IR 05000266/1989001
| ML20247H503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1989 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247H499 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-89-01, 50-266-89-1, 50-301-89-01, 50-301-89-1, NUDOCS 8907310045 | |
| Download: ML20247H503 (14) | |
Text
, _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ -.
-. -. - -
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ __ __
. _ _ _ _
_ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
' j ~,
- *,..
-.
Enclosure 1
-
SALP 7 APPENDIX SALP BOARD REPORT
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
REGION III
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE 50-266/89001; 50-301/89001 Inspection Report Nos.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company Name of Licensee Point Beach Nuclear Plant Name of Facility
.
October 1, 1987 through March 31, 1989
'
Assessment Period i
!-
i 8907310045 890724 PDR ADOCK 05000266
}
Q PDC
,
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
- - _ - - - _ -
. - _ _ _ -
y..... M. -
r.
.-
,
.
Enclosure 1
Point Beanh Nuclear Plant A.
Summary of Metting with 'clisconsin Electric Power Company on June 27, 1989 The findings ar.d conclusions of-the SALP Board are documented in Reports No. 50-266/89001; No. 50-301/89001 and were discussed with-the licensee on June 27. 1989, at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
-While the meeting was primarily a discussion between the licensee and NRC, it was open to members of the public as observers.
,
.
The following licensee and NRC personnel were in attendance, as well as the noted observers.
Wisconsin Elect'ric' Power Company C. W. Fay, Vice President, Nuclear Power R. W. Britt, Chairman of thc Board J. J. Zach,. Plant Manager G. J. Maxfield, General Superintendent, Operations T. J. Koehler', General Superintendent, Maintenance G. M. Krieser, General Superintendent, Quality Assurance R. Newton, General-Superintendent, Nuclear Systems Engineering and Analysis Section E. J. Lipke, General Superintendent W. J. Herrman, Superintendent, Maintenance D. F. Johr, son, Superintendent, Health Physics C. Meyer, Corp 0 rate Security Officer J. E. Knorr, Regalatory Engineer C. W. Krause, Licensing Engineer Wisconsin Energy Corporation C. S. McNeer, Chairman of the Board Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator E. G. Greenman, Director, Div Dion of Reactor Projects (DRP)
i J. N. Hannon, Director, Project Directorette III-3, Office of Nuclear
'
Reactor Regulations (NRR)
R. W. DeFayette, Section Chief, DRP, Region III C. L. Vanderniet, Senior Resident Inspector, Point Beach R. L. Nelson, Senior Resident Inspector, Kewaunee L. E. Kokajko, Backup Project Manager, NRR R. J. Leemon, Resident Inspector, Point Beach J. S. Stewart, Resident Inspector, Kewaunee Members of the Public J. Blazei l
j
_ _ - _ - - - - _ _
_
j
_
_.
. _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
q S..
,.
-
..
- .
,
.
.
.
'
B.
Coments Received from Licensee Wisconsin Electric Power Company respo":se dated July 17, 1989, to the
.
Point Beach Nuclear Plant SALP 7 Board Report included several coments
that have resulted in revising the Final SALP Report. These Changes are listed in Enclosure (2), Errata sheet, and corrected pages are included as Enclosure (3).
Replace the pages in error listed in Enclosure (2) with the corrected pages attached in Enclosure (3) into your copy of the SALP Board Report.
~C.
Regional Administrator's Conclusions Based on Consideration of Licensee Toments -
I have concluded that the overall ratings in the affected areas have not changed.
.
- _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
__
_ _ -. - - _____-_ _ _ _ _
j.... *
.
,,,
w..
.
'
'
'
Enclosure 2
'
ERRATA SHEET
'
PAGE LINE NOW READS SHOULD READ-
'9
... one Severity
... one Severity Level violation Level V violation Basis:
Classification of violation was inadvertently omitted,
35-36
... qualified
... qualified i
I radiological control radiological control i
oprators (RCOs).
operators (RCOs)/
health physics technologist.
Basis: Licensee changed job title.
44
... spent fuel rod
... spent fuel drop accident assembly drop accident Basis: A fuel assembly was dropped, not a fuel rod.
20
... April 8-
... April 9-May 8, 1988 May 20, 1988 Basis:
Incorrect dates of outage.
