IR 05000324/1993004
| ML16342B966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1993 |
| From: | Barr K, Salyers G, Sartor W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16342B967 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-93-04, 50-324-93-4, 50-325-93-04, 50-325-93-4, NUDOCS 9304130221 | |
| Download: ML16342B966 (8) | |
Text
~C tp,H ssl s>srss
+
.rds n
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS VN
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,0 E0 8 G IA 30323
'I MAR I 9 )ye Report Nos.:
50-325/93-04 and 50-324/93-04 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P, 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket Nos.:
50-325 and 50-324 License Nos.:
DPR-71 and DPR-62 Facility Name:
Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection Conducted:
Fe ruary 8-12, and 17-19, 1993 Inspectors;
~I'M/,.
G.
W.
a er
~
~
Date Signed
>jib'-..
> W.
M.
artofz~
t)at0 Signed Approved by:
K.
P. Barr, CILis Date Signed Emergency Preparedness Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area of emergency preparedness, and included review of the following programmatic elements:
(1) Radiological Emergency Response Plan and its implementing procedures; (2) emergency facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies; (3) organization and management control; (4) training; and (5) independent reviews/audits.
Results; In the area inspected, two violations and one Inspector Follow-up Item were identified.
The Emergency Response Facility back up power supply (auxiliary diesel generator)
was not receiving adequate scheduled maintenance.
Several procedures were found to be out of date in the Emergency Operations Facility.
The needed upgrade of the Emergency Preparedness training program had made substantial progress since the last NRC inspection.
The licensee is also delaying its planned five team rotation for its emergency response organization to insure personnel are adequately trained prior to assuming ERO responsibilities.
Overall, the operational readiness of the emergency preparedness program appeared to be adequate.
9304i30221 930319 PDR ADOCK 05000324
Implementation Oato for the Revision to the EPA Hanual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents
Emorgency Response Information Requirements for Radioactive Haterial Shipments The inspector reviewod documentation indicating that State and local review of the EALs were conducted during July 1992.
The event classification in tho proceduros was <consistent tho EP and with those required by regulation.
The EALs did not appear to contain impediments or orrors which could lead to incorr'oct or untimoly classification.
The inspector noted that tho EALs wero based on parameters obtainable from Control Room instrumentation.
Tho inspector performed a comparison between the EAL flow charts and tho,control room instrumentation and identified three discrepancies:
~
Table 2, C32-R605 Could not find on the Control Room boards Table 3, 012-K609AEB Are on the back boards, but the operators uso K605 (same instrument)
located on the front board Table 4, C 32-LPC-R608 On the control hoard, th~ re is no LPC A1so, on the Flow Chart, Abnormal Core Condition was listed as both RH-K601 AKB and D12-RH-K601 ALB.
The inspector discussed the discrepancies with a licensee and the licensee indicated they would perform a detailed comparison between ttle Flow Charts and the control boards.
The licensee was informed that t.he performance of a detailed comparison between the flow charts and the control boards would be tracked as IFI 50-324, 325/93-04-03, IFI 50-324, 325/93-04-02:
Perform a detailed comparison between the Eht Flow Charts and the availability and numbering of Cont.rol Room instrumentation.
One violation and no deviations were identified.
Emergency Facilities, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Supplies (82701)
Pursuant to
CFR 50.47(b)(8)
and (9),
and
CFR 50.54(q),
and Section IV.E of Appendix E to
CFR 50, this area was inspected to determine whether the licensee's ERFs and other essential emergency equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were maintained in a state of operational readiness, and to assess the impact of any changes in this area upon the emergency preparedness progra The inspector toured the licensee's ERFs.
Except as discussed below, the facilities and emergency equipment appeafed to be appropriately maintained.
Based on observations by the inspector, no significant changes in the ERFs were made since the last)inspection, The inspector requested an operational demonstration of the ERFIS terminals in the EOF and TSC.
The system was successfully accessed and was immediately available for use.
The insp'ector noted that ERF IS contained SPDS information and measurements and indications required by Regulatory Guide 1,97.
