IR 05000324/1979025
| ML19262A623 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1979 |
| From: | Kellogg P, Skolds J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262A614 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-79-25, 50-325-79-26, NUDOCS 7912070167 | |
| Download: ML19262A623 (7) | |
Text
-
'
'#
p areg#'o l'NITED STATES
-
! ' ),, ( 3?g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ "j. c REGION 11 o,
101 MARIETTA sT., N.W., SUITE 3100
%#
ATLANTA, GEORGIA ',0303 o
- ....
Report Nos. 50-325/79-26 and 50-324/79-25
'
Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Facility Name:
Brunswic' I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324 License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 Inspection at Brunwsick Site near Southport, North Carolina Inspector:
N f/f 6d#, /c 7 F J. L.,Skol,ds Date Signed Approved by:,
h hV A m,7'M /5 M P.' J. Kellogg, Section Chief, RONS Branch Ifate Signed SUMMARY Inspection on July 24-25, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 15 inspector-hours on-site in the areas of followup of the open items, identified in Inspection Report 50-325/79-21 and 50-324/79-21, which involved the actions taken by the licensee in response to IE Bulletin 79-08.
Results In the one (1) area inspected two (2) items of noncompliance were identified; (Infraction - failure to follow radiation control entry requirements paragraph 6a),
(Infraction - failure of surveillance procedure to direct s' stem restoration -
paragraph Sh).
7912070
'
1523 'l!1
._
_. _
.
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
ns Contacted
'
Licensee Employecs
- A. C. Tollison, Jr., Plant Manager
- S. E. Thorndyke, Operating Supervisor
- K. E'zor, Maintenance Supervisor (I&C)
- R. M. Poulk, NRC Coordinator
- J. L. Kiser, RC&T Engineer
- G. Milligan, Engineering Supervisor
- J. A. Padgett, E&RC Supervisor
- C. R. Gibson, Supervisor-Technical and Administrative Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included tech-nicians and operators.
NRC Resident Inspector J. E. Ouztr
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 25, 1979 wit.t those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The items of noncompliance were discussed and the licensee acknowledged without comment.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraph 6.
5.
Followup of IE Inspection Report 50-325/79-21 and 50-324/79-21 The inspector followed up on and had additional comments on the following items in Inspection Report 50-325/79-21 and 50-324/79-21:
a.
Page 3, item g. indicated that the licensee does not utilize inde-pendent verification for alignment of valves and breakers.
1523 020
_
__
.
-2-
-
.
The inspector noted that there is no requirement for independent verification and the licensee's procedures do not call for independent verification.
b.
Page 3, item b. indicated that the pcLential existed for indicator obscurity when tags were used on the control boards in the control room.
The inspector noted that the tags are required to be large enough to contain sufficient information far the operator's use. However, unless the tags are secured by some means to prevent obscuring an indication, the potential does exist for a tag to inadvertently cover a breaker position or valve position indication.
Therefore, this item will remain open (325/79-26-01; 324/79-25-01) pending review of the licensee's method for securing tags on the control board.
Page 3, item a. indicated that requirements did not exist for the c.
return of components / systems to service following maintenance or periodic testing.
ihe inspector noted that this was not a correct statement in that the Operating.anual, Volume 1, Book 1, Section 5.5.1 states, "The format and conten of new procedures will be established by (1) the format and content of existing procedures of the same type, or (2) the Procedure Preparation Manual". The Procedure Preparation Manual, Section 10, Periodic Tests, paragraph 10.3 states that "The basic procedure for performing the PT must include steps to return the system to normal to assure that no protection equipment is left in an inoperative condition".
d.
Page 4, item b. indicated that no signoff eas required in GP-1, General Plant Operating Procedure, indicating that any maintenance is completed and the post maintenance check complete.
The inspector noted that there is no requirement to heve this item signed off but that the licensee had revised the procedure to indicate a signoff at this step. This item will remain open (325/79-26-02; 324/79-25-02) until the final revision has been reviewed.
Page 4, item c. indicated that PT 7.1.9, Core Spray Simulated Automatic e.
