IR 05000324/1979009
| ML19263E388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1979 |
| From: | Graham M, Julian C, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263E387 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-79-09, 50-324-79-9, 50-325-79-09, 50-325-79-9, NUDOCS 7906180018 | |
| Download: ML19263E388 (6) | |
Text
..
UNITED STATES
- gsstoog'o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGloN ll
[
o
-
$
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303
\\...../
Report Nos. 50-325/79-09 and 50-324/79-09 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Facility Name: Brunswick Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324 License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 Inspection at Brunswick Site near Southport, North Carolina 8/
'
i Inspectors:
Date Signed
-
C. Julian '
'
' ?vw >
-(i
$ {v h,,.
,
'
Date Signed
,,
M. J. Graham )
3/2Jf79
' 4) ate Signed R. Sauer
/
()
8/23[7y I
d/D 2x~
Approved by:
Da'te Sif,ned R. D. Mattin, Section Chief, RONS Branch SUMMARY Inspection on February 26 - March 1,1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 86 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of preparation for refueling, observation of refueling activities and revie*. of refueling associated procedures.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or devia-2355 353 tions were identified.
7906180 0 / [
k
.-
..
.
-
t
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- Mr. A. C. Tollison, Plant Manager
'
- W. M. Tucker, Engineer and Administrative Superintendent
- J. M. Brown, Operations Superintendent
- S. E. Thorndyke, Operations Supervisor
- R. M. Coats, Maintenance Superintendent
- R. M. Poulk, NRC Coordinator
- M. A. Jones, Project Engineer, Recctor D. Allen, Quality Assurance G. R. Peeler, Operations EnF rcer i
B. Wilson, Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included several technicians, operators, and of fice personnel.
- Attended exit inter' iew.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scop, and findings were summarized on March 1, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The requirement for a test of the 120% APRM trip during refueling was discussed. The licensee stated that he felt he complied with the requirement. The inspector stated that the item would be unresolved subject to Region II office review. Subsequently the inspector informed the licensee by phone on March 8,1979 that he feels that the specification is being met (see paragraph 6 a).
With respect to refueling checks being performed every shift without documenting time of completion, the licensee agreed to evaluate the need for a time entry. This open item will be reviewed during a later inspection (50-325/79-09-01).
After discussion the licensee agreed to revise procedure PT 1.5.2 to incorporate features discussed in paragraph 7 (0 pen Item 50-325/7a 09-02).
Regarding the annual magnaflux examination of crane hooks, the licensee stated that the reactor building crane books would be examined within a week. The licensee also committed to incorporate this annual exami-nation in his crane maintenance program (open Item 50-325/79-09-03).
2 Ji S 5 Ji 5 4
.
. - - ~
-
-
--
.
-2-3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Observation of Plant Activities The inspectors observed fuel shuffling activities on the Unit I refueling floor and in the control room. On the Unit 2 refueling floor, the inspectors looked at modifications in progress on the refueling grapple in preparation for the refueling of Unit 2.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified during these obse rvations.
6.
Refueling Periodic Tests and Checks The inspector confirmed that certain of the periodic tests (PT)
a.
and checks required by the Technical Specifications were being performed at their required frequencies prior to and periodically during Unit I refueling. These included:
a.
T. S. 4.9.2.a SRM Channel check, detector location and position verification b.
PT 1.2.1
" Source Range Monitoring Systems" c.
T. S. 4.9.2.c SRM minimum count rate verification d.
T. S. 4.9.3 Full insertion of control rods verification e.
T. S. 4.9.4 Reactor subcriticality check f.
PT 1.5.2
" Control Rod Blocks (IRM)"
g.
PT 1.2.3
"APRM (15%)"
h.
PT 1.5.3
"SRM Rod Blocks" i.
PT 18.1
" Refueling Interlocks Check" The inspector also noted in review of the refueling Technical Specification surveillance requirements, that Table 4.3.1-1, item 2c, requires the APRM to be checked for a Reactor Protection 2355 355
..
_.
..
_ _ _ _ - _ _ -
-3-System High Neutron Flux ($ 120%) trip during operational condi-tion 5 (refueling).
Since the reactor mode switch is locked in the REFUEL position during refueling operations (Technical Speci-fication 3.9.1) the APRM scram setpoints are electrically inter-locked to 15% as required by Table 2.2.1-1 Note (2). To test the
$ 120% trip during the refuel condition would require a jumper to be installed defeating the reactor mode switch interlock. Since the APRM is also checked for a High Neutron Flux RPS trip at 15%
(item 2.a - Table 4.3.1-1) the inspector considers the requirement of 5 120% to have been saticfied. The plant staff have recently (February 12, 1979) transmitted a request for deletion of opera-tional conditions 2 and 5 from item 2c of Table 4.3.1-1 to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This transmittal was verified as received by NRR in a telephone discussion by the inspector with the licensing project manager on March 8,1979.