33
... October 13,
... October 3, Basis:
Incorrect dates of outage.
34
... November 19,
... November 18, Basis:
Incorrect dates of outage.
10
... November 19,
... November 18, Basis:
Incorrect dates of outage.
25-26-27
... Activities
... Activities included installation included...
of ATWS system, system mitigation,...
I
'
Basis: ATWS system not installed.
29 During On November 23...
November 23-26,...
,
Basis: Testing completed on November 23.
5 4 (2.0%)
4 (20.0%)
Basis: During SALP 6, 20% of the LERs were design problems.
i i
-_
._ __
l.-
'
,-
Pct. g e h
kr or
'
-
!
lC service water building.
Two noticeable improvements in the plant were repainting and color coding of the turbine building and the initiation of an extensive labeling program. The fire protection program is excellent and responses to fire drills are immediate. Typically, more than the minimum number of personnel respond to these drills for training purposes, and the drills are well critiqued.
oin; Unit I had a reactor availability of 89.4% during lei year 1988, and Unit 2 had a reactor availability of
%,
of which are considerably higher than the industry ave ge is is indicative of good maintenance work and few perso e errors by operations personnel.
2.
Perform te inq The licens
's performance is rated Category 2 with an improving t nd in this area. The licensee's performance was rated Cat ory e previous assessment period.
&
3.
Recommendations None.
%
B.
Radiological Controls 1.
Analysis Evaluation of this function 1 ar as based on the results of seven routine inspections' y onal inspectors and observations by the resident spe ors.
Enforcement history improved dur g this assessment period; only one Severity Level IV violation wa issued ared with one Severity Level III violation, two S eri e 1 IV violations, and one Severity Level violation dur g previous assessment period. The violation, which involve pr
.atic weakness regarding failure to identify and post gh iation areas (HRAs), was satisfactorily corrected.
There were no LERs ate.ributed to this funct nal a.
Staffing and qualifications was good.
Staff e eri as improved significantly as result of low staff t never. As
a result of technical staff additions and trainin completion,
'
the licensee now covers all shifts with qualified diological control operators (RCOs). The addition of the Stpe 'ntendent-
,
Health Physics (HP), a new position established in re conse to previous NRC concerns, during the latter part of the p vious assessment period has improved technical and administrate've direction of the HP program.
HP training was strengthened for RCOs and, plant and contractor staff.
-
)
_ _ _ _ _ _
m.
,..
i
'
>.
l
"
service water building. Two noticeable improvements in the plant were repainting and color coding of the turbine building and the initiation of an extensive labeling program. The fire
protection program is excellent and responses to fire drills
'
are immediate. Typically, more than the minimum number of personnel respond to these drills for trairing purposes, and the drills are well critiqued.
i Point Beach Unit I had a reactor availability of 89.4% during
,
calendar year 1988, aid Unit 2 had a reactor availability of
,
87.7%, both of which are considerably higher than the industry
average. This is indicative of good maintenance work and few i
personnel errors by operations personnel.
-
2.
Performance Rating
,
The licensee's performance is rated Category 2 with an improving trend in this area. The licensee's performance was rated Category 2 in the previous assessment period.
3.
Recommendations None.
B.
Radiological Controls 1.
Analysis
Evaluation of this functional area was based on the results of seven routine inspections by regional inspectors and
!
. observations by the resident inspoctors.
Enforcement history improved during this assessment period; only one Severity Level IV violation was issued compared with one Severity Level III violation, two Severity Level IV violations, and one Severity Level V violation during the previous assessment period. The violation, which involved a programmatic weakness regarding failure to identify and post high radiation areas (HRAs), was satisfactorily corrected.
There were no LERs attributed to this functional area.
Staffing and qualifications was good. Staff experience has improved significantly as result of low staff turnover. As a result of technical staff additions and training completion, the licensee now covers all shifts with qualified radiological control operators (RCOs)/ health physics technologist
'he additionoftheSuperintendent-HealthPhysics(HP), anew l
position established in response to previous NRC concerns, during the latter part of the previous assessment period has
!
improved technical and administrative direction of the HP program, HP training was strengthened for RCOs and, plant and contractor staff, l
L
.
L-___-__-_=____-__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
- ;.,' ',..
pne
- n
&ror
-
'3.
