ML20010H256
| ML20010H256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Jackie Jones CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010H257 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109240272 | |
| Download: ML20010H256 (1) | |
See also: IR 05000324/1981014
Text
7
?.,
.
'
3 198!
Carolina Power and Light Company
ATTN:
J. A. Jones, Senior Executive
Vii.s %sident and Chief
.
Operating Officer
411 Fayetteville Street
,
Faleigh, NC 27602
Centlemen:
7
N
Subject: Report Nos.:QO-324/81-_14;nd50-325/81-14
Thank you for your letter of August 26, 1981 infoming us of steps you have
.
taken to correct the violations concerning activities under NRC Operating
'
1.icense DPR-62 and DPR-71 brought to your attention in our letter of July 28,
1981. We will examine your corrective actions and plans during subsequent
inspections.
lie appreciate your cooperation with us.
i
Sincerely,
(s/
R. C. Lewis, Director
Division of Resident and
l
Reactor Project In%ection
I
cc:
C. R. Dietz, Plant Manager
bcc: US NRC Resident Inspector
.
Document Management Branch
\\9
l
State of North Carolina
'Ms
c/ . p pr
%
't -o C t.
C
), as
.5
-
9,8,h d'/
C,
4
1
s1 ;
-gs
l
o
._
'
s
q
'
/
/
'
8109240272 810903
DR ADOCK 05000324
_ W~
/
l
.RIIg.PI,,, RII,:
, , , , . .,R I
,R,P,I , , , , , ,
o" m
.
,
,,,,,,,,, ,,,, , ,
,, ,,,
,
,
,
, ,,, ,
,,
,,
!"""*.W.9h.nSo,n,:p @,d ,i,a n , ,
,,,$,k,$5,,,,,
'
,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,
,,, ,,,,,,,,
,
,,
,,
,
,, , ,
! -"" .9/.3/81
9[,3/,81, , , , , , , , , ,g, f 81
, , , ,,
,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,
,,,, , , ,
,,
,,
, ,,
, ,,,,, ,, ,, ,
,, ,,
!NRCFORM 318 (10-80) NRCM O240
OFFICIAL RCCORD COPY
rj
,
N,
.
..
- '_y,*
.
-
CD&L
~
Carolina Power & Light Company
Brunswick' Steam Electric Plant
P. O. Box 10429
Southport, NC 28461-0429
August 26, 1981
.
.
FILE:
B09-13514
,
SERIAL:
BSEP/81-1590
?!r. James P. O'Reilly, Director
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Region II, Suite 3100
.
101 tiarletta Street N.W.
j
Atlanta, GA 30303
BRUNSWICK STEA!! ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 & 2
LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62
DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324
RESPONSE TO IN.? ACTIONS OF NRC PEQUIREBIENTS
Dear ?!r. O'Reilly:
The Brunswick Steem Electric Plant (BSEP) has roccived IE Inspection Report 50-
324/81-14 and 50-325/81-14 and finds that it does not contain any information of
a proprietary nature.
1
The report identified two item (s) that appear to be in noncompliance with NRC
.I
requirements. These items and Carolina fower & Light Company's response to each
are addressed in the following text:
Violation A:
Technical Spectilcation . 6.8.1 requires that written procedures shall be
!
established, implemented and maintained. Operating procedure OI-5-A, Status of
l
Annunciators in Alarm,' requires annunciators 'In alarm to be recorded in a log.
'
Contrary to the above, on July 6, 1981, alarming annunciators on control room
alarm pancis 2-A-1 through 2-A-7, t3ro not listed in the log. Unit No. 1 and
~
~
Unit No. 2 Control Opcrators wea not mt lathining the log as required.
Larolina' Power & Light Company'a- Response
(
p
Carolina Power & Light Company - acknowledgesL that this was a violation of
'
. technical specifications. This violation was the result of.0perations personnel
.
not adhering to an approved plant procedure due to
<a extreme administrative
f
i
requirements which detracted the operators from their normal functions and also
y
due to an interpret'ation problem in administering the procedure.
. A coordinated ef fort has been under way during the .i t year to darken (place in
. a nonalarming condition) annunciators not required to be alarming to reduce the
9a[
r
u
D
k
&
.
.
Mr. James P. O'Reilly
2
August 26, 1981
.
,
.o.
.
,
,
excessive number of lighted alarms on each unit. The reasons for annunciation
falls into several categories:
1) actual alarms due to component or system
problems, 2) alarms resulting from maintenance or testing being performed on a
component or system, 3) alarms which indicate the status of a component
or
system but which do not indicate problems, 4) problems with the annunciator
circuitry er logic. To help correct problems created by excessive annunciators
being lighted, two programs were initiated.
The major effort is to hcve
Engineering, with Operations assistance, evaluate all lighted annunciators and
modify them if required to assure that a lighted annunciator is required to be
lighted. Tre second portion of the program was the development of a procedure
to maintain an up-to-date status of all lighted annunciators such that opetators
had an avr 11able reference to identify why an alarm was lighted.
Failure to
follow this procedure led to this violation.
To correct this problem, the Manager-Operations meet with the Shift Operating
Supervisors and the Shift Foremen to discuss the requirement that approved
procedures must be followed and that they cannot be arbitrarily ignored. Also
discussed was the need to initiate procedure revisions when problems are en-
countered with compliance or technical merit.
Implementation of the current
procedure has been resumed by all shif ts while it is being revised. The revised
procedure will be more clearly written and will be administratively functional.
This procedure will be revised and implemented by September 30, 1981.
Violation B (Severity Level V)
Technical Specification 3.0.4 requires that entry into an Operational Condition
or other specified applicability state not be made unless the conditions of the
Limiting Condition for Operation are met without reliance on provisions
contained in the Action Statements. Technical Specification 3.5.3.2, requires
that two independent Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) subsystems of the
residual heat removal system shall be operabic with each subyutem comprised of:
<
1.
Two pumps
2.
An operable flow path capable of taking suction from the suppression pool
and transferring the water in the reactor pressure vessel.
Contrary to the above, on June 29, 1981, as a result of an operator error, the
reactor mode switch was taken out of the refueling mode, placed in startup, and
control rod withdrawal commenced with the A-loop RHR torus suction val te (F026A)
shut.
Carolina Power & Light Company's Response
Caroline Power & Light Company acknowledges that this was a violation of
technical specifications. This event was initially reported in LER 2-81-59.
At approximately 0430 while establishing a standby readiness lineup for A loop
of RHR in preparation for a reactor startup, the breaker for the torus suction
valve, F020A tripped. Two Aux 111 cry Operators were sent to manually open the
valve. The Auxiliary Operators were not abic to break the valve disk off of its
seat, so another Auxiliary Operator was sent to assist with a manual valve
operator. At 0528, prior to receiving word on the status of the F020A valve, a
normal reactor startup was commenced.
Shortly after the commencement of the
}
.
.
Ef r . James P. O'Reilly
3
August 26, 1981
.
- .
.
.
. ,
.
startup, the Shift Operating Supervisor questioned the position of the F020A
valve during a review of the control panel. The startup was secured with seven
rods withdrawn and the Auxiliary Operators' assigned to open the valve were
contacted to determine the actual vcive position. At 0554, word was received in
the Control Room that the F020A valve was still shut and still corld not be
broken of f its seat. The seven withdrawn control rods were immediately inserted
and the mode switch t;as taken to the refuel position.
An investigation of this event has determined that the main cause was personnel
error with slow communications being a minor cause.
The Control Operator
assumed that sufficient time had elapsed to open the F020A valve and thus
init!ated a reactor startup.
He clso initialed the step on the startup
requiring the valve to be pen as complete. To correct these problems
pro <.c
n
the following actions have been or wil_1 be taken:
1.
A meeting was held with senior plant management and those personnel
involved to discuss the series of events that led to this violation of
technical specifications and the seriousness of that violation.
2.
Appropriate disciplinary action was taken with the individuals involved in
this event. The SI- it Foreman and the Control Operator involved with this
event were removed from duties requiring a license until the investigation
was completed. Following the investigation and the meeting described in 1.
above, the personnel were returned to normal duty.
3.
Each Shift Operating Sup rvisor reviewed this event with their respective
shifts with emphasis on ensuring that itema are verified ccmplete prior to
signing them of f, and that all blocks are completed or an explanation docu-
mented and an approval signature obtained prior to initiation of any event
requiring the documentation.
4.
The Shift Foreman d is cus. s ed with all Auxiliary Operators and Control
Operators the need to maintain effective communications and to report
problems to the Control Rcom in an expedited manner.
S.
GP-1 (plant startup procedure) will he reviewed and revised as required to
better define startup prerequisites
This item will be completed by
September 30, 1981.
Very truly yours,
l
C. R. Dietz, General ?!anager
Brunswick Steam Electric
RB1P/mcg
cc:
Fir. R. A. Hartfield
B!r. V. Stello, Jr.
t
>
.
. ,
,'
c..
.
.
?!r. James P. O'Reilly
4
August 2f,,1981
C
R.
Dietz, having been firs
duly swarn, did depose and say t.h a t the
information contained herein is true and correct to his own personal knowledge
or based upon information and belief.
!!y commis< ion axpires:
T ..
__ Notary (Seal',
_
_ __
.
_M_3_198Y
i
t
I
l
l
1
l
1
l
.
- -
-
- -
- - -