ML20202E933
| ML20202E933 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1998 |
| From: | Grant G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Patulski S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202E939 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-97-26, 50-301-97-26, NUDOCS 9802190090 | |
| Download: ML20202E933 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000266/1997026
Text
'
g* *8%'o,,
UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR CE;ULATORY COMMISSION
8
REGION 111
{
601 WARRENVn LE ROAD
,
LISLE. tLLINOIS 60532 4351
- g*.**
February 10,1998
Mr. S. A. Patulski
Site Vice President
Point Beach Nuclear Plant
6610 Nuclear Road
Two Rivers, WI 54241
SUBJECT:
POINT BEACH NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND INSPECTION REPORT
NO. 50 266/97026(DRP); 50 301/97026fDRP)
Dear Mr. Patutski:
On January 20,1998, the NRC completed an inspection at your Point Beach 1 and 2 reactor
facilities. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.
The facility was coerated in a safe and controlled manner throughout this inspection period.
Operators were challenged by a loss of power to the normal supply for the Unit 1 safety related
electrical distribution buses on January 8,1998. The operators and all safety related equipment
responded appropriately to the event. A facility incident investigation team was established
promptly, and performed a thorough and insightful review of the event and its causes. Two
issues associated with the loss of power event were characterizod as violations of NRC
requirements.
The first violation involved the failure of an operating crew to recognize that a Tech nal
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation was not being met and that the existing
equipment status was more limiting than the applicable " permissible conditions." As a result, the
crew failed to enter TS 15.3.0 as was required for such a condition. Entry into TS 15.3.0
required that within one hour action be initiated to place the operating unit in bot shutdown within
seven hours. After one hour, but before seven hours elapsed, a permissible condition was
established and TS 15.3.0 no longer applied, in essessing this issue, the incident investigation
team determined that the operator weakness in identifying the applicability of TS 15.3.0 was not
limited to the crew involved with the loss of power event. Broad corrective actions we.te being
discussed at the end of the inspection per od.
The second violation involved an NRC identified inadequacy in an operations department
procedure governing operator use of emergency and abnormal operating procedures. This
violation was of concern because the procedure in question authonzed deviations from the
sequence of steps specified in emergency and abnormal operating procedures without first
obtaining the procedure change approvals required by TSs and the Quahty Assurance Program.
A third violation was identified involving the failure to provide adequate test controls for
conducting peiformance testing of the containment accident fan coolers. An inadequate test
procedure was originally identified by the NRC in 1995, and your staff had indicated that
appropriate testing of the fan coolers would be performed when containment temperatures
allowed, following Unit 2 restart in August 1997. However, the NRC identified in November 1997
f
that the testing had not been performed. The reason for this violation (inadequate test procedure
j
9002I9'OOib 900210
"
'/
ADOCK 05000266
o
.
'
.
S. Patuiski
2-
used in 1995) has been discussed in docketed correspondence. The reply to the attached Notice
of Violation need not address these details, but should include, among other things, an
explanation of why the required testing was not completed following the August 1997 restart, and
whether there were any other restart items which were delayed until after the Unit 2 restart which
were not performed promptly,
The violations identified above are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the
circumstances surrounding the violations are described in detailin the enclosed report. Please
note that you are required to respond to this letter ano should follow the instructions specified in
the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to
determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory
req)ltements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of thk 'stter, its
enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Sincerely,
/s/ Marc L. Dapas for
Geoffrey E. Grant, Director
I
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket Nos.: 50 266;50 301,
l
,
Enclosures:
1.
Not:ce of Violation
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50 266/97026(DRP);
50 301/97026(DRP).
.
See Attached Distribution
DOCUMENT NAME: R:\\insprpts\\ powers \\poin\\ poi 97026.drp
v. eu
c.., ne w. enum.no inse.i. in o wi c . coe, iouivi .n.cw.na r . con, with .ti.co.nci *N
a N. copy
OFFICE
Rlll
f
Rlll
6
Rlli
-
b
McCorrNck 8I[et
Grant 8
dr
NAME
Kunowski:
DATE
02//o/98
02//e/98
02/#/98
--
-OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
_
__
_ _ _ _ _ - _ -___ ______ __-_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
0-
,
=,
,
!
i
!
8. Patuiski
3
j
,
,
cc w/encls:
R, R. Grigg, President and Chief
Operating Officer, WEPCO
A. J. Cayla, Plant Manager
i
B. D. Burks, P.E., Director
Bureau of Field Operations
i
Cheryl L Parrino, Chairman
Wisconsin Public Service
.:
Commission
State Liaison Officer
Distribution:
!
. Docket File w/encls
SRI Point Beach w/encls
PUBLIC IE 01 w/encls
Rill Enf. Coordinator w/encls
j
A. B. Beach w/encts -
CAA1 w/encls (E mail)
l
Deputy RA w/encls
ORP wlencls
Project Manager, NRR, w/encls -
DRS (2) w/encls
,
Rlli PRR w/encls
DOCDESK (E mail)
y
TSS w/encls
'
.
k
P
.