Recommendations
.;.
None.
G.
Safety Assessment / Quality Verification 1.
Analysis This new functional area and consequently was not rated i p vi s SALPs. Evaluation of this functional area was b e on routine inspections performed by residen.t and re al inspectors and input from the NRR licensing project anag There were no violations or LERs attributed to t s
'onal area during this assessment period.
Mana me olvement in ensuring quality was mixed. The onsite and o si review committees handle issues in an excellent manner.
Managem t initiated several efforts to improve the quality of modifica ons and design basis documentation and verification.
These inci ed a self-initiated safety system functional
,
inspection SFI) of t tesel generator system, an audit of the residual eat stem, and a special audit of 10 CFR 50.59 s et u ions. Management also became involved after allegation were r ceived from local law enforcement agencies involvin the of drugs by several licensee employees.
The licensee's iny tigati confirmed some of the allegations and resulted in the
.rmi n of four employees. The licensee accelerated the antic ated ansient without scram (ATWS)
modification installati 1%and acted early to address concerns arising from th ste g g tor tube rupture event at North Anna. The licens
's tais with regard to NRC Bulletin 88-02 were technic ly t ugh and timely. Generally, submittals demonstrated a cle r u'
standing of regulatory concerns and a conservative ap oa in technical problem resolution.
On the other hand, in some cases a itional s mittals were required before final resolution was chi y or example,
although the licensee's technical sta me ith NRC staff before submitting the application to up ade cer g fuel features and increase the core power pea ng iTE ors, the application did not contain sufficient in rmaW5n to perform an independent analysis to support the prop ed ment.
When apprised of the NRC's needs, the itcense re nded in a prompt and thorough manner, dedicating suffici t s % and resources to support the application.
In anoth caw,
licensee's submittal to increase the enrichment o fue permitted to be stored in the new fuel storage vau and the spent fuel pool was not complete. The effects o the increased enrichment on the spent fuel rod drop accid t was not addressed, and despite problems at Point Beach j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
.
i
- __
f
',..
'
..
3.-
Recommendations None.
'G.
Safety Assessment / Quality Verification 1.
Analysis This is a new functional area and consequently was not rated in previous SALPs. Evaluation of this functional area was based on routine inspections performed by resident and regional inspectors and input from the NRR licensing project manager. There were no violations or LERs attributed to this functional area during this assessment period.
Management involvement in ensuring quality was mixed. The onsite and offsite review conmittees handle issues in an excellent manner.
Management initiated several efforts to improve the quality of modifications and design ' oasis documentation and verification.
These included a self-initiated safety system functional inspection (SSFI) of the diesel generator system, an audit of the residual heat removal system, and a special audit of 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations. Management also became involved after allegations were received from local law enforcement agencies involving the use of drugs by several licensee employees.
The licensee's investigation confirmed some of the allegations and resulted in the termination of four employees. The licensee accelerated the anticipated transient without scram (ATWS)
modification installation issue and acted early to address concerns arising from the steam generator tube rupture event at North Anna. The licensee's submittals with regard to NRC Bulletin 88-02 were technically thorough and timely. Generally, submittals demonstrated a clear understanding of regulatory concerns and a conservative approach in technical problem resolution.
On the other hand, in some cases additional submittals were required before final resolution was achieved.
For example, altnough the licensee's technical staff met with NRC staff before submitting the application to upgrade certain fuel features and increase the core power peaking factors, the
application did not contain sufficient information to perform i
an independent analysis to support the proposed amendment.
When apprised of the NRC's needs, the licensee responded in a prompt and thorough manner, dedicating sufficient staff and resources to support the application.
In another case, the licensee's submittal to increase the enrichment of fuel permitted to be stored in the new fuel storage vault and the spent fuel pool was not complete. The effects of the increased enrichment on the spent fuel assembly drop accident was not addressed, and despite problems at Point Beach
-- _ _ _ - -
'
- ,,,
',...-
.
,
f Q 9 2.
5n fW I
V.
SUPPORTING DATA AND SUMMARIES
-
t A.
Licensee Activities 1.
Unit 1 Point Beach Unit I began the assessment period operating at routine power levels up to 100%. On April 9, 1988, the unit was shutdown for its annual refueling and maintenance outag er which Unit 1 operated routinely and ended the asses e period with no major reactor outages or ant load reductions.