Actuation and Logic Functional Test, did not require the manual bloc'ted valves E21-F015A(B) to be returned to the locked open status.
The inspector noted that the manual blocked valves are numbered E21-F007A(B) instead of E21-F015A(B). The procedure did allow the shift foreman to perform a valve lineup at his discretion. This item will remain open (325/79-26-03; 324/79-25-03) until the procedure is revised to indicate a more distinct step to return valves E21-F007A(B)
to the locked open position when required.
}b2b d2l
.
ms & MMM 66' mms a
.
.
-3-
-
.
f.
Page 4, item d. indicated PT9.3, HPCI 165 PSIG Flow Test, step H, paragraph III was it error and redundant to step 5.
The inspector noted that this item should have read PT9.3, step 4, paragraph VI was in error and partially redandant to step 5.
The inspector noted that the error in the procedure was that the HPCI pump discharge valve number was incorrect in step 4.
The redundancy was that both steps 4 and 5 required the operator to verify the same valves in the same portion. The licensee ha= revised PT9.3 anf the error and the redundancy no longer exist.
g.
Page 4, item e. indicated that valve 2K-BFV-RB, purge exhaust fan 2B suction valve was found out of position.
The inspector noted that the fact that the valve was out of position did not place the plant in a degraded mode or make the purge system inoperable. The valve is designed to fail open.
It is in the open position and will remain in the open position until an investigation reveals the cause of the valve malfunctions by the licensee. The valve is normally closed, but opens when the system is required for This item will remain open (325/79-26-04; 324/79-25-04) until use.
the licensee determines the problem with the valve.
h.
Page 4, item f. indicated that PT-15.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2 did not have steps to return systems to pretest conditions.
The CP&L Quality Assurance Program commits the licensee to AN."I 18.7-1972.
Section 5.3.5(3) states that " instructions shall be included, or referenced, for returning the equipment to its normal operating status. The intpector noted that PT 15.2, Standby Gas Treatment System, PT 15.2.1, HEPr. Filter Efficiency, and PT 15.2.2, Charcoal Leak Test, did not have steps to return the system to a pretest condition. This is an item of noncompliance (325/79-26-11; 324/79-25-11).
i.
Page 4, item g. indicated that PT 6.1, Standby Liquid Control System Component Test did not contain positive indication c squib valve continuity.
The inspector noted that PT 6.1 has been revised and now requires a check of the annunciator light as well es the control board lights to verify continuity.
J.
Page 4, item h. indicates that OP-39, Dierel Generator, mistakenly listed PRV 1664 and 1665 instead of RRV-1691 and 1689.
The inspector noted that the licensee had revised the procedure to correct this error but that the revision was not issued. This item will remain open (325/79-26-05; 324/79-25-05) until the revision is issued and reviewed in a future inspection.
1523 022
.
.
.
.
-4-
.
k.
Page 4, item i. indicates that PT 12.1.1, Diesel Generator Actual Loading Test, had an error in the procedure.
The inspector noted that the error was corrected and;the procedure revised. However, item i indicated that part 'G'
was in error.
This was not correct in that part 'B'
was in error.
1.
Page 4, item j. indicated that discrepancies were noted in the house-keeping area.
The inspector noted that the water was removed from the sump rooms nd that the licensee had initiated a program for the auxiliary operator to verify the pump rooms dry on a daily basis. The inspector also noted that the licensee had been issued an item of noncompliance in IE Inspection Report 79-02 for failure to have a hour,ekeeping program implemented in accordance with ANSI 45.2.3.
The licensee's response indicated that a program for housekeeping would be implemented by September 1, 1979. The inspector noted that oil still existed in the pipe recesses below the floor of the diesel generator rooms. The licensee was informed of this item and that it required immediate corrective action. Because of the item of noncompliance issued in IE Report 79-02, this issue was not listed as an item of noncompliance.
This item will remain open (325/79-26-06; 324/79 -25-06) pending further inspection. The inspector also noted that the unsecured N2 bottles located near the CRD hydraulic units had been secured.
Page 5, item (4) indicated that valve position indicators on valves m.
were generally not accurate.
