ML20133H488
| ML20133H488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133H279 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-96-16, 50-325-96-16, NUDOCS 9701170191 | |
| Download: ML20133H488 (24) | |
See also: IR 05000324/1996016
Text
._
__
_ _ _ . _ _ _
..--._ _ ..__ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _
.._
_
_
_
-
l
.
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
i
Docket Nos:
50 325, 50 324
License Nos:
,
,
Report No:
50-325/96 16, 50-324/96-16
,
d
Licensee:
Carolina Power & Light (CP&L)
,
Facility:
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 & 2
-
,
i
Location:
8470 River Road SE
'
Southport, NC 28461
Dates:
October 27 - December 7, 1996
1
Inspectors:
C. Patterson, Senior Resident Inspector
,
M. Janus, Resident Inspector
E. Brown, Inspector In Training
'
W. Rankin, Senior Project Manager (Section R2)
G. Wiseman, Project Engineer (Section F2)
'
Approved by:
M. Shymlock, Chief Projects Branch 4
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure F.
9701170191 970102
ADOCK 05000324
G
,
4
,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 & 2
NRC Inspection Report 50 325/96-16, 50 324/96 16
This integrated inspection included aspects of licensee operations,
engineering, maintenance, and plant support. The report covers a 6 week
seriod of resident inspection: in addition, it includes the results of a
lealth physics inspection by a regional inspector.
,
Doerations
.
The licensee performed an adequate cleanup of the drywell to support
'
plant operations.
(Section 01.1). Significant management attention was
given to this effort to ensure success.
The organization readiness assessments were appropriate to support plant
startup.
(Section 01.2). The Plant Nuclear Safety Committee meetings
were comprehensive and provided thorough evaluation of startup
activities.
A violation with three examples for failure to properly preplan and
perform a structural modification to an instrument rack was identified.
(Section 02.1). This resulted in a loss of shutdown cooling. This was
the third loss of shutdown cooling event in the last three years. The
corrective actions established were not 3rescriptive enough to prevent
recurrence. A weakness was identified w1en a condition report was not
written once a problem with the engineering service request was noted.
The cold weather program and procedures were found to be satisfactory
i
providing guidance for implementation of cold weather protective
measures. (Section 02.2).
The licensee's operator training on the power uprate modification
clearly communicated the changes and impacts associated with the
,
modifications. (Section 05.1).
The licensee continued to demonstrate a strength in control of outages.
(Section 06.1).
Emphasis placed on reducing control room board
deficiencies was noteworthy.
Maintenance
The licensee as found condition of secondary containment integrity
provided little margin above technical specification requirements.
(Section M1.1).
Leaks were repaired and the margin was increased.
Control building ventilation dampers failed due to the poor material
condition.
(Sections M2.1). This area has been degraded for years and
needs additional management attention to correct.
. - . _ _ -
-
__. -
-
-.
-.
-.
-_ -
.
'
.
,
Report Details
Summary of Plant Status
Unit I was returned to service on November 7,1996, after completion of the 33
day refueling outage. The unit operated at power without any significant
problems and was on line for 30 days at the end of the inspection report
{
period. Although a 5% power upgrade was approved for the unit, the licensee
j
committed to hold the unit at the new 95% power level pending resolution of
questions. (Section E1.1).
Unit 2 operated continuously during this period without any significant
problems. At the end of the inspection period, the unit had been on line 85
days.
I. Operations
01
Conduct of Operations
01.1 Drywell Closeout
a.
Insoection Scope (71707)
The inspector inspected conditions of the drywell on October 28, 1996,
'
and performed a final inspection on November 3, 1996, in preparation for
the licensee *s drywell closecut.
,
b.
Observations and Findinas
The inspector inspected the Unit 1 drywell on October 28, 1996, several
days prior to the licensee's planned closecut inspections. Work
activities were still being conducted in the drywell. The upper
elevations were generally clear but vacuum hoses, etc. remained on the
bottom elevations for final cleanup.
On November 3, 1996, the inspector inspected the Unit 1 drywell while on
tour with the Site Vice President Plant Manager, and Outage Manager.
The inspector toured the five foot elevation and inspected each vent
header for any obstruction or debris. No significant problems were
identified. The drywell was generally clean and free of debris.
c.
Conclusions
The inspector concluded that the licensee had performed an adequate
cleanup of the drywell to support plant operation. Significant
management attention was given to this effort to ensure success.
01.2 Startuo Assessment Activities
a.
Insoection Scope (41500)
The inspector reviewed startup activities associated with Unit 1
following the refueling outage.
<
_
_
_..
-
.-
_
. = . . .
.-
._-
- -
_ - - . - - .
.-.
. . - .
.
)(
,
.
,
~
'
.
J
2
i
Enaineerina
The licensee committed to keep the unit at the old 100% power level
pending resolution of questions.
)
l
Plant Support
Overall, the licensee's program for monitoring external exposure and
.
i
tracking dose within the restricted area was effective. (Section R1 &
RS).
However, outside the restricted area, the licensee's dosimetry
procedures did not adequately address occupational doses to workers in
,
i
the controlled area who were receiving doses above the public dose
limit.
One violation was identified for failure to implement a
radiological control procedure consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1502 (a)(2) which requires monitoring of dose to declared
pregnant women likely to receive a dose in excess of 500 millirem.
One
,
unresolved item was open for the unresolved issue of accurate dose
tracking and assignment practices and related procedures. One non-cited
l
violation was identified for failure of the licensee to train workers
receiving occupational dose in accordance with the requirements of 10
'
CFR 19.12, Instructions to Workers.
-
,
A fire protection modification associated with the deluge valves was
,
4
i
adequate. (Section F2.1). The design review failed to identify an
updated final safety analysis report discreoancy for internal flooding
in the reactor building.
i
f
!
,
.
!
4
l
1
i
<
J