IR 05000324/1974005
| ML20044C498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1974 |
| From: | Robert Lewis, Rob Parker NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044C467 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-569 50-324-74-05, 50-324-74-5, NUDOCS 9303230142 | |
| Download: ML20044C498 (9) | |
Text
,
i
,
' '
te"'(*,
UNITED STATES
' c-f - ( 3i ATOM!C ENERGY COMMISSION
-
1.:c,.5 ',..
~ m =zcre m =Cncvzurw=
,
f REGION li - SU *T E B1'
-
')) P t A C. H T R E E M RE E', % 3RT Hm L O 9,,,
,,
,,4
,
t'
- 7 L A N f A. P.LORG6A 3)303 RO Inspection Report No. 50-324/74-5
.
Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company
'
336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 i
Facility Name: Brunswick 2 i
Docket No.:
50-324 i
License No.:
CPPR-67 Category:
B1
!
Location:
Southport, North Carolina
!
Type of License:
2436 Mwt, BWR, G-E
'
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: March 25-27, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection: March 12-15, 1974 (Construction)
February 5-8, 1974 (Test and Startup)
Principal Inspector:
R. C. Parker, Reactor Inspector
.
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspectors: None
!
r Other Accompanying Personnel: None
Principal Inspector:
-
- !~' / 7-7'[
R. C. Parker, Reactor Inspector Date
,
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Reviewed By:
6.
tM
[/
[
I R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch
,
i
~
9303230142 930202 PDR FOIA O'MEALI92-569 PDR
r
-
'
.
t
.
,
RO Rpt. No. 50-324/74-5-2-i
!
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS i
i I.
Enforcement Action l
A.
Violation i
!
Violation considered to be of Category III severity is as follows:
,
Contrary to Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 the causes of conditions and corrective actions taken to correct significant
!
conditions adverse to quality were not documented.
(Details I, i
paragraph 2)
i l
!
B.
Safety Items
!
None l
,
II. Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Enforcement Matters
!
!
There were no open previously identified enforcement matters.
.i
!
III. New Unresolved Items 74-5/1 Administrative Procedures
{
Volume 1 of the plant operating manual does not fulfill commit-ments made in the FSAR in response to comment D.10.
(Details i
I, paragraph 3)
!
74-5/2 Quality Assurance Records Storage Facility i
i The permanent QA record storage facility does not conform to
!
(Details I, paragraph 9)
i I
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
<
t 74-1/1 Preoperational Test Program P
CP&L has not completed an audit of the preoperational test program to verify conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.68.
This item remains open.
.
l 74-1/2 Continuing Quality Assurance Program CP&L stated that changes were in process to the quality assurance
!
manual but had not been approved. This item remains open j
pending review of these changes.
j
!
i
!
!
.
i
)
,
$
. -
.
.~
~
-
-
-. -
.
I
!
4 -
)
,
j
-
.
- !
RO Rpt. No. 50-324/74-5-3-
'
!
74-1/3 Preoperational Test Duality Assurance
Quality assurance audit reports were made available to the f
inspector. This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
{
!
74-1/4 Measurement of Flow Rate in Stack f
Not inspected.
I i
74-1/5 Qualification of Radioactive Waste System Operators Not inspected.
.l 73-17/1 RO Bulletin 73-6 t
>
l
Procedures required to prevent an inadvertent criticality l
will be reviewed by RO when they are available.
(Details I, (
'
paragraph 8)
'
,
73-12/3 Preoperational Test PO-78, "DC Electrical Systems"
!
PO-78 has been revised and previously identified deficiencies i
were resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 7)
l
!
V.
Design Changes
[i None
!
VI.
Unusual Occurrences None I
!
VII. Other Significant Findings i
t Mr. A. Kowalcruk was designated to fill a new plant staff position:
~
,'
Environmental and Radiological Control (E&RC) Supervisor. The j
E&RC supervisor will be responsible for environmental, radiological,
,
!
and chemistry related activities at the site. The Engineering and i
Quality Assurance Supervisor was previously responsible for these.
l activities.
~
VIII. Management Interview t
A management interview was held on March 27, 1974, to discuss the j
inspection findings. The following persons attended:
!
!
l
!
.!
I
>
-
]
,
i
!
-
.
.-.
_
.. - -
-.
i
-
i
. -
[
i
{
-
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-324/74-5-4-
!
!
l Carolina Power and Light Company J
k E. G. Hollowell - Plant Manager i
' H. W. Weatherwax - Startup Procedures and Test Engineer
[
' R. E. Porterfield - Maintenance Supervisor i
R. J. Jablonski - Plant Engineer
!
E. P. Eagle, Jr. - Plant Engineer
., [
,
A.
Enforcement actions, new unresolved items, and status of previously
$
reported unresolved items were discussed.
