IR 05000266/1990004
| ML20012D996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1990 |
| From: | Jackiw I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012D995 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-90-04, 50-266-90-4, 50-301-90-04, 50-301-90-4, NUDOCS 9003290197 | |
| Download: ML20012D996 (12) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:4f} l > + , . u .. 1 .. j - . ,. -
- .
.. ' - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . . .
REGION III
2' Reports No.- 50-266/90004(DRP); 50-301/90004(DRP) , Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Company ! 231 West Michigan ( -Milwaukee, WI 53201 Facility Name: Point Beach Units 1 and 2
i Inspection At: -Two Rivers, Wisconsin ' Dates: January 20 through February 28, 1990
i Inspectors: C. L. Vanderniet > J. Gadzala , /'
, -): \\ w /l.is+ ? ~ /N. c:# ,, . ~/ Approved By: I.- ekiw, hief ReactorProjectsSection3A Date - L , - Inspection Sumiary , Inspection from January 20 through February 28,.1990 (Reports No. En-266/90004(DRP); No. 50-301/90004(DRP)) lAreaIinspected:. Routine, unannounced inspection by resident inspectors of outstanding items;- operational safety; radiological controls; maintenance ' ' and surveillance; emergency preparedness; security; engineering and technical , . support;.and safety assessment / quality verification.
Results: During this inspection period, both units operated at full power with only requested load following power reductions.
A pilot' Reliability Centered Maintenance program has been implemented at the plant to evaluate-the existing preventative maintenance activities.
Issues addreesed in this '- inspection report include: Broken main feedwater (MFW) piping support- . Paragraph 3.e.); Waste cask shipment, (Paragraph 4.a.); Personnel contamination, (-(Paragraph 4.b.); Reliability centered maintenance, (Paragraph 5.b.); Emergency .
Preparedness.(EP) Exercise, (Paragraph 6.a.); Self-evaluation of EP exercise, (Paragraph 6.b.); Safeguards system degradation, (Paragraph 7.a.); and Manager's supervisory staff meeting, (Paragraph 9 b.). New issue that remains unresolved: ' Improperly stored quality assurance (QA) circuit breakers (Paragraph 9.a.). ! L 9003290197 900320 ' PDR ADOCK 05000266 ! o PDC L .
) ]C ~ '
3: >- N.,, ] L , , N V 1, p.
% a ,;.Q y& Q4.W" 9f ' ' ' ' g;m q . h ' h. ^ * ~ h / DETAILS '
, ' i '-
- yy
,. . , , G., xr .. Persons Cont'actedd(30703, 30702).
b, w F f,; D 1 3.' . / s '? "- ~. ... . .- " ,
, , , X
- JLLJ.~-Zach,LPlantLManager
. ., _. - ' ' , ,g T. J. Koehler,: General Superintendent,sMaintenance e .; f
- Gb J. Maxfield,' General Superintendent, Operations
"aj . ^ - + . , , N.- J. C. _ Reisenbuechler,, Superintendent, Operations ,
, , ,' ', '. W.,'J.'Herrman;. Superintendent, Maintenance y> w e w y ,. J N. %Hoefert, Superintendent, Instrument & Controls ' gM Rc JT Bruno,. Superintendent, Technical Services ' "l T.i L. - Fredrichs, Superintendent,. Chemistry - t ob f '
i f (N "? ' p i' l'.J. J. Bevelacqua,4 Superintendent, Health Physics, ' m
"P4C.7Zyduck, Superintendent, Training - ,, ' q' :.
- D. R. Stevens',1 Nuclear Specialist
,, o
- F. A.i Flentje. Administrative = Specialist
. . - . f .. .0ther licensee employees were' also contacted including members!of the , '.a technical and engineering staffs, and reactor and auxiliary operators.
' ~
- ,
. ' 'f +,:bDenotes.the personnel attending the management exit interview for ~ . s summation of preliminary findings.
- o
- U.'
LMcensee~ Action onLPrevious Inspection Findings (92702)'(92701)
, ,# ~A
1 'a.. s (Closed) 0)en4 Item (266/89019-01; 301/89018-01): Lack of Emergency ' , '
' Operating.>rocedures (EOP) Control.
