IR 05000324/1980005
| ML19309G917 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1980 |
| From: | Kellogg P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G903 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-80-05, 50-324-80-5, 50-325-80-05, 50-325-80-5, NUDOCS 8005070770 | |
| Download: ML19309G917 (5) | |
Text
_.
.
.-_
___
-
.
'o*^
UNITED STATES
h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8005070 /
)
r,
$
E REGION 11
I t 31 MARIETTA ST N.W.. SUITE 3100 P
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
i aa...
Report Nos. 50-324/80-05 and 50-325/80-05 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602
'
Facility: Brunswick Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-324 and 50-325
)
License Nos. DPR-62 and DPR-71 Inspection at Southp t rth arolin I
/
Inspector:
/
7/
w
'
'
"
Dats Sisned
)
J. E. 0
'
Approved by:
h
7 f0 P. J. Kell
_na c ph. Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed Inspection on January 2 through February 2, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine inspection by the resident inspector involved 101 manhours of inspection time on site of previously identified events, plant operations, radiation protection, physical protection, quality assurance, organization and administration, surveillance testing, and Unit 2 new fuel inspection.
Unit 1 Areas Inspected This routine inspection by the resident inspector involved 51 man hours of inspection time on site in the first six areas identified above.
- Unit 1 Findings Of the six areas inspected no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
if Unit 2 Areas Inspected
+
This routine inspection by the resident inspector involved 50 man hours of inspection time on site in all the areas identified above.
.
-
..-*ea-s*-.--.m % w
- - _ -
%-..
-
,.--.,pw,,p.r
,,,,
,,
e.
ce
...,+-..-..~ - ~....
_
.
-
-... -...
-....
.
..
.
Unit 2 Findings
...
Of the eight areas inspected no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in seven areas. One apparent item of noncompliance was identi-fied in one area--failure to have a procedure when performing maintenance on an energized component.
l
,
I
.
.
.
e e o
e
4
,
-.....
..
- - - -
,
- - -.. - - -
-
-.. - - -
.
. -
e
.
DETAILS
..
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees A. C. Tollison, Plant General Manager J. M. Brown, Operations Manager G. T. Milligan, Maintenance Manager J. A. Padgett, QA and Safety Director W. M. Tucker, Administrative and Technical Manager
- Attended exit interview.
Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, 5 technicians, 10 operators, 3 mechanics, 2 security force members, and 3 office personnel.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 4,11, and 18, and February 1,1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The licensee acknowledged the item of noncompliance as discussed in paragraph 14 of these details.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Plant Operations The inspector performed surveillance of plant operations and status of systems end equipment for:
a.
Correct log maintenance and entries.
b.
Tracking of limiting conditions for operation in effect.
Statuu of safety _ systems and tagout of components, c.
d.
Cause of out of normal annunciators.
Shift turnover and manning.
e.
6.
Plant Tours The inspector conducted tours of vital plant areas to check status of safety systems and equipment and to ensure that proper housekeeping and cleanliness were being maintained, and that unauthorized combustible material was not present in these area p.--.a..-.-.-.
- - - - -... - - -. - -..... -.
-.
-
.
.
-2-7.
Radiation Protection TheinspectortouredplantareastoensurethatradiologicalconIrol~ require-ments were being followed in the areas of handling and control of radioactive waste, performing radiation surveys, the posting of radiation signs and barriers and the wearing of protective clothing.
8.
'
The inspector toured the plant physical protection boundaries to ensure they were secured and that compensatory measures were being taken where required. The inspector witnessed security checks and badging at entrances to controlled areas and inspected entrances to vital areas to ensure that they were locked or under surveillance.
9.
Quality Assurance The quality assurance program was reviewed with the licensee management to verify that any changes to the program were in accordance with his established program and applicable codes, standards and regulatory guides. The one change to the program was the issuance of an administrative instruction, AI-39, to specify the measures and responsibility onsite to insure compliance with the company procedure implementing the requirements of 10CFR21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance.
10.
Organization and Administration The inspector discussed organizational and management changes with the licensee to verify that any changes were in accordance with technical specifications and conformed to applicable codes and standards and had been reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The licensee reported that E. B. Wilson had been assigned to the vacant position of Reactor Project Engineer.
11.
Acceptance Criteria The inspector used one or more of the following sources of acceptance
,
h criteria for evaluating the above areas inspected:
l l
a.
!
b.
10CFR20 c.
Technical Specifications d.
ANSI N45.2.3 (1971)
e.
ANSI N18.7 (1972)
f.
Regulatory Guides g.
Site Security h.
Quality Assurance Program i
!
_ _.
- --
.
.
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _..
_
t
-
.
.
s-3-12.
Witnessing of Surveillance Testing
~
The inspector witnessed the leak testing of selected 480 volt electrical penetrations for Unit 2.
13.
New Fuel Insptction The inspector witnessed the inspection, cleaning and storage of new fuel for Unit 2.
14.
Results of Inspection During the review of LER 2-79-98 for Unit 2 one apparent item of noncompliance was identified:
As required by 10CFR50, Appendix B, Section V, activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions and procedures of a type appropriate to the circumstance. ANSIN 18-7-1972, as committed to by the Carolina Power and Light Company Quality Assurance Program, requires in Section 5.2.7 that maintenance of equipment shall be preplanned and performed in accordance with written procedures.
Contrary to the above, maintenance was performed on November 29, 1979 for Unit 2 during which a fiexible conduit to flow switch E11-FSL-N021A (see LER-2-79-98 of December 21, 1979) was replaced without an adequate procedure.
During the replacement, a disconnected energized lead came in contact with the switch case, resulting in a power failure to Division
"A" of RHR logic.
This is an Infraction (324-05-01).
During the inspection of the areas identified in this report the following areas of concern were noted and reviewed with the licensee for corrective action or investigation:
Unit 2 CRD air solenoid valves were making vibrating noise on several a.
control hydraulic units. The licensee agreed to investigate and make repairs during the next outage beginning March 1, 1980.
i b.
The stator winding temperature of several service water pumps appears to be running high; i.e., CSW-1C-206*F; NSW-1B-217.6*F, CSW 2A-187.2*F; CSW-2B-202.6*F.
Other operating service water pumps were operating at about 123*F.
The licensee agreed to investigate the cause of this difference in temperature and take corrective action.
c.
The inspector noted differences between Unit I and Unit 2 recirculation pump motor stator and bearing temperatures. Unit 2 motors were running about 200-210*F; while Unit 1 motors were about 50*F lower. The licensee agreed to check the ventilation to Unit 2 motors during the next outage in March.