(Summary of Findings,
.I paragraphs I, III, and IV)
{
$
B.
The inspector expressed his concern that the procedures for j
review and approval of preoperational test procedures should
be more formalized to insure that appropriate review comments
!
are incorporated.
CP&L stated they would take action to resolve i
this problem.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
!
$
C.
The inspector stated that development of their training program
'
appeared to be consistent with plant development.
(Details I,
paragraph 6)
I
.
l
'l
!
!
i
!
!
!
f f
i
i i
t i
!
i
- I
-
!
i i
I
!
!
!
..-.
i
, -
i
-
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-324/74-5 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared By:
.(
(
__
~/7'73!
R. C. Parker, Reactor Inspector Date i
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: March 25-27, 1974
!
Reviewed By:
[. 6.
/ 7h R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch
,
1.
Persons Contacted
.
Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L)
!
E. H. Hol10well - Plant Manager
-
H. W. Weatherwax - Startup Procedures and Test Engineer A. M. McCauley - Engineering and Quality Assurance Supervisor R. J. Jablonski - Plant Engineer E. O. Eagle, Jr. - Plant Engineer
D. Tall - Training Coordinator 2.
Preoperational Test Quality Assurance Program The below listed reports of quality assurance audits performed to the
'
requirements of paragraph IX.A,Section II, of the "Startup Manual" (SUM) were reviewed by the inspector.
i a.
Audit report - SU QA-1 (1) Audit dates - August 22-23, 1973 (2) Areas audited - Sections 8.3 and 8.4 of the SUM:
flushes-
'
and hydrostatic testing.
'
,
b.
Audit report - SU QA-2 (1) Audit date - August 31, 1973
,
(2) Area audited - Section'7 of the SUM:
clearance procedure.
c.
Audit report - SU QA-3 (1) Audit date - September 25, 1973 r
(2)-Areas audited - Section 4 of the SUM: equipment turnover,
,
j
--
_.
-
.. _,
-
..
-..
..
-
-
!
!
l
-
P
'
'
R0 Rpt. No. 50-324/74-5 1-2
!
i l
'
.\\
d.
Audit report - SU QA-4
l (1) Audit date - November 11, 1973 (2) Areas audited - Sections 5 and 6 of the SUM: ins t rumenta tion i
inspection and calibration, and initial equipment operation.
I e.
A report of corrective actions dated October 4, 1974, closed out i
or gave status of deficiencies identified in audit reports SU QA-1 I
s and SU QA-2.
!
CP&L stated that an audit of preoperational testing procedures was performed during January 1974.
Ihis report was not available at the I
site. The above audit reports included copies of the checklists used
!
to perform the audits and specific audit findings.
!
l There was no documentation to show that appropriate corrective action i
or reaudit of deficiencies identified in audit reports SU QA-3 and l
SU QA-4 had been performed.
CP&L stated that appropriate corrective action l
had been taken and informal reaudit had been done. The inspector
!
reviewed initial equipment operation packages for the Residual Heat
.i Removal, Core Spray, and the Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water i
Systems to deter =ine if certain deficiencies had, in fact, been
'
corrected. No deficiencies were noted.
I Failure to document causes of conditions and corrective action taken f
to correct significant conditions adverse to quality is contrary to
Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
,
!
Except for failure to document causes of conditions and corrective
action taken to correct significant conditions adverse to quality, no i
other deficiencies were identified.
i 3.
Administrative Procedures
!
i
,
Volume I of the Operating Manual, " Administrative Proce.dures" was
!
reviewed by the inspector. The purpose of the review was to determine I
if FSAR commitments made in paragraph A of the response to consent D.10 had been met.
In addition, certain administrative procedures
!
vere reviewed to deter =ine if they conformed to or were equivalent to j
guidance provided to ANSI N18.7, " Administrative Controls for Nuclear.
Power Plants." The following deficiencies were identified:
j a.
!
Certain authorities and responsibilities for safe operation and a.
shutdown of the plant identified in paragraph 5.1.1 of ANSI N18.7 i
are not delineated in writing.
)
i; I
l s
-
I
-
-
p i
!
.
.--
.
-
.
.
_ __.
_. _ _ _
_
. _
_
.__
.~
.
_. _ _ _
i
-
l
'l
.
t j
.
.
i RO Rpt. No. 50-324/74-5 I-3
t
!
,.
i i
b.
Intervals specified for periodic-reviews of the plant operating
!
manual are not consistent with paragraph 5.4 of ANSI N18.7 j
Section 8, " Plant Records," does not conform to ANSI N45.2.9, f
c.
" Requirements for Collection, Storage and Maintenance of Quality l
Assurance Records for Nuclear Power Plants,"
(11th Draft). See
unresolved item 74-1/2.
I d.
Administrative controls for " Access to Containment" are not covered.
