuel area.
It appears that a gap of approximately two thousandths of an inch will l produce a nozzle 'effect which, if. directed at a fuel rodlet, can cause the
.
.
rodlet to vibrate'against the grid straps or the baffle plates causing-wear and eventually a breach of the cladding.
Possible fixes to avoid
+
,
. release of fission' products to the coolant include replacing fuel rodlets.'
.
'
tin the~affected areas with empty rodlets,:repeening of the joint to close
,l theLgaps,-and a Westinghouse modification which reduces-the differential
. pressure'across the baffles. 'A11'of'the fixes considered by the licensee
.
involve a'significant man-REM expenditure and in as much as wear and'
- cladding failure'is a gradual' process which can be effectively monitored-through coolant sampling, the licensee decided not to attempt any of the
,L fixes this-outage.- Coolant activity will be monitored closely during this
,
^ " '
l cycle;and the licensee will continue to study possible solutions to
' Jthe problem.- This issue'is' presently being carried at an open item for
-:
-
. Unit 1.'
o
- 8.:
Maintenance > Program Implementation (62700)
~
-
The inspector verified that the maintenance program was being implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements. The effectiveness of the maintenance program on important plant equipment and the ability of_'the
- maintenance staff to conduct an effective maintenance program was w:
>
evaluated.-
,
- The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
n
, Replacement of a Source Range Detector
'
'
Replacement of a Power Range Detector
. Replacement of Unit 2 Steam Generator "B" High and Low Low Level Relay
.,
.
'
s t
F
-
',
.
w
'
'.
N
'
'
-
,
.
,
.
,
-
,
_
m
,
,
'
_
,
g;.
'+w
~
...
.
-
.
g
- SMP G23, '.'UnitL 2 Contro1' Board Modification ~84-292
- and Reactor Trip'
-
~
' Breaker-Modification Addendum.8-292-0, Reactor Trip Breaker-
'
'
'
s,
s Pushbutton and' Breaker Position Indicator Installations and Shunt W
. Trip; Test Jack: Installation"
'
'
>
%
..
>.
.
,
" 'iieat'er Drain Tank Valve 2-CV-2532A (Repair of' Valve)
'
'
'
~
~
-
JDiesellGEneratorLGlycol-CoolerHX558:(Cleaning,Inspectionand.
.'. -
Replacement;of the Tubes)
-
m;
.
'I
' Red Instrument Bu's" Inverter 10YO1;(Perturbation.on Red Bus Causing 'a
'
'
> Turbine Runback)L '
<Theireview'ofthe.abovemaintenance'activitiesincludedinterviewswith-L
' maintenance personnel and supervisors',' review of.the completed work-
_.
-
- packages (to' ensure that_ proper documentation'of work and spare parts!were-
Y 1 complete'-and in accordance with procedures, and that an' effective-
}{,
cpreventative maintenance program is(in, place..
..-
.
..
',9lt 10reanization and Administration (36700)-
'
,w.; a e..
.
.
.
...
-
.
,
E
}The inspector ascertained that; changes:madef to the licensee's onsite :
- organizatiori were -in conformance with.'the requirements 'of 'the Technical
,
=
'
Specifications and that,the. licensee's.use of overtime'was11n conformance
- lwith regulatory; requirements.: The' inspection' included vertfication that
,:
s Lthe;11censee's onsite organization is functioning ~as described in the-
,
-
- TechnicaliSpecifications, that personne1' qualification levels are in
'
conformance with applicable codestor' standards, that lines-of: authority-
,
Land responsibility are in'conformance with Technical Specifications and
,
2that deviations from maximum overtime limits were authorized in accordance
,
n,,,
'with(procedures..
~10. :IE Bulletin Followup (92701);
,
~
t.
The inspector verified that'for the below listed bulletin no licensee-
' action 1was required.L However, the bulletin'was routed to cognizant
~.
,
' individuals'for information.
,w
. IEB 85 02 Undervoltage Trip Attachments-of Westinghouse DB-50 Type-
-
.
.
.
,
a Reactor Trip Breakers-
.
11.; Licensee' Event' Reports Followup l(92700)
'
'
,
-
Through direct observations, discessions with licensee' personnel, and-V.
~
review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine c that reportabili y requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective-
.actionfwas accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had-
.been. accomplished in accordance with technical specifications.
^
d
!266/85006~
k lear Instrumentation Tu-bine Runback I'
266/85007
' Mear Instrumentation TurTint Runback
-
"
-'
1266/85008
. Momentary Loss.of Containeeit Integrity
.
266/85009 Nuclear Instrumentation Turbine Runback-
<301/85003-Degradation of Steam Generator Tubes
,s
'
,
-
i
,
<
J
- - -
.
.,
-
by,
.
.
p3 ;.
~
,
..., ;
'
.
,
_ _
112.
Exit' Interview-(30703)
-
,The inspectors met with licensee. representatives (denoted in. Paragraph 1)
-throughout the inspection period and at the conclusion-of the inspection period to summarize'the scope and. findings of the inspection l activities.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' comments. The inspectors also
-
discussed.the-likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed.by the: inspectors during the
~
,
inspection.
The licensee did not, identify any such documents / processes
_astproprietary..
.
.
-s h
I
_-
t
-
i
't
4 s
. 4_
w
.
8
-
y
.lNL