,j , , ', . '1 t, The E0P control program'at Point Beach was not considered-fully
g y, - adequate-in:that there was no> formally implemented validation and
verificationprogramtoassurethecontinued.adequacyoftheEOPs.
a ,
Point' Beach has since written and issued procedure PBNP.4.26, " J EOP - Validation.'- This procedure provides: for' a systematic l; Jevaluation of' procedure changes to determine their useability . ' ' ' - -and operational correctness.
The inspector reviewed the procedure,t ' discussed it with the licensee and had no concerns.
This item is
closed.
- , , . . b.~ '(Closed) Open Item (266/89019-03; 301/89018-03): Potential- '
Transition Problem From E0P-0.
'
. . . n .
- a Due to.th.e existing sequencing of immediate' action steps in E0P-0, a.
M potential' appeared for transitioning out.of this procedure on a loss: ' '
of secondary heat sink before completion"of the immediate actions.
> ~ Under certain conditions,.the operator would not return to E0P-0 to ' complete all the~immediate action steps.
, ~ 'The licensee has since revised E0P-0 to reduce the number of ' ' o
- immediate action steps and to resequence the transition point for
! s- ?L , 3n
, ' ^ . 1l
q qry -
Tyl('%, 6 ' }" v, N '
- [
y k
- .
, ,a
p >> -. . . , , p y , n g4 , ll ~ ^[ : ;- , h > rO a' loss--of secondary heat sink after the final immediate action.
The: - f, inspector reviewed the procedure, discussed it with the licensee and - . ' ? had no'further concerns. :This item.is closed, ' c.
(Closed) Violation-(266/89030-04): Inadvertent Auxiliary Feedwater. (AFW) Flow Transmitter Isolation.
, On November 20, 1989, the licensee discovered that two Unit l'AFW j flow transmitters were isolated for 3 days-in violation of Technical Specification requirements.
The cause was attributed both to operator
' ' .. error and a procedural-inadequacy.
The transmitters were returned to ' , p service shortly after they were found isolated.
+ r . Wisconsin Electric responded to the violation and committed to-a' course of corrective action.
A change-to the fault . RP-6A, ' Steam Generator: Crevice Flush (Vacuum Mode),'y procedure,
, was initiated - A-to correct the stated location of the AFW flow transmitters.
The responsible technician was counseled regarding verifying unit ' identifiers when isolating-equipment, and the site training group is e to evaluate the need for-revised training concerning this incident.
- The inspector reviewed and evaluated the. licensee's corrective actions and had no further concerns.
This item is closed.
- ,
_ Failure of 2X01 Main . , 'd.
(1:losed) Open Item (301/89006-05): <
Transformer C Phase.
. On March 29, 1989, Unit 2 tripped due to the. failure of the 2X01 i , main transformer C phase.
The transformer fault wastbelieved to .. ' ' " ' .g ' be caused by the water spray down resulting from an inadvertent
- -
' Y initiation of the deluge fire protection. system during maintenance.-
. . ,[The-main transformer _ C phase experienced a flashover to ground at.
' ' - - m.
. mthe time of-the water spray initiation.
The transformer is normally . 3L j '),t q _ l exposed to the elements and. deluge system actuations have. occurred t ' previously without ever resulting in flashovers.
Tests of the 'd ' D s < transformer by the licensee did not conclusively identify the- ' . t , s , 8 o cause of the flashover. The. transformer bushing was inspected for
7 defects but none were found.
Nevertheless, the bushing was replaced.
M l-The licensee believes that the flashover occurred due to a unique ,
combination of conditions which may have existed at the time of the - , deluge actuation incl _uding unusually high air ionization and possible metallic contamination of the stagnant water in the deluge system.
, f The inspectorLdiscussed this event with the licensee and reviewed
.
their analysi.s.
No further concerns were identified.
This item is closed, e.
(Closed) Violation (301/89030-03): Inadequate Firewatch.
