IR 05000266/1985019

Insp Repts 50-266/85-19 & 50-301/85-18 on 851001-1130.No Noncompliance or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Operational Safety Maint,Surveillance,Refueling Activities & IE Bulletin Followup

ML20138N472
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/14/1985
From:	Jackiw I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138N470	List: IR 05000266/1985019 ML20138N466
References
50-266-85-19, 50-301-85-18, IEB-85-002, IEB-85-2, NUDOCS 8512240021
Download: ML20138N472 (8)

Text

---

.

. , .

. d- [

9; =r

'

EU.S. .- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION ,

l REGION III i

'

.. l 1 Reports No. 50-266/85019(DRP); 50-301/85018(DRP)'-

. Docket Nos.L50-266;.50-301; Licenses No. DPR-24;DPR-27

. Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Company 231 West Michigan

. Milwaukee,'WI. 53203

~ ' Facility Name: Point' Beach Unit:1 and 2 Inspection At: Two Creeks, Wisconsin 1 ; Inspection Conducted: October 1 through November 30.-1985 Inspectors: R. L. Hagu R. J. Leemon

~

Approved'By: lI. .Jackj

'

I) / / /6 Re ctor Projects Section 2B Date

'

Inspection Summary Inspection on October 1 through November 30, 1985 (Report Nos. 50-266/85019(DRP);

50-301/85018(DRP))

. Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by resident inspectors of

' operational safety; maintenance;' surveillance; refueling activities;

. surveil _ lance - refueling; spent. fuel' pool activities; maintenance program-implementation; organization'and administration; IE bulletin follow-up; and licensee event report follow-up. The inspection involved a total of 361-inspector-hours ~'onsite by two inspectors including 56 inspector-hours on-off-shift Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie .

8512240021 851216 E PDR .ADOCK 05000266 G- PDR- 3

-

?

4,c; e, ,

,

QM3 ' _ j; -

,

-<<~ , , , <

_ , ,__ . , _ ,_ a [ t h, yM w , :

. - F:[ ' .

Q~ , y~

- -

p .

~

-

~ a,E * "

iDETAILS-

%R ,,-

,

-

c

,sq

%;

_

• '

m, y

< ,

.'

-y

'

.

/M _(1.1 iPersons1 Contacted:?

~ '

W:

.

. .

, __ ,

ng * , -

• J. = J.3 Zach, .Mariager, PBNPj

-

_~ T.LJ.:Koehler, General'Superintendentr -

i

, . . . tG.JJCMaxfield,1. Superintendent, Operations ~ .

• : J. C. : Reisenbuechler 1 Superintendent, -Technical . Service

- JC JW.EJ.oNerreen,; Superintendent,- Maintenance.& Construction- -

'; ,

,

- >*R.:E., Link? Superintendent,'EQR1 -j R.iSFBredvad, Health.:Physicisti a y .~ - LR.nKrukowski, Security' Supervisor:

,- l*F.'A."Flentje,l Staff-Services. Supervisor-

.

s -

• J.LE.:Knorr, Regulatory Engineer-W:V ,-  ;

.

-

Thiiinspector also talked lwithIand interviewed members of ',he Operation,

, ,

, Maintenance,: Health Physics,.and Instrument and Control tections,

w *Deinotes personnel; attending' exit interview '

,

^ ~

2.; 10porational Safety Verification and Engineered Safety Features System

,

Wa'kdown .(71709 and:71710).

- -

, ,

_ .

-

- '

The! inspectors observed control room operations ~, reviewed applicable logs-  ;

cand conducted: discussions with. control room operators during the month '

fof.0ctober and November,'1985. During these discussions and. observations, the1inspectorsLascertained_that'the operators were alert, cognizant of

'

+

.

W ' plant conditions,; attentive _to changes ~in_those conditions,:and.took-

.. prompt action when appropriate. The: inspectors verified the. operability;

'

.

-

cof; selected'. emergency systems,~' reviewed'tagoutl records and verified proper return to service of.affected components. -Tours of the Unit-2 .

. Containment, the Auxiliary.and Turbine' Buildings were conducted to observe in plant equipment conditions, including potential fire nazards, fluid leaks,

and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been

~

n/

initiated forLequipment in_need of maintenanc ,

, ..

