IR 05000266/1988015

Safety Insp Repts 50-266/88-15 & 50-301/88-13 on 880606 & 23.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on IE Bulletin 79-14

ML20150B500
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	07/06/1988
From:	Danielson D, James Gavula NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20150B480	List: IR 05000266/1988015 ML20150B476
References
50-266-88-15, 50-301-88-13, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8807120046
Download: ML20150B500 (3)

Text

- . . . . .- .. .

.

.

. .

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

REGION III

Reports No. 50-266/88015(DRS);50-301/88013(DRS)

Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licen3ee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53203 Facility Name: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, Wisconsin U.S. NRC, Region III, Glen Ellyn, Illinois Inspection Conducted: June 6,1988, at Region III June 23, 1988, at Point Beach b0 W Inspector: V. A. Gavula 7!6!PP Date I dw Apprnved -

D. nielson,.C Materials and Processes Section 7!6 ff'

Ete Inspection Summary Inspection on June 6 and 23, 1988 (Reports No. 50-266/88015(DRS);

50-301/88013(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Special safety inspection of licensee action on IE

,

'

Bulletin 79-14 (92703).

Results: No violations or deviations were identifie l Although previous inspections identified potential weaknesses in the l

original 79-14 program, subsequent reviews have not identified.any '

additional discrepancies. Further work-will be required to determine the  !

extent of any previous programmatic problem The licensee's reaction to the potential weaknesses was aggressive and indicated a strong desire to imediately address and resolve this issu %u66 PDR ADOCK OSOOO G PNU l

I

_._--__-_-_-_____-.___-_~______ _ . _ _ _ _ . - - _ __

\

,

.

. .

. .

..

DETAILS Persons Contacted Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCo)

• J. Zach, Plant Manager G. Frieling, Engineering Manager

• S. Cartwright, Senior Project Engineer, Mechanical

• B. Lunde, Specialist III

• M. Woznicki, Engineer III

• Denotes those attending the exit meeting on-June 23, 198 . Licensee Action on IE Bulletins (IEB) (0 pen) IEB 79-14 (266/79014-BB; 301/79014-88; 266/79014-B1; 301/79014-B1; 266/79014-B2; 301/79014-82; 266/79014-83; .

301/79014-B3): Seismic Analysis For As-built Safety Related Piping System In response to the concerns identified during the previous inspection (see NRC Inspection Report No. 50-282/88011;50-301/88010),

licensee representatives met with the NRC inspector to discuss the explanation and resolution of the observed piping as-built discrepancies. After reviewing all available. documentation for the systems in question, the licensee concluded the following:

(1) The dimensions documented by the walkdown team were generally accurate; however the infonnation was apparently not appropriately transferred to the isometric drawings used in subsequent analyse (2) The analytical models for each subsystem were consistent with the isometric drawing '

(3) Although an explanation as to how some discrepancies occurred could be developed from the information reviewed, documentation as to the reason for the discrepancy or that the discrepancy was reviewed and reconciled by Bechtel could not be found in all case (4) A number of discrepancies apparently resulted purely from miscommunication or human erro The impact of the previously observed discrepancies was evaluated by the licensee through the use of reanalysis or documented engineering judgement. None of these discrepancies resulted in piping or pipe '

support stresses in excess of safety analysis allowable l

.

. .

. .

.

In an effort to detennine the prevalence of these types of discrepancies in other IEB 79-14 work, the liu nee conmitted to perform additional walkdowns. In correspMdence from C. W. Fay (WEPCo) to A. B. Davis (NRC - RIII) dated June 13, 1988, a total of seven additional subsystems were proposed for future walkdown verification. Two subsystems had already been inspected prior to the submittal of this connitment and were found to "more accurately reflect the as-built configuration of the piping syrtems." Three subsystems inside Unit 2 containment will be inspected during the next refueling outag Two subsystems in the auxiliary building were verified during the week of June 20, 198 The NRC inspector accompanied the walkdown teams during the verification of Isometric P-119, "Safety Injection from Pumps 15A and B to Containment Penetration P-13 and 27." The team consisted of two piping stress analysts and a data taker. All piping was readily accessible except for very minor runs through wall penetrations. All pertinent seismic analysis information was verified during the walkdown The results of this effort indicated that dimensionally the as-built piping configuration conformed very closely to the isometric information. The locations, types and existence of supports conformed to the isometric information also. Minor concerns were noted by the NRC inspector relative to excessive gaps in supports S-845 and S-848. Additional reviews of the original walkdown packages by the licensee will evaluate ^he significance of this informati o Based on the addiHonal work performed to date, the NRC inspector tends to support tne licensee's statement that "the overall IEB 79-14 program was not subject to generic problems." However, additional walkdowns will be required to give assurances that the :ignificant deficiencies found on the Service Water system are in fact isolated instances. Since it appears that a programmatic problem did not exist, it may be appropriate to investigate the work performed by the same walkdown team or work done during the same time perio This should determine if the Service Water as-built deficiencies are isolated incidences. Pending the completion of the additional walkdowns and reviews, this item will remain ope . Exit Interview l

The Region III inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted i in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 23, 198 l The inspector sunnarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The i licensee representatives acknowledged this information. The inspector l also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspectio The licensee representatives did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar