ML20236F078

Forwards NRR Input for SALP Board Meeting Scheduled for 871123 Re Plant

ML20236F078
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	10/28/1987
From:	Wagner D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
NUDOCS 8710300131
Download: ML20236F078 (5)

Text

- ,

October 28, 1987 Docket Nos. 50-266

'and 50-301 MEMORANDUM FOR: C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Reactor Projects Region III THRU: David L. Wigginton, Acting Director Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects FROM: David H. Wagner, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 s -Division of Reactor Projects

SUBJECT:

NRR SALP REPORT - POINT BEACH 1 AND 2 Enclosed is NRR's input for the SALP Board meeting regarding Point Beach 1 & 2, currently scheduled for November 23, 1987. Our evaluation was conducted according to NRR Office Letter No. 44, Rev. I dated December 22, 1986 and NRC Manual Chapter 0516, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance.

/s David H. Wagner, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

As stated

. Distribution:

Docket F1les.3 NRC PDR

Local PDR PDIII-3 r/f OGC-Bethesda EJordan BGrimes JPartlow PKreutzer

'DWagner I

ACRS(10)

Office:

___J %)ct. _ . ht LA/PDIII-3 PM/PDIII-3 PD I -3 Surname: PLreutzer DWagner/r1 DWigginton Date: 10/,g/87 10/}C/87 j

10/3J/87 8710300131 G71029 PDR O ADDCK 05000266 PDR l i

g:.. ,

l.

L i,n

'I 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION p INPUT FOR SALP 6. a Jr WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY

+ POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, U QTS 1~AND 2

1. Licensing Activities (April 1, 1986 through September 30,1987) l I

The basis for this appraisal was the licensee's performance in support of  ;

. licensing actions (amendment requests, responses to generic letters and other actions) which have been reviewed'and evaluated by the staff during - >

the rating period. .Tnese actions have resulted in 18 license amendments, ,

a relief request, an exemption to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R,-and other licensing actions.

The issues involved included .the.following:

l Plant Specific: i Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger T.S. change RPV Pressure / Temperature Limits T.S. change

- Draft SER,' Procedures. Generation Package Leaking Fuel. Rod T.S. change RPV Flaw Component Cooling Water T.S. change i Inservice Inspection-Relief Replacement'of Snubbers with Energy Absorbers;

' Operating License Expiration Date Extension y Appendix R Exemption  !

Generic Items  !

Regulatory Guide 1.97, Post Accident Instrumentation 1 Generic letter 85-19, Iodine Spiking TMI Action Item II.K.3.31, Compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 Generic letter 83-28, Item 4.5.2, Reactor Trip System Functional Testing '

Generic letter 83-28. Item 2.1 (Part 2), Vendor Interface Programs-RTS i TMI Action Plan Item II.F.2, Inadequate Core Cooling Instrumentation During this rating period, the licensee's management appeared to be actively involved in licensing activities and appeared to remain abreast of current-and anticipated licensing actions. Management involvement in licensing 1 A actions has resulted in timely responses to staff initiatives requiring responses by specified dates. These submittals, such as responses to Generic Letters and responses to staff questions regarding generic issues, are of good quality and sufficiently complete. Although the majority of applications for specific actions (TS amendments, plant-specific licensee

L # 1  ;

)

j

! .t 3 .l L -;

l- issues)lareofgoodquality, timely,anddonotrequiresignificantrework

to' address staff requirements, a number of notable exceptions exist. For example, late in"this reporting cycle, the licensee sought NRR approval lfor a

the land-spread disposal of slightly radioactive sludge. Although this was considered a high-priority issue by the licensee', the staff was. required to issue an extensive reque

t for additional information to the licensee, in order to continue the review. The licensee's original application was in-complete, despite the staff's rderring the licensee to. another utility's -  :

similar request.for land pead rtisposal of radioactive sludge as an example of a complete application. Additionally, in a letter dated September.10, 1987, i the licensee sought MC authorization for replacing a number of snubbers with energy' absorbers (!aring the Unit 2 outage, commencing October'2, 1987. The impact of this untimeliness is not known at this time. The licensee should j

.. have had full knowledge of the lead time necessary for this type of review-  :

, due to'a earlier lengthy-review authorizing use of energy absorbers at

• Point Beach, which the staff stressed was not only plant specific, but also component specific due:to itsLreliance on non-linear analysis as: technical justification. Although the majority of submittals to the NRC are complete .

, and timely, the licensee and its management should exert more effort to assure all. licensing action applications are complete and timely. 1 The technical content of. license action applications and responses to requests for additional information is generally quite good. However, as noted above, some of these actions have been submitted incomplete. In most cases, requests for additional information result from' incompleteness rather than the technical' content of the.information provided. The analyses for no significant hazards considerations is somewhat " threadbare" and. relies in some ceses too heavily on similar applications for other plants, rather than. standing;above on its own merits. A number of telephone conferences have taken place with the licensee during this rating period. The licensee- ,

has assured that the appropriate corporate / station personnel are~on hand to discuss the issues. An extreme example of this occurred during the Unit I refueling outage in the spring of 1987, when a flaw was discovered in the reactor pressure vessel. On a day's notice, the licensee flew to NRC-Bethesda to have a meeting (on Saturday) with the staff, in anticipation of

~

restart the next day. The licensee brought along sufficient personnel to assure the issue was adequately addressed.

The Licensee Event Reports (LER's) submitted during the rating period are of good quality. Overall quality of the LER's has increased since the last SALP. Notable quality improvements were noted in the safety assess-ment section of the LER's. A particular strength of the LER's is that the licensee identifies similar events which may have been reported in previous LER's. However, a number of LER's lacked certain information considered necessary to complete a root cause discussion. For example, stating that p a specific compcnent failed and was replaced is not adequate to satisfy the requirements concerning cause and corrective actions. The reason for component failure must be stated, thereby allowing assessment of the causal relationship and determination of generic implications.

Regarding other criteria in the functional area of licensing activities

..z (enforcement history, training and qualification effectiveness, and staffers)=,- no basis exists for an NRR evaluation. -

2. Conclusion 1

A complete performance rating of Category 2 has been assigned by the NRR.

SALP evaluation effort for'the current rating period.in the functional area of . licensing activities.

I l <

i l

1

m _ - _ -

- e s, t

, RECORDS MEETINGS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS i

1. NRR/ Licensee Meetings 1 Energy Absorbers '10/23/86 Inservice Testing Program 03/16/87 RPV Flaw 05/30/87. ,

2. Commission Meetings None

3. Schedular Exceptions Granted None

4. Reliefs Granted ASME Section XI relief request regarding 05/7/8/

e the shell-to-shell tubesheet and nozzle-to-shell welds in the non-regenerative heat exchangers.

5. . Exemptions Granted:

Exemption to Appendix R of 10 CFR 50, Section 12/31/87 III.G for various plant locations.

6.. License Amendments Issued.

Reactor Trip Breaker Surveillance 06/17/86 Component Cooling Water System (Amendments 101 06/25/86 and 104)

IodineSpiking(Amendments 102and105) 06/27/86 Reactor Coolant Pumps (Amendments 103 and 106) 07/03/86 Containment Integrated Leak Rate Testing 08/27/86 (Amendments 104 and 107)

Component Cooling Water System (Amendments 105 02/02/87 and 108)

Valve Surveillance Requirements (Amendments 106 03/03/87 and 109 03/17/87 Operating) and 110 License Extension (Amendments 107

• Leaking Fuel Rod (Amendments 108 and 111) 05/27/87 i

7. Emergency Technical Specification Changes None

8. Orders Issued None 1

9. NRR/ Licensee Management Conferences None l

l

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