~ '

LTheinspectors,byobservation.anddirect[ interview,verifiedthat.the

'

1 physical..securityplantwasbeingimplementedinaccordancewiththe: ' ~

, ;stationEsecurity plan.-

The~ inspectors observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and

. verified implementation of radiation protection controls. During.the

,

months of;0ctober and November 1985; the inspectors walked down the

'

accessible

portions of the Auxiliary Feedwater, Vital Electrical, Diesel -

, Generating,' Component Cooling, Safety. Injection, and Containment Spray:

,

systems to verify _ operability.'

s y

These' reviews and observations ~were' con' ducted to verify that-facility

'

.

operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technical Specifications, 10 CFR and administrative procedure ,

.

t

2

<.

,s , , e_

,,~ ~~

c,

.

,

<

f7,f;'; . , .  ;

- o;- l

,W '

u 1 .

Q&C m .

-

"_

Y f

+ :0n-October 2,?during full' power operation, a low feedpump suction, alarm

',

., ,

" -camerin en Unit 2 3 Operators immediately started a power reduction.to w

'

?approximately.205: power preventing'a. reactor trip on low S/G 1evel.. The

" '

causeLof!the..feedpump 1.ow suction pressure was:the malfunctioning of the

-

'

<

heater? drain tank' pump discharge; valve which failed closed. The valve was

, , repaired and the Unit

was.returnedsto 1005. power.. During,the transient,. _

-

~ 5the' alarm for low. low rod insertion bank D came'in.' :Although a check of-

'

,

? .

>

Technical Specifications. revealed: actual rod insertion limits were no >. .

x exceeded,"theilicensee committed to include-a warning in'the Significant:

Operating 4 Event'reportC to be used for training, that. insertion limits are'.

'

most criticalfat~end"of' life and although the-low low' alarm"is' set

approximately 10 steps above the Technical' Specification limit, this

. (parametermustbeactively.considaredduringthe.recoveryfromsucha (transient.

p

.

,1

,

P~ n ' Unit 2 was taken off-line at .2:11 a.m. , October 5,1985, to start f

'

^

refueling:ll. 'At.6:37:a.m. on November.21, 1985, the Unit was:taken L

(critical completing the~ refueling outage. -Major evolutions accomplished

' '

b during theioutage included condenser tube replacement, feedwater heater i, - ' replacementF spli.t pin inspection and replacement of those with h.,- -

indications. The' Unit was placed on line at 9:16 p.m. on November.24,

.E ' ,' 1985, Land was taken off li~ne at 7:53 a.m., November 25, for turbine L L overspeed testi_ng. 1After, successful overspeed testing, the Unit was again -

'

lplaced'on linefat 9:57 a.m.-on November 25, 198 iAt 2:29 p.m.Lon October 2, 1985,'at the completion of a Unit 1 containment'

" '

finspection at 1005 power, while the: operators were leaving the upper air.

i lock, both air-lock doors were.open at the same time for a period of about t'~ 10 seconds. . The' containment was at a slightly negative pre sure so air

'

flow was into containment; At:1530, maintenance personnel = attempted to

' enter the air' lock to investigate the' malfunction.of the interlocks. Upon

'

' '

,

'

opening the outer door, the inner door. again came off it's seat and was

-

-immediately reclosed.1 Again air flow'was:into containment. Inspection of p~ ' - ~

the: interlock disclosed.that-the:can mechanism which prevents both doors ifrom being open at'the same' time was bent and misaligned sufficiently to

allow both. doors to'be. operated. On October 3, 1985, maintenance

>' ' personnel entered containment _through the lower air-lock.andfplaced

. , dogging devices on the , inner upper air lock door. This prevented the F, . inner door from inadvertently opening again when they opened the outer <

w door to affect repairs to the interlock. The interlock was repaired and A -

tested satisfactorily.

.

, 4 Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)-

_

O The inspector observed technical. specifications required surveillance

[ testing on the Reactor Protection and Safeguards Analog Channels and-s' -

LNuclear Instrumentation and' verified that testing was performed in 1 '

L " y :(

-

laccordance with: adequate procedures, the test instrumentation was

, ' calibrated,-that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal y

i;

.

