ML20023A532
| ML20023A532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Point Beach |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1979 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19302F297 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-309 NUDOCS 8210070218 | |
| Download: ML20023A532 (6) | |
Text
C. M, L t a445 N Z O.
[f jo UNITED STATES
+
g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
- E WASHINGTCrf, D. C. 20555
%,*****/
December 31, 1979
. Docket No. 50-266 11EMORANDUM FOR:
D. G. Eisenhut, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactors, NRR FROM:
A. Schwencer, Chief ORB #1, D0R
SUBJECT:
POINT BEACH UNIT NO. 1 - MATTERS RELATING TO LER 79-017 DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1979 As you requested on December 28, 1979, this memorandum and its attach-ments set forth the knowledge I and Charles M. Trammell (Point Beach
' Project Manager) have with respect to the subject LER. Mr. Trammell's attached statement was obtained by me by telephone about 11:45 P.M.
Friday, Decemter 28, 1979.
(He was attending an ASLB hearing on the Trojan plant at the time.) My statement is also attached.
]
/
^
i g */
(WY A. 'Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 l
Division of Operating Reactors 1
Enclosures:
1.
Statement of A. Schwencer 2.
Statement of C. Trammell I
4.
I'8210070218 820810 h
' _.LONG82-309 PDR
December 31, 1979 STATEMENT OF A. SCHWENCER On or about December 19, 1979, I was made aware of a Wisconsin Power company LER dated November 16, 1979 by the Point Beach Project Manager, Charles M.
Tramell. -
He advised me that, contrary to what we had been told at the November 20, 1979 meeting with the licensee, five of the tubes plugged during the October-November outage had eddy current indicators above the tube sheat. He then briefed me on the actions he had taken to deal with this new information..
That action is sumarized as follows:
- Copies of the LER were provided to the technical review staff by-Mr. Tramell
- The licensee was called to request a full explanation in writing on these five tubes - such explanation to be submitted for NRC staff review prior to retdrn to power.
- A copy of the LER was provided by Mr. Tramell to a representative of the Wisconsin Environmental Decade. Mr. Trammell pointed out to the representative that the LER shows five tube having indica-tions at or just above the top of the tube sheet.
In that same briefing, Mr. Trammell indicated to me that, based on a sub-sequent phone call he had received from Marion Moe, the Comission's OGC staff had been contacted by a Wisconsin Environmental Decade representa-tive who expressed concern about these five tubes that Mr. Trammell had informed them about.
On or about December 20, I orally briefed D0R management (W. Gamill) on this new information.
At home on Christmas Eve, during a call from Mr. Vince Noonan, Chief of DOR's Engineering Branch, on another matter, I inquired as to the status of the Point Beach review. He informed me that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Acting Director of DDR and that based on that discussion, Mr. Trammell was instructed to inform the licensee that the NRC staff was satisfied on the five plugged tubes. Mr. Noonan informed me at that time that the licensee had returned to power December 23, 1979.
Now, with respect to,any prior knowledge or suspicions about these five tubes having indicahons at or just above the top of the tube sheet, I had no such prior knowledge or suspicions. To the contraryEmy attempt at the November 20, 1979 meeting with the licensee to understand whether the 4e
r intergranular attack was confined to below the top of the tube sheet, the
- licensee's responses. led me to believe that there were no eddy current indications above the top of the tube sheet.
s (({WWlhh A. Schwencer i
l 6
A b
e 9
e a
I' a.
1 l -
4 December 28, 1979 STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. TRANNELL On or about December 7,1979, I became aware of Wisconsin Power Company's LER dated November 16, 1979. The LER indicated that it was received by NRC ~
on November 19,' 1979.
I do not know how long-it had been in my incoming mail box.
It could have been several weeks or several days.
It is likely that it had only been several days since I have a practice of looking at incoming mail frequently.
In any event, receipt of the report was not unexpected since the licensee was required to file such a report.
