ML20024F652
| ML20024F652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1983 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024F644 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-83-17, 50-325-83-17, NUDOCS 8309090552 | |
| Download: ML20024F652 (2) | |
Text
.
~
Ul.131933 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Carolina Power and Light Company Docket No. 50-324 Brunswick Unit 2 License No. DPR-62 On May 10, 1983, the licensee recognized and promptly reported to the NRC that the condenser off gas radiation monitors (DIZ-K601 A and B) for Unit 2, required to be operable by Section 2.5.2.d. of the Environmental Technical Specifications, Appendix B, of license numbers OPR-62 and DPR-71, were inoperable. These radia-tion monitors were isolated from service as the result of an improper restoration of two valves, OG-V35 and 0G-V36, after an extensive plant modification.
The main steam radiation monitors would have initiated isolations to prevent a gross release of fission products to the environment from the fuel by closure of all main steam isolation valves.
Isolation of the main condenser would have occurred through closure of the steam jet air ejector suction valves on decaying steam pressure.
However, approximately twenty-nine hours elapsed between placing the condenser air ejectors in service at 11 p.m. on May 8, 1983 and unisolating the condenser radiation monitors at 4 a.m. on May 10, 1983.
The initial indication of the improper isolation of the condenser radiation monitors was the "lli/Lo" flow alarm for these radiation monitor process streams, which should have cleared when the condenser air ejectors were place in service.
Although the control room operators acknowledged this alarm and its continuing presence, an investigation was not conducted with the necessary diligence to determine if a valid signal did exist. As the power level was increased, the control room operators for several shifts failed to question the inconsistency between the actual and expected activity rate readings for the condenser off gas radiation monitor strip charts and meters.
Rather than remaining at the indica-ted constant activity rate of 2 mrem /hr., the condenser off gas radiation monitor readings should have increased proportionally with the reactor thermal power.
Furthermore, a comparison of the trending between the condenser off gas radiation monitors and the corresponding strip charts for the main steam line or the plant stack monitors, which were conveniently grouped together in the control room, would have indicated an apparent problem with the condenser radiation monitors.
It was not until 11:30 p.m., on May 9, 1983, that an operator recognized that the condenser off gas radiation monitors were not trending appropriately. Only after an investigation did the operators learn that a valid no-flow condition existed.
The immediate corrective action of opening the incorrectly shut valves to the l
condenser off gas monitors cleared the alarm and restored the off gas monitors to operability.
As a result of the inspection conducted on May 9 - June 9, 1983, and in accord-ance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR 2, Appendix C), the followirg violation was identified:
Environmental Technical Specification, Appendix B, paragraph 2.5.2.e requires that if the augmented off gas is out of service and the air (fector off gas monitors are inoperative, a reactor shutdown be initiated so that the reactor will be in the hot shutdown condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
t 8309090552 830713 PDR ADOCK 05000324 G
003 Notice of Violation 2
Contrary to the above, during the period from 11:00 p.m., May 8, 1983, to 4:00 a.m., May 10, 1983, with the Unit 2 augumented off gas system out of service and the air ejector off gas monitors inoperative, a reactor shutdown was not initiated and the reactor was not in hot shutdown within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, although, sufficient information existed to alert the operator to the conditions existing which required the reactor shutdown.
This is a Severity level III violation (Supplement I)
(Civil Penalty - not proposed)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged viola-tion; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this linday of July 1983 g
-w v
a-v r
p-~
-, - - ~-~,-
pr-, - - -
,.-,r-4
- ---