On November 16, 1989, personnel were performing hot work to remove , a circular staircase in the Unit 2 containment area with no fire extinguisher present with the firewatch.
,
- , - -
[Q- - es4 - l KA3 Qu ' ' Q ' gym.f r >c . . . , y;7
e - , , " w.;k n g A a -.. , , < ' . \\ , , ,' .,. -. > N,4 t .t [j; f ( Wisconsin Electric responded to the violat' ion and; committed to a l ' course of action. -The response also stated that;a total of,five' p - u " Y L 'firewatches and three additional fire extinguishers were assigned 1 - ' c to cover this job.
The inspector apparently; interviewed a.firewatch. ' , . who had not been adequately briefed on his responsibilities nor did ' lc < _ , . he. volunteer information. regarding any other firewatches to the ~ inspector.
This firewatch, a contractor, was no longer available s ~ for further interview! The licensee has since increased the: random surveillance _ program performed by the fire protection and safety p -
E - coordinator on site.; ' The inspector reviewed the licensee's response' [ to:this event and was satisfied.- This item is closed.
- 3.
Plant Operations (71707) (93702) - a.
Control' Room Observation (71707) '
- ,
i.
The. inspector observed control _ room operations, reviewed applicable .' logs and. conducted discussions;with control room operators-during the inspection period. 'During these discussions and observations, , , the inspectors ascertained that the-operators.were alert, cognizant . , . of current plant conditions, attentive to" changes in' those conditions. and took prompt' action when appropriate. The. inspectors noted that a high degree of professionalism attended all facets of control' room ~ operation and that both unit" control boards were generally in a ' black board' condition (no non-testing 1 annunciators in alarm > condition).. Several shift turnovers were also observed and appeared to be handled in a thorough manner.
~ ' , The inspectors performed walkdowns of the control boards to verify N ~ the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout secords
, and verified proper return to service of affected components.
b.
Facility Tours-(71707) i Tours of the Turbine Building,- Primary Auxiliary Building, and.
C ' Service Water Building were conducted to observe plant equipment ~
, conditions, including plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions, ' Y ', - status of-fire ~ protection equipment, fluid;1eaks and excessive ' v vibrations' and to' verify that maintenance requests-had been- - . initiated for equipment.in need of' main,tenance.
During facility tours, inspectors noticed very few signs of leakage
- < ._ ,
'V h and that most e'quipment appears to be in-good operating condition.
, $ Overall, plant cleanliness has. remained good.
, , E.
, > a g, c.
Unit-1J0perational Status (93702) O " d ' '
'< a , , Th'e unit continued to operate at full power with only requested M 4, i, , M - load ifollowing power reductions until February 21.
The unit then.
. 1
- commenced end of. life Tavg coastdown operations.
Power level was y tiowered about 1% per day for-the r'emaindar of the period with the ' unit at 92% on. February 28.
' , , t
1 / a l.
. m m - . m , -.
C - ,, , , ' , ,, ' .
- 4
< , N. ' t,y y .<; -j , , , v 3 :p . i m' - s f - -dL Unit ~-2 Operational Status-(93702) , - ,
' r
bag ,' ' , /~
- The.. unit continued to operate at full power during:this period with
! ~ " p~f, .one exception.1 On February'17, a turbine runback to 97% occurred ' g1 due to a faulty Electro _ Hydraulic Control- (EHC) circuit card.
The '
- <
,EHC; system'was operated in manual.for the remainder of!the' period S
0M'. and p(lans were made to replace the! faulty circuit card i' n March.
N gy
, y; c - < , . 'QLb J y, e.
Broken Main Feedwater (MFW) Pipina Support'(93702) ' gi W ?.. ., s .. . ,
t On February:22,:the licensee' informed"the, inspector that a support .!
- 4 y
, , a f 's, _ "for?the Unit 2 MFW discharge piping was found. broken.
