ML20133H488

Insp Repts 50-324/96-16 & 50-325/96-16 on 961027-1207. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operations,Maint, Engineering & Plant Support

ML20133H488
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	01/02/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133H279	List: ML20133H277 ML20133H333 ML20133H488
References
50-324-96-16, 50-325-96-16, NUDOCS 9701170191
Download: ML20133H488 (24)

See also: IR 05000324/1996016

Text

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

l

I

.  ;

-

l

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

i

Docket Nos: 50 325, 50 324

,

License Nos: DPR 71, DPR 62

,

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

-

,

1

i

'

Location: 8470 River Road SE I

Southport, NC 28461

Dates: October 27 - December 7, 1996

1

Inspectors: C. Patterson, Senior Resident Inspector ,

M. Janus, Resident Inspector l

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

PDR ADOCK 05000324

G PDR

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  !

l

l

Summary of Plant Status

Unit I was returned to service on November 7,1996, after completion of the 33 l

day refueling outage. The unit operated at power without any significant I

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 l

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 I

tracking and assignment practices and related procedures. One non-cited )

l

'

violation was identified for failure of the licensee to train workers l

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