ML20133L554

Errata to for NRC Integrated Insp Repts 50-324/96-15 & 50-325/96-15 on 961026.Replacement Page to Insert Corrective Insp Repts 50-324/96-16 & 50-325/96-16 Encl

ML20133L554
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	12/13/1996
From:	Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Campbell W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML20133L534	List: ML20133L532 ML20133L554 ML20133L593
References
EA-96-442, NUDOCS 9701220061
Download: ML20133L554 (3)

See also: IR 05000324/1996015

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _._.. _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __m ._

UNITED STATES

g nrog% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. ,4

REGION 11

,

AT A TA, dlA 99

>

\ *****

/ December 13, 1996

EA 96 442 -

!

Carolina Power & Light Company

ATTN: Mr. W. R. Campbell

'

Vice President

, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant  !

Post Office Box 10429

Southport, North Carolina 28461 ,

i

, SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION

'

(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS 0-3 /96 1 AND 50-324/96 16)

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This refers to the integrated insp comp ted on October 26, 1996 at your

i Brunswick facility. The inspectio nelude a review of your failure to

provide temperature compensz on fo the P nt Process Computer (PPC)

i feedwater flow algorithm wh ted operation of Brunswick Unit 2 in

excess of (1) the maximum t al wer authorized by the license and (2)

thermal limits require y Te hqic 1 cification (TS) 3.2.1. The inspection

report was sent to yo b in ter da d November 22, 1996. A closed,

i predecisional enf ce nt(conhren was conducted in the Region II office on

December 9, 1996, with u and aers of your staff to discuss the apparent

violations, the at cau ,a your corrective actions to preclude.

recurrence. A st of con er ce attendees. NRC slides, and a copy of your

presentation m eri is re closed.  !

Based on the info at n eveloped during the inspection and the information l

you provided durin e onference, the NRC has determined that violations of i

'

'

NRC requirements occ r ed. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of

Violation (Notice) a d the circumstances surrounding them are described in

,

detail in the subj t inspection report. Violation A involves the failure to

maintain the Unit thermal power within the operating license limits. On ,

'

August 28, 1996 a reactor engineer reviewing core thermal power calculations  !

associated wit the Power Uprate Project determined that the Unit 2 PPC point

'

value for fe water flow was not properly compensated for feedwater

temperature eviations from the normal operating temperature. The condition

had exist on Unit 2 since the unit restarted after a refueling outage ending

-

. in July 94 when Unit 2 was modified to add a new PPC and associated i

softwar Due to the failure to temperature compensate the feedwater flow l

3roce oint value, the core thermal power calculated and indicated by the ,

)PC s ess than the actual core thermal power. During periods when  !

fee ater temperature was lower than the normal operating value, Unit 2 was l

o rated at indicated power levels of up to 100 percent power or 2436  :

!

gawatts (MW) thermal which was equivalent to actual power levels of up to

02.4 percent power or 2494 MW thermal. This is a violation of License

Condition 2.C.1 of Facility Operating License Number DPR 62 which requires

that Unit 2 be operated at or less than 2436 MW thermal.

9701220061

DR 970109

ADOCK 05000324

PDR

' /

. _ _ .. . .. _ . .__ _ , _ _ _- .

UNITED STATES

/p Mog% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

p" .-4" REGION ll

, 101 MARlETTA STREET. N.W., SUITE 2900

7. !j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303234199

\*****/ December 13, 1996

, EA 96 442

Carolina Power & Light Company

ATTN: Mr. W. R. Campbell

- Vice President

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

Post Office Box 10429

Southport, North Carolina 28461

.

'

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION

(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-325/96-15 AND 50-324/96-15)

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This refers to the integrated inspection completed on October 26, 1996 at your

Brunswick facility. The inspection included a review of your failure to

3 provide temperature compensation for the Plant Process Computer (PPC)

4

'

feedwater flow algorithm which resulted in operation of Brunswick Unit 2 in

excess of (1) the maximum thermal power authorized by the license and (2)

thermal limits required by Technical Specification (TS) 3.2.1. The inspection

report was sent to you by letter dated November 22, 1996. A closed,

aredecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on

)ecember 9,1996, with you and members of your staff to discuss the apparent

. violations, the root causes, and your corrective actions to preclude

recurrence. A list of conference attendees. NRC slides, and a copy of your

j presentation materials are enclosed.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information

you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of

NRC requirements occurred. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of

Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in

detail in the subject inspection report. Violation A involves the failure to

maintain the Unit 2 thermal power within the operating license limits. On

August 28, 1996, a reactor engineer reviewing core thermal power calculations

associated with the Power Uprate Project determined that the Unit 2 PPC point

value for feedwater flow was not properly compensated for feedwater

temperature deviations from the normal operating temperature. The condition -

had existed on Unit 2 since the unit restarted after a refueling outage ending l

in July 1994 when Unit 2 was modified to add a new PPC and associated

software Due to the failure to tem @rature compnsate the feedwater flow

arocess point value, the core thermal power calculated and indicated by the

)PC was less than the actual. core thermal power. During periods when

feedwater temperature was lower than the normal operating value, Unit 2 was

operated at indicated power levels of up to 100 percent power or 2436

megawatts (HW) thermal which was equivalent to actual power levels of up to

102.4 percent power or 2494 MW thermal. This is a violation of License

Condition 2.C.1 of Facility Operating License Number DPR-62 which requires

that Unit 2 be operated at or less than 2436 MW thermal.

I

a

A

ENCLOSURE 2