The~ support . ' Tl ' cis located on a seismic Class'I.II section of piping running through NJ ' D , - ',Q theltbrbine building.. It.is approximately midway between the Main ,4% W ,e , feed Pump 1 discharge and the containment isolation valves.. The_- t
- ~
, ' ' , m ~ i ~j stitch; welds' attaching the support to the pipe f ailed. - The 1.icensee f, ~ removed;the broken support and installed a: temporary one.
A permanent gf < support is1 to~ be installed' during the:next _ Unit '2 refueling outage.
' U -[ j i " , ,A-justification for continued operations was prepared to document ' [ - -. " , the analysistof operating'in this-condition.
Theclicensee'has. , . . ' o initiated a work. request.to' inspect another support on this section . - t; G ' Lof piping;and'is considering inspecting similar supportson the l ~' ,
remainder of"the MFW system.
The' inspector lwill continue to follow ' ' y ' ,the licensee's progress on'thistissue- ' . , c' Mesereviews'andobservationswereconductedtoverifythatfacility.
,j& , operations:were conducted safely and in conformance with requirements ', established under technical specifications, federal ~ egulations,-and r ,4 administrative procedures.
,3, 4.
Radiological Controls (71707)
l>
- The inspectors routinely observed the licensee's radiological controls
, L and practices during normal plant tours and the~ inspection of. work ] "
- activities.
Inspection in this area includes' direct, observation-of > ' the,use of Radiation Work Permits-(RWPs); normal work practices inside .' contaminated barriers; maintenance 1of radiological barriers and signs; ," and health physics (HP) activities regarding monitoring, sampling, and' surveying.
The inspector also observed portions of the' radioactive waste systemicontrols_ associated with radwaste processing.
- ' ' i g , q,
"~ .From a radiological standpoint the plant is in good condition, allowing 1 access to most sections of the facility.
During tours of the facility, - e , the inspectors noted that_ barriers and signs also were in good. condition.
~ r sh ' ' - When minor discrepancies were identified, the HP staff quickly responded > . to correct any. problems.
. , , " a.
Waste Cask Shipment (71707) , , r, Point Beach prepared a radioactive ~ waste cask for shipment on Jariuary 19 for offsite disposal.
The. cask contained a burnable , - poison. assembly previously used in the reactor core.
The inspector l , [s
. L .i h% ' - i s
- -
V ,, c ' .; , ,
\\
verified that radiacs used for the preshipment. survey were in calibration and source checked, appropriate procedures were used for the survey, and documentation reflected the observed results.
No concerns were identified.
g b.
PersonnelContamination(71707) On. January 23, two Instrument and Control technicians were , contaminated while removing a blowdown evaporator conductivity cell.
During removal of the cell, the packing stuffing box came' free and caused three technicians to be sprayed with low level radioactive ! > water. A fourth technician was sprayed while isolating the leak.
All four technicians were subsequently frisked and two of them indicated no detectable contamination. The other two indicated , . between 200 and 500 cpm on the face, chin and neck. These two L were subsequently decontaminated and released. All four then
received whole body counts which showed no significant u)take.
, The inspector reviewed the licensee's documentation of' tie , incident and had no further concerns.
All other activities were conducted in a satisfactory manner during this inspection period.
'5.
.Maintengnce/SurveillanceObservation(62703)(61726) a.
Maintenance (62703) l Station maintenance activities of 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. thir, review: the limiting conditions,for operation were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior h to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved ' procedures and were inspected as applicable; functional testing l-and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components
or systems to service; quality control records were maintained; ' L activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and I: materials used were properly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and fire prevention controls were implemented.
l; Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs
l and to assure that priority is assigned to safety-related eouipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
l Portions of the following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed: Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Pump 2P10B oil change and valve - linkage repair.
,
g;' _ - y e s - , , b' c , .. G 7,. y4 y,
g LThe inspector notic'ed that the cowling over the RHR pump / motor P (' * , l coupling;had been removed..The cowling serves as a spray- ' r ' , D shield from any pump seal._ leakage.
This was~ brought to the
'?, licensee's attention for correction.
The-licensee replaced: ! the cowling but was unableito determine the reason-for its-F, removal.
i D . , A
D07. Battery Charger cleaning and inspection.
. n . , g, -b.
