- __ . ,_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _

.,s

,

.s.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-266/87015(DRP); 50-301/87014(DRP)

Docket Nos._50-266;'50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; DPR-27

Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Company231 West MichiganMilwaukee, WI 53203

Facility Name: Point Beach, Units 1 and 2

Inspection At: Two Creeks, Wisconsin

Inspection Conducted: July 16, 1987 through August 31, 1987

' Inspectors: R. L. Hague-R. J.' Leemon

-Approved By: R ayette, 7 /7 7Reactor Projects Section 2B Date' :/

Inspection Summary

Inspection from July 16, 1987 throuch August 31, 1987 (ReportsNo. 50-266/87015(DRP); No. 50-301/87014 (DRP))Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by resident _ inspectors oflicensee actions on previous inspection. findings; operational safety;maintenance; surveillance; physical security; radiological protection;and licensee event report follow-up.Results: No violations or deviations' were identified.

|

|

!

).

G

w-_____-_-_____-_____________________ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

.

9

. -

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

*J. J. Zach, Manager, PBNP.

T. J. Koehler, General SuperintendentG. J. Maxfield, Superintendent - Operations

*J. C. Reisenbuechler, Superintendent - EQRSW. J. Herrman,. Superintendent - Maintenance & ConstructionD. F. Johnson, Superintendent - Health PhysicsR. Krukowski, Security Supervisor

*F. A. Flentje, Administrative Specialist*J. E. Knorr, Regulatory EngineerT. L Fredrichs, Superintendent - Chemistry

The inspectors also talked with and interviewed members of the Operation,Maintenance, Health Physics, Chemistry and Instrument and Control Sections.

* Denotes personnel attending exit interviews.

2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701) (92702)

(CLOSED) Open Item 266/87007-02; 301/87007-02 - Pending review of plantspecific current transformer (CT) characteristic curves.

The licensee's CT analysis " Current Transformers as a Fire Hazard - PointBeach Nuclear Plant" NENE-87-44 determined the maximum C7 secondarypotential-to be 400 volts. It was identified during the inspection,however, that this value of voltage was based on generic rather than plantspecific CT characteristics. By letter, dated May 19, 1987, from R. J.Steve (Westinghouse Electric Corporation) to R. A, Newton (WisconsinElectric Power Company) the licensee received, from the manufacturer,plant specific characteristics of the CT's of concern. A review of thisinformation found this concern to be satisfied. This item is consideredclosed.

The following IE Information Notices were reviewed by the licensee forapplicability, distributed to the appropriate personnel at the corporateand site levels, and it was determined by the licensee that correctiveactions were not necessary.

IN 87-04 " Diesel Generator Fails Test Because of Degraded Fuel"

A. Fuel Oil Surveillance

The licensee's technical specifications (TS 15.4.6A.4)require that each fuel oil transfer pump shall be runmonthly.

2

_ -_-_ .

_. . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ _____

-

.

B. Maintenance Including Fuel Filter Cleaning

RMP #43, " Diesel Annual Inspection" requires that thesuction line strainer of the two fuel transfer pumps becleaned and the fuel oil filters and fuel transfer filtersbe changed annually.

,

C. Fuel Sampling

Fuel oil is sampled monthly for each diesel and verifiedacceptable per table 1 of ASTM-D975, " StandardSpecification for Diesel Fuel Oils" with respect toviscosity, water content and sediment.

D. Fuel Oil Tank Cleaning

The licensee does not perform fuel oil tank cleaning as a 1

part of a routine maintenance program.

IN 87-08 " Degraded Leads in Limitorque DC Motor Operators"

Licensee does not have DC motor operators with the referencedtype of leads.

IN 87-10 " Potential for Water Hammer During Restart of ResidualHeat Removal Pumps"

This IN is applicable to BWRs and Point Beach Nuclear PowerPlant is a PWR.

IN 87-12 " Potential Problems with Metal Clad Circuit Breakers, General ^

Electric Type AKF-2-25".

These breakers are not used at Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant.

3. Operational Safety Verification and Engineered Safety Features SystemWalkdown (71707 and 71710) -

The inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logsand conducted discussions with control room operators during the period ofinspection. During these discussions and observations, the inspectorsascertained that the operators were alert, cognizant of plant conditions,attentive to changes in those conditions, and took prompt action whenappropriate. The inspectors verified the operability of selectedemergency systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return toservice of affected components. Tours of the Auxiliary and TurbineBuildings were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, includingpotential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and toverify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in needof maintenance.

|!

3'

_ -_ _______-_________-___.________________________ - ____________________________________________ _____________

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

.

.

l.The inspectors observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions. Duringthe period of inspection, the inspectors walked down the accessibleportions of the Auxiliary Feedwater, Vital Electrical, Diesel Generating,Component Cooling, Safety Injection, and Containment Spray systems toverify operability.

These reviews and observations were conducted to verify that facilityoperations were in conformance with the requirements established underTechnical Specifications, 10 CFR and administrative procedures.

At 4:35 a.m. on July 18, 1987, Unit 1 was taken off line for a short ;

maintenance outage. Of primary concern was a steam generator level jtransmitter isolation valve which had a significant packing leak. Othermaintenance included leak repairs to the cylinder heating steamline andthe manways on the 2A and 3B feedwater heaters. The unit was placed backon line at 12:47 p.m., July 18, 1987 and was at full power at 7:12 a.m.,July 19, 1987.

