ML20134A839

Forwards Special Team Insp Repts 50-266/85-13 & 50-301/85-13 on 850722-26.Discussion of Potential Enforcement/Unresolved Items Encl

ML20134A839
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	11/01/1985
From:	Zech G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20134A841	List: ML20134A839 ML20134A845
References
NUDOCS 8511110047
Download: ML20134A839 (4)

See also: IR 05000266/1985013

Text

.-

ae.

./

o

UNITE 3 STATES

.

g

$.

et

g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

O

j

wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20565

November 1, 1985

.....

Dockst Nos. 50-266

and 50-301

Mr. C. W. Fay, Vice President

Nuclear Power Department

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

231 West Michigan Street, Room 308

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

INSPECTION NOS. 50-266/85013; 50-301/85013

Enclosed is the report of the special team inspection conducted by R. C. Wilson

and other NRC representatives on July 22 to 26, 1985, at the corporate offices

of Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and

2 of activities authorized by NRC License Nos. DPR-24 and 27. The team's

findings were discussed with you and members of your staff at the conclusion

l

of the inspection. The inspection reviewed your implementation of a program

'

as required by 10 CFR 50.49 for establishing and maintaining the qualification

of electric equipment within the scope of 10 CFR 50.49. The inspection also

included evaluations of the implementation of equipment qualification corrective

action commitments made as a result of the December 22, 1982, Safety Evaluation

Report (SER) and the September 28, 1982, Franklin Research Center Technical

Evaluation Report (TER). Within this area, the inspection consisted of

'

examinations of selected procedures and records, interviews with personnel,

and observations by the inspectors.

The inspection determined that you have implemented a program to meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 and your corrective action commitments relative

tn SER/TER deficiencies. Four deficiencies in your program implementation,

summarized in Appendix A, are classified as Potential Enforcement / Unresolved

Items and will be referred to the NRC Region III office for further action.

The two most serious deficiencies involve your actions subsequent to the

discovery in April 1985 of a 10 CFR 50.49 noncompliance involving unqualified

auxiliary feedwater flow transmitters.

In this matter a reportability review

!

was neither documented nor required by procedure; engineering analysis by

EQ-trained personnel was not documented for more than three months after

.

'

discovery; and use of administrative controls to prevent operator misinformation

was apparently not considered. The other two Potential Enforcement / Unresolved

!

Items involve failure to fully document qualification of two types of equipment,

i

8511110047 851101

gDR

ADOCK O

26

-y A )

Qj

--

J

-

.,

l

.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

-2-

November 1, 1985

.

s,f.;

Rockbestos coaniel. cable and Limitorque de operators. Seven additional

deficiencies are classified as Open Items, and a future NRC inspection will

f

review your corrective actions concerning them. Details of the deficiencies

are discussed in the enclosed inspection report.

Your corrective actions regarding the identified deficiencies should not be

delayed pending either a future NRC inspection or further action by the NRC

Region III Office.

We are available to discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Si

erely.

['U

p('

-

Gary G. Zech, Chief

Vendor Program Branch

Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor

and Technical Training Center Programs

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

-

Enclosure:

Inspection Report Nos. 50-266/85013;

50-301/85013

.

- - . - - - - - .

---....-_.---e.

..

, = , , . , ,

y

-...,-...---

,.---.

_%,,.-w--

e

.

.

-

.

-

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

November 1, 1985

,

DISTRIBUTION:

AS

PDR

'VPB Reading

DQAVT Reading

JTaylor

RVollmer

BGrimes

UPotapovs

GHubbard

RWilson

GHolahan,ORAB/NRR

RLaGrange, EQB/NRR

PShemanski,EQB/NRR

4

RKarsch,ORAB/NRR

TColburn, DL/NRR

RBorgen, Idaho National. Labs

ERichards, Sandia National Labs

JThomas, DPC

MSchaeffer, RI

AGautam, RIII

RSmeenge, RIII

CWilliams, RIII

I

i

1

1

,

(

VPB

VPB:DQAVT

BC/0RAB:DL

AN,EGB:DE

hl!

'

RWilson: sam

UP tapovs

GHolahan.

RLaGrange

CWilliar.;s

10/2.1/85

(p 9/85

10/'L9/85

10/1j/85

10/11/85

BC/VPB:DQAVT

4.

AVT

GGZech

imes

10/$/85

/(/85

-

-

- -

-

--

.

- -

.

-

-

-

_ _ _

.

.

,

-

.

APPENDIX A

Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items

,

As a result of the special equipment qualification inspection on July 22 to 26,

1985, the following items have been referred to NRC Region III as Potential

Enforcement / Unresolved Items (paragraph references are to be detailed portions

,

of the inspection report).

'

1.

Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 Wisconsin Electric

Power Company (WEPC) did not have procedures requiring that a timely

review of reportability be performed when equipment covered under

10 CFR 50.49 is detemined to be unqualified, or that a timely EQ review

of the consequences be performed. Consequently, after discovery in April

1985 that Foxboro N-E10 auxiliary feedwater flow transmitters in Point

Beach Units 1 and 2 were not qualified, a reportability review was not

documented, and an engineering evaluation by EQ-trained personnel of the

safety consequences of continued operation with the unqualified equipment

was not documented for more than three months af ter discovery.

(Paragraph

4.A, Item 50-266/85013-0 (DRS); 50-301/85013-0 (ORS).)

2.

Contrary to the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (i) of 10 CFR 50.49,

WEPC's engineering analysis justifying continued operation with unqualified

auxiliary feedwater flow transmitters failed to address administrative

controls to prevent operator misinformation in the event of equipment

malfunction.

(Paragraph 4.A. Item 50-266/85013-0 (DRS); 50-301/85013-0

(9RS).)

3.

Contrary to paragraph (f) of 10 CFR 50.49 and section 2.3 of NUREG-0588,

l

WEPC did not perform a complete test sequence on specimens of Rockbestos

!

coaxial cable.

(Paragraph 4.D.(1), Item 50-266/85013-03 (DRS); 50-301/

85013-03(DRS).)

4.

Contrary to paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 50.49, WEPC did not document that the

type test of Limitorque de operators exposed the interior of the operator

to the design basis accident conditions.

(Paragraph 4.D.(2), Item 50-265/

85013-04 (DRS); 50-301/85013-04 (DRS).)

-

T

m

.