ML20199F122

Forwards Insp Repts 50-266/97-21 & 50-301/97-21 on 971021- 1130 & Notice of Violation.Inspection Identified That CCW Sys Not Tested in Manner Which Bounded Performance During Containment Sump Recirculation Mode of ECC

ML20199F122
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/22/1997
From:	Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Patulski S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20199F126	List: IR 07100021/2011030 ML20199F122 ML20199F136
References
50-266-97-21, 50-301-97-21, NUDOCS 9802030062
Download: ML20199F122 (3)

See also: IR 05000266/1997021

Text

.. v

,

$v

.

,

December 22,1997

Mr. S. A. Patulski

Site Vice President

Point Beach Nuclear Plant

6610 Nuclear Road

Two Rivers, WI 54241

SUBJECT:

POINT BEACH NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-266/9702 i(DRP);

50 301/97021(DRP), AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Patulski:

On November 30,1997, the NRC completed an inspection at the Point Beach 1 and 2

reactor facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.

The facility was operated in a safe and conservative manner with most operational

decisions having a strong safety focus during this inspection period. Good command and

control were observed in the control room during a unit shutdown and a unit startup. Long-

term improvements were notes in the Quality Assurance function, and an insightful self-

ast.essment performed during this report period was indicative of a commitment to

continued improvement.

The NRC performed a vertical review of the design, testing, operation, and material

condition of the safety-related component cooling water (CCW) system during this period.

No problems were identified in ' ie areas of operator knowledge, maintenance worker skills,

and normal operating procedures. However, we identified that the CCW system had not

been tested in a manner which bounded its performance during the containment sump

recirculation mode of emergency core cooling. This was classified as a Test Control

violation. The test inadequacies were the result of large uncertainties in test instrument

accuracy, and weaknesses in the emergency operating procedures. We determined that

some of the problems with system testing had been previously identified by plant staff, but

four operability determinations written to address specific nonconformances failed to provide

reasonable assurance of system operability. This was classified as a Corrective Action

violation. An operability determination, completed at the end of the inspection period, was

found to be adequate to support restart of Unit 1. These vlotations were of particular

concern to the NRC because they represented issues which were not addressed and

/

resolved by the facility during the recent System Engineering Review Board (SERB) and

'

Outage Review Committee (ORC) processes for Unit 2 and Unit i restarts in addition to

/

the response to the specific identified violations, please address this broader question

regarding the adequacy of the reviews performed by the SERB and ORC.

A third violation was identified for the failure to perform Technical Specification (T/S)

required actions when the Unit i upper containment hatch interlock system was inoperable

between December 28,1996, and February 18,1997. We recognize that your staff's review

found no evidence that containment integrity was violated; however, the failure to use

existing station modification control processes contributed to the inadvertent defeating of the

hatch interlock. Please focus your response to this violation on why the design control

process for temporary

nann 02

Il! l lllll,l ,llll, Il

9802030062 971222

PDR

ADOCK 05000266

0

PDR

1

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - . - - - - .

.1

g 'j{

Ru

e3

x

,

.

l

S. Patuiski

-2-

ll

modifications was not used is this case, and what corrective actions are being implemented

to ensure that all modifications to safety related systems, structures, and components are

performed in accordance with appropriately developed and controlled procedures.

k

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.

3

Please note that you are required to respond to this letter and 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 requirements.

\\

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and

1

Its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

I

,,

Original signed by

John A. Grobe

John A. Grobe, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket Nos.: 50 266, 50 301

License Nos.:

DPR 24, DPR-27

Enclosures:

1.

Notice of Violation

2.

Inspection Report

No. 50 266/97021(DRP);

50 301/97021(DRP)

cc w/encis:

R. R. Grigg, President and Chief

Operating Officer, WEPCO

A. J. Cayia, Plant Manager

B. D. Burks, P.E., Director

Bureau of Field Operations

Cheryl L. Parrino, Chairman

Wisconsin Public Service

Commission

State Liaison Officer

. . . _

_

_ _ -

_

S. Patulski

2-

'

modifications was not used is this case, and what corrective actions are being implemented

to ensure that all modifications to safety related systems, structures, and components are

performed in accordance with appropriately developed and controlled procedures.

The violations identified above are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the

circumstances surrounding the violations are described in detallin the enclosed report.

Please note that you are required to respond to this letter and 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 requirements,

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.700 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and

its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

Is/ John A. Grobe

John A. Grobe, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket Nos.: 50 266, 60 301

License Nos.:

DPR 24, DPR 27

Enclosures:

1.

Notice of Violation

2.

Inspection Report

No. 50-266/97021(DRP);

50 301/97021(DRP)

cc w/encts:

R. R. Grigg, President and Chief

Operating Officer, WEPCO

A. J. Cayla, Plant Manager

B. D. Burks, P.E., Director

Bureau of Field Operations

Cheryl L. Parrino, Chairman

Wisconsin Public Service

Commission

State I.laison Officer

Docket File w/encls

SRI Point Beach w/encls

PUBLIC IE-01 w/encls

Rlli Enf. Coordinator w/encls

A. B. Beach w/encls

CAA1 w/enets (E-mail)

Deputy RA w/encls

DRP w/encls

Project Manager, NRR, w/encls

DRS (2) w/encls

Rlli PRR w/encls

DOCDESK (E mail)

TSS w/encls

See previous concurrence

DOCUMENT NAME: GAPOlN\\ pol 97021.DRP

To receive e copy of th6e document. Indicate in tha bos *C* = Copy without ettechment! enclosure *t* = Copy with attachmet t! enclosure

• N* = No copy

OFFICE

Rlli

Rlli

Rill

NAME

Kunowski:dp

JMcB

Grobe

DATE

O2/ /98

02/ /98

02/ /98

OFFICIAL RECOFD COPY

-

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