During a severe electrical storm, at 6:55 p.m. on August 16, 1987, theUnit 2 main transformer (2X01) was hit by a lightning strike. Thelightning strike caused a lockout of the B and C phases of transformer2X01. This in turn caused a lockout of the Unit 2 generator and a turbine ftrip / reactor trip. No safeguards buses were lost, however, power was lost jto the reactor coolant' pumps. Operators verified natural circulation and ^

were able to restore power to the reactor coolant pumps by 7:17 p.m. AnUnusual Event was declared as required by the emergency plan. The UnusualEvent was terminated at 8:05 p.m. The loss of power to the reactor i

coolant pumps was a result of the failure of the automatic bus transfer to |occur. It is believed that this failure was due to the nature of the i

power disruption and the fact that the synchronous relay which allows thetransfer did not sense a synchronous condition at the time. Restart wasdelayed due to the necessity to completely check out the 2X01 transformerfor physical damage and to perform repairs to the steam driven auxiliaryfeed pump which exhibited high outboard bearing temperatures whilemaintaining the unit in hot shutdown. The unit was placed back on line at5:10 a.m. on August 18, 1987. During the startup the DC power to themain steam isolation valves was left tagged out. This is a potential

,

violation and will be discussed in special Inspection Report No. 301/87016.

No violations or deviations were identified for this report. )4. Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)

The inspector observed technical specifications required surveillancetesting on tre Reactor Protection and Safeguards Analog Channels andNuclear Inst w mentation and verified that testing was performed inaccordance with adequate procedures, the test instrumentation wascalibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal i

and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test |results conformed with technical specifications and procedure requirements jand were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing thetest, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing wereproperly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.

4

_ _ _-

_ _ _ _ . _

.

4

The inspector also witnessed or reviewed portions of the following testactivities:

IT-07 Inservice Testing of Service Water Pumps & Valves (Monthly)

IT-09 Inservice Testing of Turbine-Driven Auxiliary Feed Pump(Monthly)

IT-72 Inservice Testing of Service Water Valves (Quarterly)

IT-295A Inservice Testing of Auxiliary Feedwater System FlowIndicators

TS-9 Control Room Heating and Ventilation System Checks

No violations or' deviations were identified.

5. Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)

Station maintenance activities on safety related systems and componentslisted 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 specifications.

The following items were considered during this review: the limitingconditions for operation were met while components or systems were removedfrom service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work;activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspectedas , applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior i

to returning components or systems to service; quality control recordswere maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; i

Hparts and materials used were properly certified; radiological controlswere implemented; and fire prevention controls were implemented.

Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and toassure that priority is assigned to safety related equipment maintenancewhich may affect system performance.

The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:

Thrust bearing maintenance on 2P29 turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater*

pump

* Inspection of 2X01 transformer

Installation of new instrument air compressor*

Repair of valve MOV 112B, RWST to VCT isolation*

Inspect bearings in boric acid transfer pump*(

5

__ - - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ ._ - _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . __ ___-_ - __ - -_ ____ _- -

,

..

.

During use of the Unit 2 steam driven auxiliary. feed'pu'mp, a hightemperature alarm was received on'the' outboard turbine bearing. -Steamgenerator. feed-was. shifted to the electric driven auxiliary feed pumps and

c .the~ steam driven pump was~ declared out of service. Maintenance personneldisassembled the bearing ~and found some. minor wiping of.the thrust bearing(one to two thousands of an inch). Normal' clearances are six to ninethousands'of an inch. This has been a recurring problem with the Terryturbine thrust bearings at Point Beach. A modification to replace the

. kingsbury type bearing with a roller type' thrust bearing has been delayedpending vendor support. . .The licensee expects to be able to complete themodification during the next refueling, outage on'each unit.'

o

No violations or deviations were identified.

6. Physical Security (71881) !

.The inspectors, by observation and direct interview, verified thatphysical security.was being implemented in accordance with the stationsecurity plan.

During the inspection period, the inspectors verified that the securityforce compliment was as required by the security plan, that search

' equipment was operational, and that access control for personnel andpackages was implemented in accordance with licensee procedures. The.inspectors verified that the protected and vital area barriers were beingwell maintained and, when required, appropriate compensatory measures were-taken.

-No violations or deviations were identified.

7. RadiologicalProtection(717091

During the inspection period, the inspectors verified that health physicssupervision conducted plant tours and were aware of activities which maycause unusual radiological conditions. The inspectors verified thatradiation work permits (RWP) contained required information and forselected RWPs the inspectors verified controls were being implemented asrequired at the work site. The inspectors observed personnel withinradiation controlled areas and determined that personnel monitoring i

equipment was properly worn and that the licensee's procedures for entry {and. exit were followed. The inspectors observed the posting of radiation ,

'

areas, hot spots, contaminated areas, and labeling of containers holdingradioactive material and verified postings using a calibrated beta gammaportable survey meter.

No violations or deviations were identified.

| 8. Event Followup (92700)

Through direct observations, discussions with licensee personnel, andreview of records, the following licensee event report (LER) was reviewed

6

L

,..

./, ;f.

*|

L..:-

to' determine that deportability requirements.were fulfilled, immediatetorrective1 action wcs_ accomplished, and corrective action to preventrecurrenceihad been. accomplished in accordance with technical-g

E specifications.I t'c

266/84006 ContainmentLIsolation Valve Leakage.in Excess of Technical| Specifications." In September 1984, this' valve leak rate was discussed between the Resident

Inspector' staff and.the licensee and it was decided that this event was'

not reportable because the minimum pathway leakage of 410 standard cubiccentimeters per minute (SCCM) passed the test. Recently, however, areview-of data indicates _that-it possibly should have been reported at-the time. This LER, therefore,'.was submitted for information purposes.-

-No violations or deviations were identified.

9. 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 activities.The licensee acknowledged the' inspectors' comments. The inspectors also

-

discussed.the likely informational content of the inspection report withregard to documents.or processes reviewed by the| inspectors'during'the'inspection. The;1icensee did not identify any such documents / processes as-proprietary.-

!

'l

i |1

1

7 I!1

t ;