V j'

" '

-

4

/'

.j

. . ~ . - - - - - - - . - - .- - . - .

A n n;

@

.;;a ,

. , ~

and ' restoration of'the affected components were accomplished,.that. test results conformed with technical specifications'and procedure

'

_ requirements and were reviewed by personne1~other than the individual

'

. directing the _ test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed.and resolved by. appropriate management

" personnel.;

~

$

~

The' inspector also' witnessed or reviewed' portions of the following test

'

activities:

TI-01- . Inservice Testing of High Head Safety Injection Pumps and Valves

' WTP 6.1} Core Power Distribution  ;

REI'6.0 : Flux Mapping

, 4 At 10i07 a.m. , October 9, Unit 1 experienced a momentary runback from 100 to 97.5% power.. The runback' occurred during the performance of ICP 2.7, -

-

'N42 Power Range Surveillance Testing, an instrument and control. technician-was performing a procedure step which called for returning the operation

^

selector switch to normal. The technician inadvertently returned the

- runback bypass switch to normal. He'immediately realized his error.and returned the switch to the bypass position terminating the runback after about .75 second .1 . Monthly Maintenance' Observation (62703)

Station maintenance activities on safety related systems and components listed below were observed / reviewed to ascertain'that they were conducted in accordance with' approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry-codes or standards and in conformance with technical specification The following items'were considered during this review: the limiting -

coaditions, for operation were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were t

, inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were - :

-performed prior'to returning'coeponents'or systems to. service;' quality  !

control records'were~ maintained;' activities.were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials'used were properly certified;  !

radiological controls.were implemented;-and. fire prevention controls were

~

'

i

.

. implemente ,

-

1-

'

. .

Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and  !

^

.

to assure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment  !

maintenance which may affect system performanc :

The following' maintenance activities were observed / reviewed: ,

Removal and Inspection'of Unit'2 "A" Reactor Coolant Pump Motor ,

Steam Generator Safety Valve Testing ,

Rebuilding Unit 2 Containment Snubbers r

'

. ,

• - - -

, - - + - .+,,.,,--#--,r.~.mw.,v,-.,---,.-,y., ,:-

.-%w,ey,,..,.,,vp, ,,--~,,-.-v-7--,. - , , , , , - < , , - -

4=-e-

-

. c . . . - - - .

'

jf 3

- ~ '

)/d fhM * 1

'

k{.~'N .

,.

. ,,

'

h. ' $ - - ; , .m , ,

,

y ;' .

ew c

.

.y

-

.

,

+ ,

. .& cm .

"

,

n - 1 c . ~

j l,

'

5 6 kefuelina-Activities; - (60710);

&- A ;The inspector verified'that prior.to-the handling of fuel in dhe core, all L

,

'

' surve111anceLtesting required by the Technical Specifications and -

,

-

111censee's proceduresLhad been completed; verified that-during the outage

the periodic. testing of_ refueling related equipment was performed as v . required _by Technical

Specifications;-' observed;5 shifts of the fuel

,' ,

handling operations (removal, inspection and insertion)'and verified the

activities.were performed-in accordance with the Technical Specifications-

-

.

and approved procedures;' verified that containmentuintegrity was '.

'

,

. maintained as: required by Technical Specifications;.' verified that goodt

%' ' v

.

housekeeping was maintained =on'the refueling area; and, verified thats

~ staffing during refueling was.in accordance with Technical Specifications-

.

, land approved procedure _

e

[ '

' Surveillance - Refueling f(61701)

.

.

. .. . . .

.

' '

-

iThe-inspector obser'ved refueling outage related surveillance testing on

Unit?2 to verify that_ the tests were covered by properly approved

- procedures; that the procedures used were consistent with regulatory requirements,-;1icensee. commitments, and administrative controls; that (minimum crew requirements were met, test-prerequisites were completed,

_

special. test: equipment was calibrated and in service, and required: data

'

was recorded for final. review and analysis; that the qualifications ofi

'

.

. . personnel conducting the; test'were' adequate; and that the test results'

<

~

' n were adequatet :The. inspector witnessed all_or portions.of the following-

.