The inspector noted 'that there was one terminal in each facility, and the terminals were of high quality (definition)
and the system was user friendly.
w The inspector observed the operation of the Emergency Ventilation system for the EOF/TSC during the February 18, 1992Ifdri11.
The system actuated and produced a positive pressure within the EOF/TSC envelope.
The inspector reviewed a copy of PT-93.0
"EOF/TSC Building Emergency System fest conducted on September 15, 1992.
The test indic~ted that the system functioned properly.
The system appeared to he maintained and in a state of operational readiness'he inspector reviewed inventory records from January 1992 to January 1993, of the various emergency kits.
The records indicate the emergency kits were being properly maintained.
The inspector and licensee performed an inventory check of the Environmental Monitoring Kits at the Visitors Center and Oosher iiospital.
The inspector found the emergency kit inventories complete with the equipment operational and calibrations up to date.
the inspector reviewed the licensee's documentation of required communications tests for.the period of January 1992 to January 1993:
(I)
EOF communications system functional tests, performed biweekly; (2) monthly communications drills involving message transmission from the Control Room to the state Warning Point Via the Automatic Ring-Down:
and (3) tests of the ENS.
According to the r~ecords, prompt corrective actions were undertaken when equipment deficiencies were identified.
ihe EWWS consisted of 34 fixed sirens (29 in,tBrunswick County and five in New iianover County).
Testing was performed under the jurisdiction of the respective county emergency management agencies, with test result~
forwarded to the licensee.
The test results, were satisfactory and indicated that sirens met the annual 90K capability criteria.
The licensee is in the process of upgrading the EWNS system.
The upgrad~
will install new t.ransceivers on the sirens which will allow computer testing and actuation from the site along with actuation feedback capabilities (on line monitoring) of individtlal sirens.
Brunswick's EOF/TSC was a "hardened" facility~ and had received an exemption from an NRC requirement of having a,'ackup EOf if the EOI wai within the 10 miles EPZ.
The normal power supply to the EOF/TSC building was the Southport Municipal Utilitie's.
As identified in the I:P. the backup power supply to the FOF/TSC was a backup auxiliary di~ ~f
r, I
II f,l I
I
'I
generator.
The inspector inquired about the maintenance program for the auxiliary diesel generator.
The inspector was informed by the licensee that there was no formal preventative maintenance program for the auxiliary diesel generator.
The inspector was informed that the diesel was on a timer and that it was started automatically every Friday morning and run, unloaded, for an hour.
If there was a problem with the diesel, as an example, a panel alarm, a yellow flashing/rotating light on the diesel would actuate and maintenance personnel would lnve~tigate.
The inspector examined all work orders on the diesel.
The work order noted numerous problems which were signaled by the "yellow flashing lights
"
Some of the examples are:
Broken fan belts
~
Boiled over batteries
~
Corroded starter relays Radiator clogged with dirt and oil
~
Corroded battery cables The inspector expressed concern about the reliability of the diesel.
The licensee informed the inspector that an ACR (P B92-827) dated October 16, 1992, had been written which requested
"a periodic maintenance, testing program for the EOF/TSC diesel."
The inspector noted that the ACR had been assigned a low priority ( 18),
and engineering had requested an extension of the completion date until July I, 1993.
Although the lack of a maintenance program was identified by the licensee in October 1992, action to correct the condition was not taken in a timely manner, The emergency diesel had been available for service since approximately 1982 and no scheduled maintenance activities had been implemented at the
. time of the inspection.
Plant Emergency Procedure PEP-4.2,
"Emergency Facilities and Equipmen'," states that emergency facilities and equipment shall be maintained and kept operational."
Section 5.2 of the Brunswi~k Emergency Plan identifies the EOF/TSC auxiliary diesel generator as EOF equipment.
The absence of adequate maintenance for the EOF/TSC building emergency diesel generator was discussed with the licensee before and during thi exit interview.
The inspector informed the licensee representative that the failure to perform adequate maintenance on th>> EOf/TSC auxiliary diese1 generator was a violation of PEP-4.2.
Violation 50.324,325/93-04-03:
Failure to adequately maintain the EOF/TSC auxiliary diesel generator.
One violation and no deviations were identifie A
4 I
t