Uni
rienced two engineered safety feature (ESF)
actu n including a safety injection, and one reactor trip ict urred above 15% power as a result of equipment failure.
Significan outages and events that occurred during the
,
assessment 'riod are summarized be'Icm.
Significant Ou ges ahnts a.
On' November
, Unit I was shut down to repair a failed valve ntro er that was causing low pressure in the pressuri e.
b.
During April 8-Ma 8,h, Unit I was shutdown for its annual refueling an mai nance outage. Major activities included e
year inspection of main electrical generator, ra f 9-repairs, minor modifications to steam
.ne
.
s (SGs), and SG eddy current testing c.
On May 21, 1988, Unit I was n off line for turbine overspeed testing.
d.
February 18, 1989, Unit I comme ed n core life operations.
2.
Unit 2 Point Beach Unit 2 began the assessment per d k ating at reduced power levels as it prepared for its c c%e 13 refueling and maintenance outage, which began.
-t 13, 1987. The unit resumed operations on November
nd
,
operated a low power levels for fuel conditioning n secondary water chemistry cleaning. The unit oper ed routinely until it began its scheduled cycle 14 refu ling outage on October 8, 1988. Unit 2 ended the assessme period with no major outages or significant load reduct'ons.
\\
q i
_ _ _
_ _ - _ _
__. _
-_--
--
A sj..-
,,,
".
V.
SUPPORTING DATA AND SUMMARIES
A.
Licensee Activities j
.
1..
. Unit l'
-l Point Beach. Unit 1 began the assessment period operating at routine power levels up to 100%. On April 9,1988, the unit
'
was shutdown for its annual refueling and maintenance.
outage, after which Unit 1 operated routinely and ended the assessment period with_ no major reactor outages or significant load reductions.
Unit 1 experienced two engineered safety feature (ESF)
actuations-including a safety injection, and one reactor trip which occurred above 15%. power M a result of equipmt nt failure.
Significant outages and events that occurred during the assessment period are summarized below.
Significant Outages and Events a.
On November 21, 1987, Unit I was shut down to repair a failed valve controller that was causing low pressure in the pressurizer.
b.
During April 9-May 20,1988 Unit I was shutdown for its.
annual refueling and maintenance outage. Major activities included the five year inspection of main electrical. generator, transformer repairs, minor modifications to steam generators (SGs), and SG eddy current testing c.
On May 21, 1988, Unit I was taken off line for turbine overspeed testing.
d.
February 18, 1989, Unit I commenced end-of-core life operations.
2.
Unit 2 l
Point Beach Unit 2 began the assessment period operating at L
reduced power levels as it prepared for its cycle 13 refueling and maintenance outage, which began October 3, l
1987. The unit resumed operations on November 18,,1987, and operated a low power levels for fuel conditioning and secondary water chemistry cleaning. The unit operated routinely until it began its scheduled cycle 14 refueling outage on October 8, 1988. Unit 2 ended the assessment period with no major outages or significant load reductions.
,
_ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ -.
-
_
',,.
.,.
.
f gt. 9 e.
En
{W0r
'
Unit 2 experienced seven ESF actuations including two safety
..
injections, and three reactor trips. One reactor trip occurred when operating above 15% power, one occurred below 15% power, and one occurred with no rod movement. Two trips were the result of equipment failures and one caused by personnel error.
Signific outages and events that occurred during the ssessm riod are summarized below.
Si_ i it Outages and Events rhetober3throughNovember 19, 1987, Unit 2 a.
wa Mu n for its scheduled cycle 13 refueling and mai e
outage. Outage activities included repairs of s lated instrumentation, motor inspection and seal r acement for the ' A' reactor coolant pump,
'
modific + ions of the reactor coolant loop bypass manifold and plugging and sleeving of SG tubes.
.
b.
On November 8, 19 t 2 shut down to perform post outage turbin t nd overspeed testing.
c.
On December 19, 987 A it 2 was shut down to repair l
l potential transfo er anD to balance the main turbine.
d.
During April 10-11,
iit 2 was taken off line to perform repairs /repla.me f the main feed pump discharge valve.
e.