The inspector noted that this statement was made in reference to the dial indicators on numerous valves throughout the plant. These indi-cators are not the primary means of valve positica indication and do not affect the remote valve position indication or other local valve position indication (i.e., stem position). The licensee indicated that trouble tickets were issued to repair the dial indicators on the valves.
Page 5, item (5) indicated that numerous indicating lights were not n.
indicating.
The inspector noted that the licensee had replaced numerous lights on panels throughout the plant and that higher voltage bulbs were being considered for use to prolong the life of the bulbs.
Page 5, item (6) indicated that the SBLC system had a valve packing o.
leak, a valve handle missing and metal protection missing.
The inspector noted that all of the problems indicated in this item had been corrected.
523 023
... -.. -
.
'
.
-5-
.
p.
Page 5, item (7) indicated that valve ID labels were not attached to the valves.
The inspector noted that the licensee has no administrative require-ment to have valve ID labels on the valves. The licensee did acknow-ledge that the labels were necessary and had initiated a program to review all valves and attach labels where necessary. This item will remain open (325/79-26-07; 324/79-25-07) until the valve labelling program is complete and verified in a future inspection.
q.
Page 5, item (8) indicated that yellow poly bags were not restricted to packaging of contaminated material.
The inspector noted that no requirement exists for the licensee to restrict the use of yellow poly to contaminated material. However, the licensee acknowledged that it was desirable to have the yellow poly restricted to contaminated material and had previously developed a program to implement this concept.
The licensee intends to have each yellow poly bag marked with a radiation symbol and to have signs posted at locations where yellow poly is obtained to remind personnel to use the yellow poly only for contaminated material.
r.
Page 5, item (9) indicated system status was not indicated on the trouble ticket.
The inspector noted that no requirement exists which requires the licensee to place the system status on the trouble ticket. The licensee's maintenance program requires an LCO sheet be generated, if necessary. The LCO sheet would indicate any system status necessary.
The LCO sheet is attached to the trouble tickets.
Page 5, item (10) indicated a significant air leak existed on the s.
outlet of #2 Diesel Generator air compressor.
The inspector noted that this leak did not place the diesel generator in an inoperable condition. The leak has been repaired by the licensee.
t.
Page 5, item (11) inci:ated that a RER torus suction valve operator motor had burned out.
The inspector noted that the valve motor operator was burned out but the valve was in the proper position for plant operation. The motor being burned out only removes the remote operation of the valve. The valve is not required for isolation and was in the open position in the event that RHR was required. The licensee has initiated action to repair the motor operators. The item will remain open (325/79-26-08; 324/79-25-08) pending future inspection of maintenance performed on the motors.
152'
024
.. -.. -.
.
..
-
'
.
.
.
-6-6.
Plant Tour
'
The inspector toured various portions of the entire plant. Findings were satisfactory with the exception of the following:
Technical Specification 6.8.1 states that written procedures shall be a.
established, implemented and maintained covering activitiam referenced in Appendix A to Regulatory Guide 1.33.
Section 6.5.1 of xadiation Control and Protection Manual states that an individual entering a Radiation Control Area must wear the proper clothing and devices necessary for contamination control.
Section 6.5.3.2 of the same manual states that lab coats shall be worn in the Contamination Area when required.
Contrary to the above, on July 24, 1979, two auxiliary operators entered a Contamination Area without a lab coat even though the posted requirements called for lab coats. This is an apparent item of noncompliance (325/79-26-09; 324/79-25-09).
b.
While touring the plant, the inspector noted that two yellow poly bags were lying on the ground between the Reactor Building and the machine shop. One bag was taped up but had holes in the bottom; the other bag was open. The bags contained electrical cables.
The inspector re-quested a Radiction Control Technician swipe the contents of the bag.
The contents had loose surface contamination of 1000 dpm/100 cm.
The technician removed the bags to a proper location. The inspector noted the 10 CFR Part 20 does not address contamination control, but the unsecured and unattended bags were not proper control of contaminated material. This item will remain unresolved pending future review of the licensee's contamination control requirements (325/79-26-10; 324/79-25-10).
1523 025