' ~

itests::

,

/

IORT No'.111 ' "Flow Test of: Safety Injection Pumps"-

'

ORT Not 2L " Flow Test of RHR Pumps" .

'

~0RTLNo.-3 "" Safety Injection Actuation with Loss of Engineered

, LSafeguards AC'? .

q. ,

~

' TSE No.:30

'

'"Highand-Low Head Safety Injection Check Valve Leakage-

.

.

' Test"

,

At 7:35'a.m.,-October 5, after the completion of hot rod drop testing on

.  : Unit'2, rod D-10 was" dropped and : stuck 'at 178 steps. This rod had dropped

' <

successfully during the'surveillince-testing. The rod was_ stepped out three steps and'out motion was verified. The rod was'then stepped in successfully past the point at.which it had stuck. During the refueling

"

. outage.the guide ~ tube, control rod, and drive shaft were inspected. No

. > - abnormalities were identified. The control rod was replaced from_ spares

- and post refueling rod drop testing was performed satisfactoril ;

- '

' During-the. outage, steam generator, tube eddy current testing was

'-

• . accomplishe Details of the scope of the. inspection are given in ,

- Licensee' Event Report 50-301/85-003. The licensee plugged 10 tubes in'the

"A'? ' steam generator and 44 tubes -in the "B" steam generator. Also during ,

P

1

' '

m . g, q

_ . . . . _ _. _ _ , _ ___ _ __

.

w : , <

~

r

._..q ft A

.

,

L:k [ ' , '

-

~

,

< -

"

the. outage,ultrasorkictestingoflthe-guidetubesplitpinswas

~

,

accomplished.5 One additionalssplit pin was found to have a retractable

~

indication, three-others had been identified during the last outage. .All

,

four_ split pins were replace i7 o Spent Fuel Pool ActivitiesJ1(86700)

.

.

>

During

the operating cycle,(it was noted that primary coolant activity for t

. Unit'2 took~a step 1: crease in-July about halfway through the cycl '

. .' tAlthough! actuali activity . levels remained.below .1 uc/cc, which is less ithan~10% of the Technical Specification limit, some fuel damage was w ? suspected due to"thefabnormal step increase. After the fuel' offload,

.

a

visual inspection of.the fuel assemblies disclosed two assemblies, L56 and

>L59h which exhibited significant flow induced fretting primarily at the grid, straps, .but also at other' locations along the rodlets. - : Assemblies

"

L56 and L59.had=been-located at core positions M6-and F1 respectivel ,

These core positions represent two of eight positions at which the baffle

~

, ~p late joint is. formed with a rabbet joint which had been peened over in

'

4 1977.to prevent this type of flow induced fuel damage. The differential ~

pressure across' the' baffle plates varies from 15-25 lbs./sq.in. at.the top l

-

,

Lto 3-5 lbs./sq.in.:at the bottcm. Therefore, any gapping of the joints' ' !

-

would allow coolant to flow from.outside the baffles into the fuel are It appears that a gap of approximately two thousandths of an inch will l produce a nozzle 'effect which, if. directed at a fuel rodlet, can cause the .

. rodlet to vibrate'against the grid straps or the baffle plates causing-

, wear and eventually a breach of the cladding. Possible fixes to avoid +

.

'

. release of fission' products to the coolant include replacing fuel rodlets.'

tin the~affected areas with empty rodlets,:repeening of the joint to close

,l theLgaps,-and a Westinghouse modification which reduces-the differential

. pressure'across the baffles. 'A11'of'the fixes considered by the licensee

.

involve a'significant man-REM expenditure and in as much as wear and'

cladding failure'is a gradual' process which can be effectively monitored-through coolant sampling, the licensee decided not to attempt any of the 1

,L , fixes this-outage.- Coolant activity will be monitored closely during this

^ " ' l cycle;and the licensee will continue to study possible solutions to Jthe problem.- This issue'is' presently being carried at an open item for

'

-:

-

. Unit 1.' o

~

8.: Maintenance > Program Implementation (62700) -

The inspector verified that the maintenance program was being implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements. The effectiveness of the maintenance program on important plant equipment and the ability of_'the w: >

- maintenance staff to conduct an effective maintenance program was

,

evaluated.-

The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:

n , Replacement of a Source Range Detector

' '

Replacement of a Power Range Detector

. Replacement of Unit 2 Steam Generator "B" High and Low Low Level

.,

Relay

.