The licensing project manager indicated the request will be reviewed at his earliest opportunity.
The inspector considers adequate action has been taken by the licensee and that Technical Specification requirements are being met. This item is considered closed.
b.
The inspector reviewed the following records for the periodo stated to insure that all periodic tests and checks required by the Technical Specifications were being performed at the required frequency.
Shif t Foreman's log 1/1-2/28,1979 Control Operator's log 1/1-2/28,1979 Daily Surveillance Reports 2/5-2/28, 1979 lt was noted that the Daily Surveillance Report (DSR) did not require an entry of the completion time for an item, rather, just initials verifying completion on a given 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> work shift. The completed procedure for the periodic tests, listed in 6.a above, contains a record of the time of completion. However 5 periodic checks required by the Technical Specifications to be completed at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> do not have record entries for time of completion. These are:
Specification 4.9.1.1 Mode switch position Specification 4.9.2.a SRM checks Specification 4.9.2.c SRM minimum count rate Specification 4.9.3 Control rod insertwn Specification 4.9.5 Communication The inspector stated that entries should be made on the DSR of time of completion of these periodic checks to properly document 2355 356
-.
.
.
.-
-.
.
-4-that the time requirements of the Technical Specifications are met.
The licensee rtated that these checks are performed once per shift and that adminstiative operating instruction A01 5.5 calls for the checks to be completed in the first 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> of a shif t.
Conformance with these instructions sould allow a maximum of 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> between checks.
The licensee felt that this met the required 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> check interval allowing the 25% of interval extension allowed by Technical Specifica-tion 4.0.2.a.
After discussion at the exit interview and a phone discussion later, the licensee agreed to review the need for a time of completion entry. This will be reviewed at a later inspection. (Open item 50-325/79-09-01).
7.
Intermediate Range Monitor Periodic Test Procedure Upgrade The inspector reviewed periodic test PT 1.5.2 for technical adequacy.
It was modified during January 1979 to incorporate the Channel Func-tional Test of PT 1.2.2.
The modification was undertaken in an effort to delete redundancy in procedures. PT 1.2.2 was subsequently deleted af ter PT 1.5.2 was upgraded. Af ter reviewing the procedure the inspector expressed a concern on whether PT 1.5.2 Revision 14 was an adequate replacement of PT 1.2.2 and had the following comments:
The logic of the procedure does not check all alarms and indica-a.
tions which could be initiated by a particular channel.
The procedure presently generates a Reactor Protection System (RPS)
half scram upon trip of one IRM channel and then checks only local alarms for the remaining IRM channels prior to resetting the locked-in RPS trip. Resetting of all trips and alarms prior to proceeding to the next IRM channel test would insure that all IRM channel trips will cause an RPS half scram to occur.
b.
Not all annunciator lights were verified energized during the IRM High Neutron Flux trip (120%) portion of the procedure. These annunciations include:
(1) Panel P-603 - Reactor Console p
.
(a) Reactor auto scram system A (b) UPSCL Trip /IN0P (2) Panel P-606 - local vide range monitor (a) Upscale trip (b) INOP
._.
. _.
.
,
%
-5-The procedure body does not specify a power level at which the c.
IRM DOWNSCALE and ROD OUT Block trips occur when decreasing the input signal amplitude. The trip level (> 3%) should be specified to ensure the annunciations are occuring at their required setpoints.
The licensee representative acknowledged the inspectors concern and initiated action to incorporate the comments. This item is considered open pending further review by inspectors on subsequent inspections (50-325/79-09-02).
S.
Crane Inspection As documented in NRC inspection report 77-21 dated November 11, 1977, the licensee committed to evaluate the need to magnaflux inspect crane hooks annually. The licensee subsequently determined that this should be done and inspected Units 1 and 2 reactor building crane books late in 1977. It was determined, however, that no magnaflux examination of books was performed in 1978.
The licensee stated that this was an oversight and that although there is no clear regulatory requirement for annual inspection, they intend to promptly magnaflux inspect all crane hooks.
Furthermore, they intend to include this inspection item in their periodic crane maintenance procedures to insure performance annually.
The inspectors stated that this matter will be reviewed during a later inspection (50-325/79-09-03).
2355 358
.