Reliability Centered Maintenance (62703) ! p+ Point Beach is evaluating the introduction :of a Reliability CenterSd j >
Maintenance (RCM) program at the plant.. Four-systems were chosen-- , ' , , b / for varying levels.of-review during-the= pilot program: safety - j injection,cinstrument air, water treatment, and the-gas turbine.
._,
. L"O The basis of the evaluation will be the cost and benefits of the 'd , '-
- program.
The RCM-program is a voluntary initiative undertaken byT < t,' ~ the plant. EThe process is intended to provide a technical basis ' . for the preventative maintenance (PM) program and to remain as a' M ' < , ,
- 0
,1 living~ document in support of that~ basis.
The program.will also
- l
' ,
provide.a basis-for-comparison and trending so that PM' effectiveness
6: - c
can be evaluated and adjusted as conditions change with plant age.
'f (%. , . f', The inspector will continue to follow developments in this area.
=J c.
Surveillance (61726) The inspector observed surveillance testing and verified that , , testing was performed 1in accordance with adequate procedures; i .that-test' instrumentation was calibrated; that limiting conditions - i .
- '
'for operation were met;c.that removal and restoration of the affected H
~ e components were accomplished; that test.results conformed with technical specifications and procedure requirements land were, . reviewed by personne1'other than the individual directing ~the , test; and that any deficiencies identified'during the testing <were >> y properly reviewed'and resolved by' appropriate management personnel.
q ' The inspector witnessed and reviewed the.followinglt'est activities:: ' ,
. ' ' '* ICP 2.3 (Revision 20) ReactorLProtection System Logic (Long)~ Near continuous announcements over the site public address-system. occasionally interfered with communications between [ the technician performing the test and the control operator.
The inspector-discussed this problem with the licensee.
, ICP 2.7 (Revision 17) Nuclear Instrumentation Power Range'
Channels N41, N42, N43, N44 , The technician performing the test used subjective judgement , to comply with a procedure step which required at least a 25 second wait before proceeding (i.e., no watch was used).
The inspector timed the technician with a watch and noted that the + , t
's ,
, .- ,- . pu
,., , . _.
. . , . c -!; . u o . . .. J.
technician generally waited about one minute'to comply with the m , [ A . procedure step. 'Such practice, however, creates the potential . fnr not waiting the required amount 011 time.
This weakness was uQp discussed with the' licensee for correction.
, . , '
TS 2 (Revision 27) Emergency Diesel Generator G02 Biweekly No discrepancies were noted during.the observance of any of'the a
. above tests.
, - 6; . Emergency Preparedness (EP) (71707) (40500)
~ An inspection of emergency preparedness activities was performed.to assess the licensee's.i.mplementation-of the site'etergency plan and implementing procedures.
The inspection included monthly review and ,1 itour of emergency facilities and equipment, discussions with licensee? staff, and-a review of selected procedures.
, y =l a.
EP Drill'(71707) ! Wisconsin Electric conducted-an EP drill on February 14 in- , _ preparation for their annual exercise in March.
The drill , scenario involved a series of cascading. events-resulting in a , failures of the reactor coolant system (RCS) boundary and-fuel.
^ ' - clad, and culminating in'an off site release through a-faulty 3., containment isolation valve.
The inspector monitored the drill-
M.
from the control room,.the Technical Support Center (TSC), the j ' " +
Operations. Support _ Center (OSC), and the Emergency Operations Facility;(EOF)."
3 LJ . The NRC operations center was informed of..the declaration of- , e an-alert"near the'end of the licensee's 30 minute goal for NRC H ' >' ' a
v < - : notification. !The NRC operations center cut short the notification-A ' ~ 4- . report when they' learned *it was a drill,. stating that they were ' ^ - > i ' ' involved in an EP exercise with Ferati and did.not wish to i
' t 'iparticipa_te. in any further drill reports from'_ Point Beach.- f' s ..~ y ' , , TSC operators' appeared'to have difficulty determining plant { l
conditions.
While the control room identified that containment j } humidity' was increasing as early as'0800, the TSC did not consider
s ~, . RCS integrity degraded until about 0930,.when a coolant inventory + C loss was confirmed. LTSC operators seemed_to be more concerned with , ._ s maintaining the status board updated than with-evaluating plant A
parameters. _ When the pressurizer suddenly-emptied,: no thought ] + was given to checking containment pressure (which_ increased).
The significance of an alarming. vent stack monitor was missed, j= ' - o delaying identification of the of f site release for about 15 minutes.
1This-~ weakness has been noted in previous EP drills.
?
q '
- -
i;j n , .
. ,
g 5: 7-. m, - q, y , y4 s.,. .n.
e , 3, - ,- , gp o h.n, 4, p e u . a , ,. , , yv q.
e ' ' -
-s kg& ?-.p + p j , ,. q$ 'f h _ Q t -1%>,' bl l h.
" . 4. ., i . 1 Y h>s -. . . Drill lco'ntrollers guided the scenario'along well.
There were~. . ~ M:N;f.;e % adehuate numbirs of monitors observing the exercisc.
The 'overall, t '
'i* %- s:., - conduct of the'extreise was good;and the results adequate.
This 4"i ".
,i', area will.be e' valuated in detail.during thel arch lEP exercise.
' M .
- q n
s <4 > , > ,. , , O O Tb.
Self Evalu'ation of EP Drill'(40500) , uf -
, ! &.- , , < y % w .
~ i .. , The inspect 6r, observed the licensee's' critique of their' February 14 ,,J,
,
- EP exercise. 'The following principal sweaknesses were discussed:- N
- ' ' , . Special OSC teams, which were, disp'atched totcombat the
., "
e l casualty. were hindered-in their. efforts att Health Physics - "1- - .. " ,o y - (HP). control stations.
Delays occurred 11n determining the; '
e " ', appropriate administrative dose levels that:the OSC1 team members: " , be allowed.~ :On'e technician who noticed an equipment casualty- ' . s was' prevented lfrom taking corrective action,1which would have: ' , mitigated the accident and significantly reduced offsite , , 'y releases, by a' Health Physicist who was concerned with the-technician's exposure.
> > . Passing.of' emergency classifications was weak.
Not all groups'
. . =were uniform 19' informed'of the setting of different emergency ' classifications,.
. OSC duties and responsibilities.are informal ~and-need to- } ' .* be proceduralized.
' ' , The EOF required-an inordinate amount of timeLto mo'bilize.
'
- Communications operators were ' unfamiliar with their equipment.
4t and with the procedures.
Problems were encounteredLwith some ~ q fof;the: communications equipment.. ,j y < ' Comments ma'de by th'e licensee regarding events monitored by the ,, ' inspector ~ agreed with the inspector'sfobservations.
Corrective ' actions were discussed,for-the weaknesses identified.
Information ' '. exchange,was' candid and well conducted.
n ' '.,.. All activities were. conducted in a satisfactory manner during this i inspection per.iod.
j il e 7.z Security (71707) , , , , e i The inspectors,; by direct observation and interview, verified that ~ s . j portions of the physical security plan were being implemented.in
accordance with the station securi_ty. plan.
The inspectors also continued A to. monitor compensatory measures that have been enacted by the licensee, s y . , ,
7 a.
Safeguardstsystem Degradation (71707) q m[1 J The licensee made a one hour notification to the NRC via the Emergency- ' , '
Notification: System 'regarding a safeguards system degradation.
The ' '
,
~h , ( ! '
+: > - q.'
. g l _<" 's.
':' an; % 9 . 'l
- .
,4 x j , ,
~ ~ , w y< y w . , . , s*.. -. m
-- . . .Q, - A-c > [ f &yj N l.
, g - j- < 9-c 3.. , W3 p f' a ' - t . , , , V l.p 9g L V . ~ ' ' ^' j . ,_ < W3
degradation concerned the' monitoring area boundary.
ALsearchwas.
,Q made of the affected area'and compensatory measures were taken. - % '
_
~
No unusual conditions' were found.