I ful.ly expect the report to_ confirm everything that was learned from a meeting with the licensee on November 20, 1979 and contained in the licensee's November 23, 1979 letter.
I scanned the attached defective. tube summary nevertheless, and found five defective tubes listed at or above the tube sheet.
I was surprized by this because I was of the impression that recent inspections had disclosed defective tubes only within the confines of the tube sheet.
I was not previously aware of these five tubes with indications at or above the tube sheet.
I underlined the five tubes on the report and made three copies - for B. D.
Liaw, J. Strosnider and E Murphy.
I carr! d the copies to them and dis-cussed the matter with them. My impression
,; that they too were unaware of these five tubes. A conference call was held with the licensee that day or soon thereafter.
At about the same time, I received a call from Peter Ander.on of Wiscensin Environmental Decade regarding information as to the axial distribution of defects within the tube sheet. The call was returned with B. D. Liaw, Jack Strosnider and myself in a conference call. At this time I explained that the information he desired was contained in the LER of November 16, 1979.
He requested a copy which was mailed to him the same day.
In this call, he was also told about the five tubes at or.above the top of the tube sheet.
j.
On or abo t December 11, 1979 Point Beach Unit No. 1 shut down due to tube u
leakage. At my initiative, I called the licensee on or about December 18, 1979 and requested fullydocumented information on these five tubes and their safety analysis of the matter and why the November 16, 1979 report had not l
been included or mentioned in the previous meeting or submittal.
The timing of my request was designed to allow us an opportunity to review their I
l response prior to plant operation. On December 21, 1979 the licensee l
responded. Their response was reviewed with representatives of the Engineering Branch that same day and in detail with NRC management (V. Noonan and D. G.
Eisenhut) later that evening.
On Saturday, December 23, 1979 while at work on this and other problems, I advised the licensee that we had found their December 21, 1979 letter which responded to my request acc'eptable and that the NRC was satisfied that the new five tube information did not alter our previous conclusion with respect
~
to safe plant operation.
The plant returned to operation later that evening.
O
n 2-e-
At no time did I inform any Commissioners of this information..However I was made aware of Decade's concern about these five tubes through Marian Moe'of 0GC shortly after the staff's conference call with Decade.
0 4
I 4
e I
e i
o
+
8-e w
~ --
,--w-.
- ~ - - -.
-n n
~ - -. - -, ---,
,.m, n-e
-m.
m f24 Pil 5 O NM ] t-g d )
W
/ h)lh[
STA"EEEXT CF CHARLES E. !3AEELL Cn or t. bout December 7,1979, I tecar.c aware of '.!isecnsin Power Cc:pany's LER dated November 16, 1979 The IIR indicated that 1.t was received by NRO en : ovember 19, 1979 I do: not know how long 1. had been in ny inconing nr.11 box.
It could have been severe.1 weeks or several days.
I, is likely that it had only been several days since I have a practice of looking at inconing mail frequently.
In any event, reciept of the report was not unexpe:ted since the licensee was required to file such a report. Qally expected the report to confira everything that was learned from a. r.eeting with the licensee en Scventer 20,1J79 and contained in the licensee's.cve:ber 23, 1979 letter.
I sca.ned the attached defective tube sunmary nevertheless, ar.d found five defective
,u'.e listed at or above the tube ctions she e't.
I was surprised by this because I was of the impression that recent inr had disclosed defective tubes only whMn the ~ #'* as of the tube sheet. I was not previously aware of.hese five tubes with Edica. ions at er above the tute sheet.
I underlined the five tubes on the report and nade three copies -for 3. D. Liaw, J. Strosnider and E. Zurphy.
I carried the copies to them and discussed the natter with them. 1:y impression was that they o: were unaware of these five tubes.
gnferencecallwasheldwiththelicenseethatda/orsoonthehereafter.
At about the sane time, I recieved a call from Fe er Anderson of Yisconsin Invironmental Decade regarding information as to the axial distri.ation of defects within the tube sheet.
