IR 05000266/1997015

Insp Repts 50-266/97-15 & 50-301/97-15 on 970707-11. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Fire Protection Program & Several App R Issues

ML20211P362
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	10/14/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20211P288	List: IR 05000266/1997015 ML20211P284 ML20211P353
References
50-266-97-15, 50-301-97-15, NUDOCS 9710200175
Download: ML20211P362 (8)

Text

- - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _

. ,

U.S. NUCLEAR RE3ULATORY COMMISSION -

REGIONlli-Docket Nos: 50-266; 50-301

~ License Nos: DPR 24; DPR 27 Report No: 50-266/97015(DRS); 50-301/97015(DRS);

Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company Facility: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 Location: 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241-9516

- Dates: July 7-11,1997

'

Inspector: D. Schrum, Reactor Inspector Approved by: . R. N. Gardner, Chief

-

Engineering Specialists Branch 2 Division of Reactor Safety

_

M

'

9710200175 971014 PDR ADOCK 05000266 G PDR ,

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _..m....

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

.. . .,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-266/97015(DRS),50-301/97015(DRS)

This regionalinspection reviewed the licensee's fire protection program and several Appendix R issues. The following strengths and weaknesses were identified:

Plant sunoort e Violations were identified for failure to adequately implement emergency lighting surveillances (Section F3.2), failure to have adequate procedures to perform emergency lighting surveillances (Section F3.2), and failure to ensure that the fire brigade members were meeting training requirements (Section F5.1),

e A weakness was identified regarding fire brigade drills with an excessive number of people on drills who were credited for meeting training requirements, in addition, fire brigade critiques were not effective in identifying fire brigade drill problems (Section FS.1).

• There were a low number of fire protection impairments requiring a fire watch (Section F6.1).

• Most fire protection equipment was well maintained and most transient combustibles were well contcolled (Section F2.1).

'

<

e The fire protection staff was experienced and knowledgeable and were proactive in addressing fire protection problems. (Section F6.1)

2

_ - _ - _ _ _ - _ . _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

. .

.

Report Details IV. Plant Sunnort F2 Status of Fire Protection Facilities and Equipment F Observation of Plant Aregg Insoection Scone The inspector toured the site's buildings to observe control of combustibles, fire doors, hose stations, detection equipment, extinguishers, sprinkler systems, emergency lights, and housekeeping, Observations and Findingg Control of combustibles was good with few transient combustibles noted in the plan Flammable liquids were stored appropriately in fire proof cabinets and safety can There was a minimal amount of oil below rotating equipmen The material condition of the majority of the fire prctection equipment was good. The fire brigade equipment was in good condition. Most fire doors in the plant were in good condition. Only a few doors did not latch when they self-closed. Zebra mussels were being monitored and were not an equipment problem. There was a substantial number of open work orders for fire protection equipment; however, most items were not significan Conclusions Control of combustible material in the plant appeareo to be good. The material condition of the majority of the fire protection equipment was goo F3 Fire Protection Procedures and Documentation F Fire Reoorts Insoection Scone inspector review of fire reports and surveillances, Observations and Findinos inspector review of fire reports and Quality Assurance (QA) surveillances indicated a weakness in hot work controls. During the past 3 years, there were 6 hot work fires and 6 examples where QA had identified inadequate hot work controls. However, most of the prot.lems involved contractor hot work activities that occurred during the steam generator replacemen _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .

__-__ _ _ _ _ _ _

. . Conclusion Hot work controls were week during the steam generator replacemen F Inadeauate Procedure Insoection Scoce Review emergency lighting surveillance procedure Observations and Findinos The inspector identitled, that as of July 11,1997, Procedure E M3-1, " Emergency Lighting," Revision 4, did not provide adequate guidance to the maintenance staff to perform the quarterly emergency lighting unit (ELU) surveillances. E-M31 did not specify the use of a calibrated voltmeter to take requbed voltage readings. In addition, the documentation of the results of the surveillance depended on the person filling out the surveillance sheets. Some electrical maintenance personnel wrote "ok" or " sat" on the data sheets instead of recording voltages. As a resalt, it could net be determined if t'

as-found voltages were adequately evaluated. Also, there was only one data column for two different required voltage readings. As a result the data column often contained 9 mix of the voltages without actions taken to adjust the charger module as required by the procedur The inspector also noted that Procedure E-M3-1 required a check of battery charge by observing the number of battery discs that were down. However, the surveillance did not provide guidance to maintenance personnel as to what steps were to be taken if the discs were dow Because of the deficiencies identified above, the inspector was concerned that the lack of guidance provided by Procedure E-M3-1 resulted !n only limited assessment of actual emergency lighting unit performance. Failure to have an adequate procedure to perform the emergency lighting survelilance is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V (50- 266/301/97015-01(DRS)).