Durin1' October 7-November 72 Unit 2 was shut down for its annual refuel g aintenance outage.
Activities included installa i ATWS system, system litigations, eddy current tes n for SG sleeving of SG, core reload, overhaul of h1 h pressure turbine.
f.
During Hovember 23-26, 1988, Unit was down for overspeed trip testing of the turb e.
-
B.
Inspection Activiti g Thirty-four inspection reports are discussed in th r
(October 1, 1987, through March 31,1989) and are 1 t
Paragraph 1 of this Section, Inspection Data. Table the violations per functional area and severity levels.
S n nt inspection activities are listed in Paragraph 2 of this e ion Special Inspection Summary.
- _ _ _ _ _ -.
- - -
_ _ _ - _ _ _
l: -
,c 1. -
,
_
,
-
Unit 2 experienced.seven ESF actuations including two safety injections,.and three reactor trips, One reactor trip occurred when operating above 15% power, one occurred below 15% power, and one occurred with no rod movement. Two trips were the result of equipment failures and one caused by personnel error.
Significant outages and events that occurred during the assessment period are summarized below.
Significant Outages and Events a.
During October 3 the ugh November 18, 1987, Unit 2 was shut down for its scheduled cycle 13 refueling and maintenance outage. Outage activities included repairs of safety-related instrumentation, motor inspection and seal replacement for the 'A' reactor coolant pump, modifications of the reactor coolant loop bypass manifolds, and plugging and sleeving of SG tubes.
b.
On November 18, 1987, Unit 2 shut down to perform post outage turbine torsional and overspeed testing.
c.
On December 19,1987, Unit 2 was shut down to repair potential transformer and to balance the main turbine, d.
During April 10-11,1988, Unit 2 was taken off line to
. perform repairs / replacement of the main feed pump discharge valve, e.
During October 7-November 22, 1988, Unit 2 was shut.
down for its annual refueling and maintenance outage.
Activities included eddy current testing for SG sleeving of SG, core reload, overhaul of high pressure turbine, f.
On November 23,1988, Unit 2 was shut down for overspeed trip testing of the turbine.
B.
Inspection Activities
,
Thirty-four inspection reports are discussed in this report (October 1,1987, through March 31,1989) and are listed in
Paragraph 1 of this Section, Inspection Data. Table 1 lists the violations per functional area and severity levels. Significant inspection activities are listed in Paragraph 2 of this section, Special Inspection Summary.
,
- - _ _ _ _ _
- _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - _ - _ _
'.. -
-
-
.
Pa.g e
- n bror
^* '
'
.
Table 3
"
.
(18-M0)
(18-MO)
Caut,e Areas SALP 6 SALP 7 P sonnel Errors 5 (25.0%)
3 (16.7%)
Des n Problems 4 ( 2.0%)
3 (16.7%)
Exte al Causes 0 ( 0.0%)
0 ( 0.0%)
!
l Proced e Inadequacies 1 ( 5.0%)
4 (22.2%)
Equipme / Component 5 (25.0%)
8 (44.4%)
,
'
Other/Unk wn 5 (25.0%)
0 (. 0.0%)
TOTALS
18 FREQUENC (EERs/MO)
1.1 1.0 NOTE:
The above R
mation was derived from a review of L-formed by NRC Resident staff and may not c pletely coincide with the licensee's cause code ass nments.
-
.
-
A 9Xv-r i
e
- )<
.
l
_ _ _ - ___ - _
_
^
.
,
j : -[ i ',, e-
'
,:.
'
Table 3 (18-M0)
(18-M0)
Capse Areas-SALP 6'
SALP 7 Personne1~ Errors 5(25.0%)
3 (16.7%)-
Design Problems 4 (20.0%
3 16.7%
External.Causes 0 ( 0.0%
0.0%
Procedure Inadequacies-1 ( 5.0%
4~ 22.2%
Equipment / Component-5(25.0%)
8(44.4%)
Other/ Unknown-5 (25.0%)
0 ( 0.0%)
18 TOTALS
.
1.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (LERs/MO)-
NOTE:
Th'e above LER information was derived from a review of LER's performed by NRC Resident staff and may not. completely coincide with the licensee's cause code assignments.
I i
-
~
!
!
l
- - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _