ML20129A321
| ML20129A321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1996 |
| From: | Cakdwell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Link R WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-89-13, NUDOCS 9610220107 | |
| Download: ML20129A321 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000266/1996002
Text
.
- - - - . - - . - - ._
- - . . -.- .
-.
.-
-._.-
.-
. . - . -
QMic N'OI
,
I
g
l
October 17, 1996
i
i
i
l
i
i
Mr. Robert Link
l
Vice President Nuclear Power
i.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
.
231 West Michigan Street - P379
Milwaukee, WI
53201
i
Dear Mr. Link:
l
This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter dated May 17, 1996, which
documented your response to the three Notices of Violation associated with
-
!
Inspection Report 50-266/96002(DRP); 50-301/96002(DRP) transmitted to you in
our letter of April 17, 1996. We noted that your response to two of the three
'
j
violations was incomplete and did not address all of the relevant issues.
l
With respect to the violation of 10 CFR Part 50.71(e)(4) for the failure to
maintain an updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), you did not provide a
t
basis for not revising those sections of the FSAR that describe systems which
.
'
l
rely on service water cooling, to reflect a change in the-design service water
'
temperature.
In addition, you did not state in your response when the current
,
FSAR will be in full compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.71(e).
'
With respect to your response to the violation of Criterion XVI of Appendix B
.
to 10 CFR Part 50, for the failure to take adequate corrective action for
i
deficiencies identified in 1993 pertaining to performance testing of the spent
fuel pool (SFP) heat exchangers, we have the following concerns:
!-
l
1) Your response indicates that you do not understand our concern with the
i
criginal corrective actions you planned to implement to address the failure to
i
meet test acceptance criteria during SFP heat exchanger performance testing.
i
Your response states,
i
"The inspection report narrative implies that our planned actions for
collecting acceptable performance data were technically inadequate. Our
selected option of installing more accurate instrumentation was based on
avoiding the need to place the SFP cooling system into an unusual test
configuration.
Improved instrumentation would have allowed operators to
routinely gather accurate performance date,without having to adjust
valves, change pump combinations, and raise SFP liquid temperature
higher than normal."
We determined that you did not obtain meaningful test results because you
conducted each performance test ~ with insufficient heat load on the SFP heat
exchangers. More accurate instrumentation will not provide data on actual
heat exchanger performance unless an adequate heat load has been established.
We noted that the corrective actions described in your response did include
increasing the heat load during the heat exchanger performance test.
I
9610220107 96'1017
O
ADOCK 05000266
G
3
- .
.
-
-.
_
.-
. _ .
-
.
_
.
-
.
-
=.
.
. -
.
R. Link
-2-
2)
In your response, you stated that the engineers responsible for conducting
i
the heat exchanger performance tests, were new and inexperienced. However,
..1
your response did not address the apparent fa~ilure to provide sufficient
management oversight. This is particularly relevant since lack of management
involvement was a concern identified in the 1993 NRC Service Water System
Operational Performance Inspection, and you did not meet commitments in your
1990 response to NRC Generic Letter 89-13, " Service Water System Problems
Affecting Safety-Related Equipment".
We have no additional questions with regard to the violation of 10 CFR
.
Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, relating to adherence to procedure NP 8.4.8,
l
Revision 1, " Requirements for Scaffold near Safety-Related Equipment".
.
l
3)
It is our understanding that you intend to address our comments in this
letter based on a conference call between Mr. M. Dapas of my staff and
selected members of your staff on October 9,1996, in which Mr. Dapas
a
discussed the basis for our comments.
.
You are required to respond to this letter and should G110w the instructions
!
previously specified in the Notice of Violation when ;pparing your response.
i
You should document your reply to our comments in this letter relating to your
i
original response to the Notice of Violation, and any additional actions you
!
plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this letter,
i
including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
i
inspections, the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is
}
necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
j
this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
i
j
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or
j
the resident inspector staff.
,
i
Sincerely,
i
l
/s/ John A. Grobe for
l
James L. Caldwell, Acting Director
i
Division of Reactor Projects
4
See attached distribution
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\RESN0VPB.LTR
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box "C" - Copy w/o
attach / enc 1
"E" = Copy w/ attach / enc 1 "N"Y No copy
0FFICE
L.
,&N
l
l
NAME
Dapas ////pf/
Caldwell/tBhe
DATE
10//6 /96
10/ k96 V
_
0FFICIALIRECORD COPY
-.
.
. .
_
_.
- _ .
.
..
.
-
.
. .
-
.-. . - .
. _ -_ .
.
. - - _ . .
-
.
,
<<
s
R. Link
-3-
b
!
Docket No. 50-266
Docket No. 50-301
l
cc:
S. A. Patulski, Site General Manager
A. J. Cayia, Plant Manager
Virgil Kanable, Chief
Boiler Section
i
Cheryl L. Parrino, Chairman,
i
Wisconsin Public Service
!
Commission
l
State Liaison Officer
i
Distribution:
i
Docket File
SRI Point Beach
FUBLIC IE-01
OC/LFDCB
RIII PRR
<
l
'A. B. Beach
B. L. Burgess
W. L. Axelson
l
4
1
4
<
L
\\
Is
.