The call was returned with 5.D. Liaw, Jack Strost.ider and tyself in a conference call. AtthistimeIexplainedthattheinihatic he desired was contained in the LE3 of Noventer 16, '.979
'de requested a copy which was nailed to him the same day. In this call, he was also told about the fice tubes at or above the top of the tube sheet.
On or about December 11,1979 Point Esach Unit ::o.1 shut down due to tube leakage.
At ny initiative, I called the licensee en or e.beut December 16, 1979 and requested full documented iafor.ation on these five tubes and their safety analysis of the natter and why the !!ovenber16,1979 report had nc-been included or mentioned in the previous meeting r submittal. The timing of my request was designed toCn allow us an opportunity to review their response prior to plant operation.
21, 1979 the licensee responded. Their response was reviewed with De cember representatives of the Engineering irmch that sane day and in detail with :'RC naragenent (V. Socnan and D..G. Eisenh
) later that evening.
On daturday, Decenter 23, 1979, while at work en -his cad other problems, I' advised the licensee that we had found their Lecenter 21, 1979 letter which responded to my request acceptable a*.d that the.30 was satisfied that the to new five tube infer.a. ion did~ not al.er car previ::s conclusien with res;e::
safe plant opere, ion.
Ihe plant re.urned to creration later ths.t evening.
At no tine did I infer. any commissioner of this hforms. tion.
Ecwever, I was made aware of Decade's concern about these fitie,utes through Marian Koe of CGO shortly after the staff's ccnference call with Cecade.
G
\\_
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MAR 131980 n
wAswmorow.o. c.zosos "NW MAR lt 1980
.g.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
D..G. Eisenhut Acting Director t#
Division of Operating Reactors j
FROM:
L. C. Shao Acting Assistant Director
-fue for Engineering Programs Division of Operating Reactors
SUBJECT:
POINT BEACH UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE REMOVAL On. Saturday, March 8, 1980 members of the Engineering. Branch and the Environmental Evaluation Branch met with representatives of Wisconsin Power and Electric Company (WEPCO) and Westinghouse at Point Beach Unit 1.
The subject of the meeting was the process for removing explosively plugged tubes and the associated radiation exposure and impact on outage time.
The radiation field in the channel head of the Unit 1 steam generators is approximately 30 rem /hr. Removal of three unplugged tubes from the unit in October 1979 resulted in a total of 66 manrem based on TLD measurements.
Removal of an explosively plugged tube would require additional exposure of
~'
approximately 8 to 22 manrem to drill out the explosive plug and approximately 8 manrem to weld repair the tube hole. Problems which can complicate the removal procedure are loosening of the drilling fixture, breaking of the tube cutter blade, breaking of the puller bar or tube, and a distorted tubesheet hole requiring manual weld repair. These complications can occur with a high frequency and can be expected to cause additional exposure ranging from approx-imately 7 to 30 manrem. Removal of an explosively plugged tube from a Point Beach Unit 1 steam generator is therefore expected to result in approximately 45 to 90 manrem exposure.
To pull a single' explosively plugged tube would require approximately 3.5 days assuming no major complications but could take as long as 8 days. The time for tube removal would be on the critical path since both steam generators are being inspected in parallel. According to Westinghouse, an attempt to remove an explosively plugged tube from H. B. Robinson approximately five years ago was given up when all the qualified personnel on site had received their allow-able exposures.
Tube removal equipment is currently at the Point h site.
o, cting istant Director g Division of Operating Reactors for Engineering Programs
Contact:
J. Strosnider X27356 cc: Next page l
is
^ rof
e er 2
MAR 12.1980 D. G. Eisenhut cc:
R. Tedesco V. Noonan G. Knighton.
A. Schwencer
-B. D. Liaw C. Tramell M. Grotenhuis E. Murphy F. Almeter R. Emch J. Strosnider i
l E*
l i
-,