Administrative controls for " Bypass of Safety Functious" are nui I
e.
covered.
!
!
I f.
Due to a recent ammendment to the technical specifications several l
references to technical specification paragraph numbers are i
incorrect.
l
!
This is designated an unresolved item pending resolution of these deficiencies.
i
!
4.
Total Main Steam Loop Flush Procedure, F1-A
-
e As originally scheduled, the reactor vessel hydro was to be performed j
prior to and as a prerequisite to the total main steam loop flush
!
procedure. As a result of plant conditions, it was decided to_
{
perform the flush prior to the hydro. At'that time, the flush procedure
!
had been reviewed and comments had been submitted and incorporated in that procedure, but it had not received final approval. The test engineer deleted the reactor vessel hydro as a prerequisite in the
!
flush procedure without adding other appropriate prerequisites made j
necessary by the schedule change. When this procedure was then j
submitted for final approval, it was approved by all responsible.
l persons without detecting this omission. The inspector expressed
!
concern that persons approving procedures apparently do not have the
{
-
means available to determine if review comments have been appropriately
,
incorporated or if other changes have been made to procedures between the time of initial review and resubmittal for final approval. CP6L stated that in the future procedure review comment sheets and the original procedure draft will be attached to corrected draft procedures submitted for approval. This will permit persons approving procedures.
>
to readily review changes made to draft procedures. The inspector l
stated he had no further questions.
l l
l
.
i
l
!
!
l
~
!
!
!
i
-.
_ _ __
._.
_
. - -.
_
l
_
._.
_
.
_. _ _.
.-
.
.
_r
-
i
+
.-
,
JI
-
.-
,
RO Rpt. No. 50-324/74-5 I-4 f
l-i f
i S.
Westinghouse W-2 control Switches
!
,
Westinghouse NSD Technical Bulletin No. ESD-TB-26 which identifies problems associated with W-2 control switches was discussed with t
CP&L.
CP&L told the inspector that no Westinghouse W-2 control switches
are being used at the Brunswick facility.
i 6.
Training Program
i Implementation of the training program described in Section 13.2 l
i of the FSAR was reviewed by the inspector. Certain training records
!
werc spct checked to determine if training commitments described in
,
!
the FSAR are being met. Retraining and replacement training programs
{
are in the developmental stages.
CP&L stated that general employee j
training in plant security and quality assurance is planned and that i
all persons employed at the plant will be trained in radiation i
protection. No deficiencies were noted.
'
!
7.
Preoperational Test PO-78, "DC Electrical Systems" l
Revision 1 to PO-78 was reviewed by the inspector to determine if
'
testing of the ground detection system was included. No deficiencies i
were identified. Unresolved item 73-12/3 is closed.
I t
8.
RO Bulletin 73-6
!
.
CP&L stated that a copy of RO Bulletin 73-6 has been circulated to all members of the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC). The PNSC
!
has been instructed to assure that plant procedures conform to RO Bulletin 73-6 as they are written. This item will remain open
)
pending the inspector's review of these procedures.
'
9.
Quality Assurance Records Storace Facility
The permanent QA record storage facility does not conform to paragraph
!
5.6 of ANSI N45.2.9, " Requirements for Collection. Storage, and
{
Maintenance of Quality Assurance Records of Nuclear Power Plants,"
r (llth Draft) as follows:
'
!
A fire retardant door with a two-hour underwriter's rating is
!
a.
not installed.
..
b.
A dry chemical or gas fire protection system is not provided.
l This has been designated an unresolved item.
t
!
..
I i
h
-
b
!
..
.
FF.F. DEI: 'NSPECTIO.' P.EPORT IDESTIFICATT * Si1EET
- -
,
,
RF. FORT NO.
,_
B~.
CW S, Fk i &:. red TO:
b WIS bC m
,
.
and hYh 9-b w ds
,
Licensce:
06vCbv% EOver C N linbi Co.
Inspection Dates 3[2.5-27 7t/
.
/
i
-
._ hY v O tts 'i (
.
hh peyk Me Mb btC\\M A
.
,
'
Other Inspectors Mwe Tcader Report Prepared By:
b. C h6 Y b 4-4 ~ld Date'~
-
.
Inspector's Evaluntion (continue on attached sheet, if necessary)
NC t bwA.s e
-
N e c'
L O-d t1 ( N LLv s wev e t<
tv.
1cc a
i
.
.
NO inby M4 k ey, s N k ig du {t<-4 k
'
/,,tt
,g M4w ov Sadhw k EO '. H Q S.,
%A W
,
.
.
.
.
.
.s
,
s C.C.V u Signature
..
..,
70:
The attached Feeder Inspection Dacicaentation is transmitted in revietted and approved form.
.
'
--
Co==2nts:
.
.
.e