'

s t

F w

-

', .

'.

N

'

'

' -

,

.

.

, ,

,

-

_

m , ,

,

'

_

g; .  ; +w

'

• ~

. .. .

- .

- g ~

SMP G23, '.'UnitL 2 Contro1' Board Modification ~84-292

and Reactor Trip'

' Breaker-Modification Addendum.8-292-0, Reactor Trip Breaker-

'

'

W s ,

'

s Pushbutton and' Breaker Position Indicator Installations and Shunt

'

>

'

. Trip; Test Jack: Installation"

,

% . . > . .

" 'iieat'er Drain Tank Valve 2-CV-2532A (Repair of' Valve)

' '

'

.

~ ~

-

JDiesellGEneratorLGlycol-CoolerHX558:(Cleaning,Inspectionan '.m;- .

Replacement;of the Tubes) -

'I

' '

' Red Instrument Bu's" Inverter 10YO1;(Perturbation.on Red Bus Causing 'a

> Turbine Runback)L '

<Theireview'ofthe.abovemaintenance'activitiesincludedinterviewswith-L ' maintenance personnel and supervisors',' review of.the completed work- -

1  : : packages (to' ensure that_ proper documentation'of work and spare parts!were-Y 1 complete'-and in accordance with procedures, and that an' effective-

}{, cpreventative maintenance program is(in, plac . .- .

..

'

' ,9lt 10reanization and Administration (36700)-

-

.

, ,w.; a e .. . .

.

...

E }The inspector ascertained that; changes:madef to the licensee's onsite :

,  : organizatiori were -in conformance with.'the requirements 'of 'the Technical

=

'

Specifications and that,the. licensee's.use of overtime'was11n conformance

,: s - lwith regulatory; requirements.: The' inspection' included vertfication that

, Lthe;11censee's onsite organization is functioning ~as described in the-

TechnicaliSpecifications, that personne1' qualification levels are in

'

-

,

conformance with applicable codestor' standards, that lines-of: authority-

,

Land responsibility are in'conformance with Technical Specifications and

, 2that deviations from maximum overtime limits were authorized in accordance n ,,, 'with(procedure ; ~10. :IE Bulletin Followup (92701);

,

~ The inspector verified that'for the below listed bulletin no licensee-

~ . , ' action 1was required.L However, the bulletin'was routed to cognizant

' individuals'for informatio ,w -

.

.

.

,

a. IEB 85 02 Undervoltage Trip Attachments-of Westinghouse DB-50 Type-

. Reactor Trip Breakers-

'

, -

' *

11.; Licensee' Event' Reports Followup l(92700)

Through direct observations, discessions with licensee' personnel, and- ~

review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine c that reportabili y requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective-

.actionfwas accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had-

.been. accomplished in accordance with technical specification ^

d !266/85006~ k lear Instrumentation Tu-bine Runback I' 266/85007 ' Mear Instrumentation TurTint Runback

-

" -'

. Momentary Loss.of Containeeit Integrity

.

1266/85008 266/85009 Nuclear Instrumentation Turbine Runback- 1

<301/85003 -Degradation of Steam Generator Tubes  !

,s

'

l

, -

,

i

<

J

- - - . .,

-

b y, .

.

p3 ; .

. .

. ., ; ' ~

,

,

_ _

-

11 Exit' Interview-(30703)

,The inspectors met with licensee. representatives (denoted in. Paragraph 1)

-throughout the inspection period and at the conclusion-of the inspection period to summarize'the scope and. findings of the inspection l activitie The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' comments. The inspectors also

-

discussed.the-likely informational content of the inspection report with

~

,

regard to documents or processes reviewed.by the: inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not, identify any such documents / processes

.

5 _astproprietar .

-s h

I

_-

t

-

i

't

4 s

w *

. 4_ 4

.

8

-

y

.lNL