' ' - y w ', . . . .. , , A11' activities were conducted in a satisfactory nianner during this'. !
, , ,
inspection period.' ' s
~j o
[' ' 8.
' Engineering and Technical Support (71707) " e . . & The'inspectorevaluatedlicensee' engineeringabdtechnical'suppoht 's 7' , activities to determine,their involvement and ' support' of. facility ' '
- I-operations.- This was accomplished during the course of routine evaluation
, . .of-facility events <and concerns through. direct observation of activities ,- c and discussions with engineering personnel.
e
Fgl All activities ~were conducted in~a satisfactory manner dusing this inspection periode K [ Safety Asssssment/ Quality Verification (35502) (40500) (90712) (92700)J - , s , .
'
The licensee's quality assurance programs were inspected to' assess the-Limplementation and' effectiveness of programs associated with management ' control,iverification',-and;oversite activities.
Special consideration a- , , was'given to' issues'which may be: indicative-of;overall management l ,
involvement in quality matters such as selfLimprovement programs, i i response tofegulatoryLand industry initiatives, the' fre_quencyEof
, .. management ~ plant. tours'and control room observations, and management i "' , personnel's attendance at technical and planning / scheduling meetings.
. . . t ' a.
ImpVoperly Stored Quality Assurance (QA) Circuit Breakers (35502) s , y- 'On February 2, th'e inspector noted a box of'QA circuit breakers > s stored in-the Turbine Building, Such a cond_ition violates.
., m , W Procedure ~PBNP 3.3.1, Administration of. Hardware Quality -
. Assurance,' Ewhich, prohibits the' storage of QA material in
, , , <Y other.than designated storage areas.
The licensee!s preliminary l
- , 3 g
, ' finvestigation of theLincident indicatedithat these breakers were . , nott new QA, breakers but instead were the-old circuit breakers that' l '
N i ~ , were changed out of a Unit 2~ electrical bus during the previous ~ v.
,Lrefueling outage. The old breakers were apparently put into th'e
< , ., " ' ' ' boxes thatithe new. breakers'came'in, without removing the QA . ' ' ! markings; on: the boxes, and -left that way to await final disposition.
^ X i' ' 9, , r W '1 'This.cre~ated the potential 'for inadvertently introducing non QA .c ' . material into QA applications.
The licensee'has since removed =the'
y* -QA. markings from the boxes to prevent misidentification of.the old M, breakers. This ~ issue remains unresolved pen' ding completion of: the licensee!s investigation and subsequent NRC' review (266/90004-01; '(' $
t s 301/90004-01).
. '
c ,
+ b., * Manager's Supervisory Staff Meeting (40500) . .The inspector observed Session 90-04 of the Manager's Supervisory Staff Meeting., Issues discussed included P-9 logic testing adequacy, . j.
_ 10- - ' _.
r - e .,L'_____,_ + ,
%5 W - G
- =
, . - * - ne.. . , @$E V_ _ +,t:. - .
- i i:
t ,
_( AMSAC TechnicaliSpecification changes,' safety analysis'of_a volume'.. ,
' ' '
f h_ M t / control system filter media-change made in the mid 1970's, a: potential.
{{4', ' n< initrogen system design problem, and a progress report from the, task
'T group formed to evaluate and recommend changes to the' procedure' D ' control process.
The. progress report indicated that significant- , ,' ,, .and positive-changes are being considered.
The'inspectorJwill- $ g , , i continue to follow'this issue.
e {[Q( M - ^ c.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Review (90712) - . ~ , , ' ' c.
,. q . , , g .. , di 1The inspector reviewed LERs submitted to the NRC to verify that>the.- ' details were clearly reported, including accuracy of the description '. '. !
^ ' '. and corrective: action taken.
The inspector determined whether-further information was required, whether generic implications . ~ ^. -were indicatedi and whether the event warranted onsite followup.
The_following LERs were reviewed and closed: s , s g;
- 266/88010-00"/Electrica1LSystem Misalignment
' ' ' This LER has been superseded by 266/88010-01 bearing the same title.