The inspector identified a number of instances where electrical maintenance personnel were not following emergency lighting surveillance procedural requirements. For example, Procedure MWP 126, " Emergency Lighting Eight-Hour Operational Test,"

Revision 0, was identified as an annual test of emergency lighting batteries. The procedure required that annually Groups 1, ll, til and IV emergency lights be teste The inspector identified that on February 3,1995, the licensee started but did not complete the required testing of Group IV emergency lights, in addition, the inspector identified that electrical maintenance personnel were taking required battery and battery charger voltage readings using the uncalibrated voltmeter located on the front of the emergency battery unit. This voltmeter provides only a rough approximation of actual battery terminal voltage. Procedure MWP 126, Revision 4, specified the use of a digital voltmeter for measuring battery and battery charger output voltage Point Beach Technical Specification 15.6.8.1.8 required that the fire protection program be implemented and maintained using approved plant procedures. The failure to

,

I

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - . _ _ _

- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

correctly implement the requirements of Point Beach Procedure MWP 126 was a violation of Technical Specification 15.6.8.1.8. (50-266/97015-02(DRS);

50 301/97015-02(DRS))

The inspector also identified instances where electrical maintenance personnel were not following the requirements of Procedure E-M3-1, * Emergency Lighting," regarding the requirement to verify the correct alignment of emergency lighting units providing illumination of safe shutdown paths in the plant. Step 6 of Procedure E M3-1 requires that emergency lighting unit alignment be verified utilizing painted lines placed on lighting unit mounting brackets. The inspector noted during plant walkdowns that some ligh'.hg units were not properly marked. As a result, the alignment checks required by the prccedure could not have been performed for those unit Point Beach Technical Specification 15.6.8.1.8 required that the fire protection program be implemented and maintained using approved plant procedures. The failure to correctly implement the requirements of Point Beach Procedure E M3-1 was a violation of Technical Specification 15.6.8.1.8. (50 266/97015-03(DRS); 50-301/97015-03(DRS))

The licansee had recently replaced a large number of emergency lighting batteries. The majority of emergency lighting units observed were operable and were correctly aligned to provido illumination of safe shutdown paths in the plan Conclusions The failure to have adequate procedures to perform the emergency lighting unit surveillances was a violation. Examples of failure to adequately implement ELU surveillances was a violatio F5 Fire Protection Staff Training and Qualification F Fire Brraada hsoection Scoce The inspectors reviewed fire brigade training and qualification records, and fire brigade critiques, Findinos and Observations

<

During a review of fire brigade drill records, the inspector identified that not all of the fire brigade members had participated in fire brigade drills. The licensee was taking credit for control room coverage during drills as meeting brigade training requirements. Point Beach Nuclear Plant Operations Periodic Checks, PC-74," Conducting and Evaluating Fire Drills," Revision 5, paragraph 2.3 stated: " Individual Fire Brigade members sha!I participate in at least two drills per year."

Point Beach Technical Specification 15.6.8.1.8. required that the fire protection program be implemented and maintained using approved plant procedures. The failure to

_____ _

_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -

_

. .

- correctly implement PC-74 was a violation of Technical Specification 15.6.8. (50-266/97015-04(DRS); 50-301/97015-04(DRS))

A review of PC-74 critique forms indicated that the fire brigade critiques identified very few drill problems. As a result there was little documentation to improve fire brigade drills. In addition, the critique forms were not carefully filled out. There were numerous *

examples where simulated use of equipment was signed for everyone, including people in the control room. it appeared that there was a casual attitude in assessing drills and critiques were not critical evaluations.19 addition, excessive numbers of people, sometimes up to 24 Individuals, took credit for meeting training requirements for a single fire brigade drill, when there would have been minimal participation by some individual ! Conclusions The inspector identified a violation for not having qualified brigade members. Some weaknesses were identified during fire brigt.de drills and fire brigade critique F6 Fire Protection Organization and Administration F Fire Protection lmoalrments and Evaluations Insoection Scoce

,

The inspectors reviewed fire protection impairments and fire protection evaluation Observations and Findings The inspectors noted that there was a low number of fire protection impairments requiring a fire watch. The fire protection request backlog was high. However, the majority of the items on the backlog were not significan The fire protection staff was experienced and knowledgeabic. They were proactive in dealing with fire protection problems. Firs protection Safety Evaluation Reports were excellent. Trouble Report corrective actions and analysis were excellent in addition, the licensee had recently initiated an Appendix R Self-Assessment and Rebaselining Project, Conclusions c A low number of fire protection impairments requiring a fire watch was a strengt Evaluations for fire protection problems were excellent.

'

F7 Quality Assurance in Fire Protection Activities Audits and QA Work Monitoring Reports were excellent with adequate resources devoted to assessments. The Work Monitoring Reports were performance based observations of conditions in the plant and were effective in identifying problems in the fire protection progra _ -_ . _ _ _ ________. _ _ _ .

'

. -,

.,

V. Management Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary

_

' The laspectors presented the inspection results to rnernbers of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on July 11,199 The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary, No proprietary information was identliiod,

___ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ - _ _ _

, . - ,

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee C. A. Casadonte, Fire Protection and Safety Coordinator A. J. Cayla, Plant Manager W. B. Fromm, Maintenance Manager D. F. Johnson, Regulatory Services and Licensing Manager M. B. Koudelka, Regulatory Specialist C. A. Ksoblech, Fire Protection Engineer T. G. Malanowski, Sr. Project Engineer Licensing G. V. Young, Maintenance Supervisor INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 64704: Fire Protection ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND D!SCUSSED Ooened

'

266/301/97015-01 VIO Inadequate ELU Surveillance ,,

266/301/97015-02 VIO ELU Survoillance Not Adequately Implemented 266/301/97015-03 VIO ELU Surveillance Not Adequately implemented 266/301/97015-04 VIO Fire Brigade Members Not Performing Drills

.

. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _