ML19308D291
| ML19308D291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1977 |
| From: | Stewart W FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D283 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002270737 | |
| Download: ML19308D291 (2) | |
Text
. - _ _ _.
~
~~~
LICENUbli EVENI Ht:IsuM I
^~
- ~ ~
t
,i[q '.
CONTROL ULOCK:
l l
l l
l l
[PLET.!S PntNT ALL ntoutnED trJrOftMAT;0fJ) b
's 1
.e e
LCENSLE LCINSE EVfNT t
NAME LICENSE NUMCER TYPE TYPC l vi r.1 cl p l 91,1 10101-l 010101 o l 01-10 l o _l 14 I 11010 10 l 10111 7 09 14 15 25 26 30 31 32 CATECCRY Tp S
OcCKET NUMUER EVENT oATE REPcRT oATE
- @ CONT l -l -j W l Ll l 0l 5 l 0 l-l 0 l3 l0 l2 l l 0 l 4 l 0 l 517 l7 l l 0 l 4 l1 l2 l7 l7 l 7 8 57 50 50 60 G1 68 69 74 75 UO EVENT OESCniPTION BE I Purging of the Reactor Building with Reactor Building Purge Radiation Monitor (RMA1)'
l 7 09 60 Ql vacuum pump inoperable contrary to Technical Specification 3.3.2.1, Table 3.3-3.
Re-l 7 89 80 Ml dundant radiation monitoring was available and utilized. First occurrence of this type.
l 80 7 u9 Ql RMA6 was restored operable on 6 April 1977.
l 7 u9 60 Ql (LER 77-27) l 7 09 60 mvE Ect CoCf h
A VloLATON CoMPoNfNT CoCE C
l Bl Bl l F l*
l Zl Zl Zl Zl Z! Zl lZl l Zl 9 l9 l9 l W
7 89 10 11 12 17 43 44 47 48 CAUSE DESCRI.'T:ON 9
c l
The conflict between Appendix A Technical Specification, Section 3.3.2.1 and Appendix B l
7 89 GO
@l Technical Specification, Section 2.4.2.G was the primary cause. Adherence to Appendix l
7 89 80 l
Dl ' B led to a condition contrarv to Appendix A.
% POWER oTHER STATUS orSCo ER C:SCOVERY oESCR; PION (G l l0l0l0l l
N/A l
lAl l
N/A l
1 70 9
10 12 13 44 45 46 80 o[NEastl 0.IS AucuNT or ACfrVITY LoCATON of RELEASE W
N/A l
l N/A l
BE lZ l 7 8 9
10 11 44 45 80 PERSONNEL EXPOSURES
>'UM BE R TYPE CEScR:PTON
~ M l 01 0l 0l lZl l
N/A l
7 39 11 12 13 DO PERSOf4NEL INJunlES NUMDtR oESCftpTON 8 ! 01 0l 01 l
N/A l
7 89 11 12 CO OFFSITE CONSEGUENCES l
N/A l
3
.7 00 00 LOSS On OAMAGE TO FACILITY TYPE DECCnif5 TON dl N/A
__l 11 7 00 to GU PUDL!CGY Ql N/A
__l
, 7 00 U3 ODITIONAL TACTOn3
.y See attached Sucolementarv'infE $ation 8 I) () o m
.I s uo c'.*
" ~ 4 7 {} 73p bl
...)
l l
7 u ti la8 NAMC:-
N P. Stewart tb \\ ;~
pgant: (813) A A A_al c:o l
c.en' nes o 1 I
m V
Supplementary Information 1.
Report No:
50-202/77-27 2.
Facility:
Crystal River Unit #3 3.
Report Date:
12 April 1977 4.
Occurrence Date:
5 April 1977 (Discovered 7 April 1977) 5.
Identification of occurrence:
Reactor Building purge in progress with Reactor Building Purge Monitor (RMA1) vacuum pump inoperable contrary to Appendix A, Technical Specifica-tion 3.3.2.1, Table 3. 3-3.
6.
Conditions Prior to Occurrence:
Plant was in Mode 3 (Hot Standby) prior to and during the occurrence. Purge was in progress to lower building temperature in the Reactor Building where maintenance was being performed.
7.
Description of occurrence:
(N Radiation monitor vacuum pu:q failed on 5 April 1977 and the Reactor Building
(
purge was immediately secured. Radiation and chemistry supervision was noti-fled and Appendir B (Environmental) Technical Specifications were reviewed.
Based on the provisions of Section 2.4.2.G, the purge was recommenced using grab samoles to monitor. Radiation monitor RMAl was returned to operability on 6 April 1977.
8.
Designation of Apparent Cause:
The primary cause of the occurrence was the conflict between Appendix A Techni-cal Specification, Section 3.3.2.1 and Appendix B Technical Specification, Sec-tion 2.4.2.G.
By adhering to Appendix B Technical Specification, recommencing the Reactor Building purge led to a condition contrary to Appendix A Technical Specification.
9.
Analysis of occurrence:
This event caused no environmental impact as radiation monitoring was accomplished by the use of the Reactor Building gaseous monitor (RMA6) and the taking of grab samples while purging.
10.
Corrective Action:
A request is to be initiated to bring Appendix A Technical Specifications in con-formance with Appendix B.
Until this request has been acted upon, personnel have been cautioned to take the most conservative course when any conflict be-tween Technical Specifications arise.
11.
Failure Data:
This was a non-repetitive occurrence.
l
. -.