> ' 266/89008-00 Amsac Not Enabled as Required by Technical ' . Specifications-This-LER.has been superseded by 266/89008-01 bearing
the same title.
-*266/89009-00' DC System Design Inadequacy . - q ) - This issue'is discussed in detail in Inspection l Reports 266/301/89032 and 266/301/89033.
, - ,
- 266/89010-00 Inadvertent Isolation-of Auxiliary Feedwater Flow Transmitters
Wisconsin Electric committed to a course of - corrective action.
A change to the faulty procedure, ' ' RP-6A,.' Steam Generator Crevice Flush (Vacuum Mode)', < - was initiated to correct the stated location of the - AFW flow-transmitters.
The-responsible technician-j , n was counseled regarding verifying unit identifiers ' when isolating equipment, and the site training group J is to evaluate the need for revised training
concerning this' incident.
The inspector reviewed and q evaluated the. licensee's corrective actions and had ! no further concerns.
l i ' ' d.
LER Followup (92700) The LERs denoted by asterisk above were selected for additional . followup..The inspector verified that appropriate correctiv~e' i s I !
' e ,
- J s' l . -
,
~ ~_ - J ^l l ^ fR R F,iQ:fC y ;c - , , , y s r.
r ,,
- j
,t , ,, -
-. - , . , o , b pfg ',z.3 " ~ - s - e ' . . - ', &n a tL ' ' > - +
L x, ,n i a m +,>
, n ., p " action was taken or-responsibility. was assigned and ;that continued, ' r > k[.h. e.. operation of the facility was' conducted in accordance with Technical * . A , . T
- Specificati_ons? and did 'not constitute an unreviewed(safety. question'
c - ?? ' ? f "as. defined,in 10 CFR'50.59.: Report accuracy,. compliance with .
current reporting 1. requirements and applicability to other site.
ys systems and components werealso reviewed.
. , ,
- ',' M L
- Alli activities werd conducted in a satisfactory manner during.this- '
' m :i inspection period; - , , ' , ,- ,m - , , , 10.,' Outstanding-Items (92702) u. 3,7 x a cg, ^
. Wy . <Unreso'10ed' Items; T , x x.
- y Ph Unresol'vedfitems are matters about which more
- information is required ~
+ gjy y, , tin' order? to ascertain whether they are. acceptable. items", items of
. 1 noncompliance, or. deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during: -
, _-.'L vthecinspectio,n ape discussed in Paragraph 9.a.
- ~ ,
- -
..ex, _ ~S .e.3 < a - e -
- .
- .
' ' ' . 41T.L' Management' Meetings 1(30702)' "- . , N .. . . . , ! . a ^ < J AiMeeting Nas held insWashington', D.~C.'among NRC.' Regional and .. N >1 .5 s ^ , Q.S fHeadquarters, management and Wisconsin Electric management.on1 February 20,f ' - , % 3.1990itog discus's' engineering issues including: major upcoming engineering ,y', ' j,O, projects, adequacy, of < personnel resources, status' of backlogged items,' A %, and' potential licensing / changes.
, ' , 2Y.
. 2 -._. >t . ..
- y '
~:12/1 Exit'Interviewl(30703) " - . , ,, TlA: verbal'summaryofpreliminaryfindingswasprovided.totheilicensee.
i s a / representatives denoted in Section 1 on March 2, 1990, at the-conclusion .. 'of the' inspection.. No written inspection material was pro'videdLto;the.
' . ,]]. licensee during.the inspection.
~~ . ' ' , 3, , . ..; it
- The likelyt nformational content-of the inspection report with regardi o
- t W ,^. ~ . '
documents or processes reviewed,during the inspection was also discussed.
,e f .y ,The' licensee did not identify any2documentsfor processesfas proprietary.
,
- s+
. . ; . ' } , , < j.
- y
,
' >
4
'
,
p, ,
i e' Q _{, ' , ,. . t ' r' ., [I ! l n k l: - j c ' s I., - .
n, .,4 .. . i n , > ,, ,-- , , , > .p.: , , .b _ ' { Q: ... _ 4 }}