ML19247B290
| ML19247B290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1979 |
| From: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jackie Jones CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080314 | |
| Download: ML19247B290 (4) | |
Text
.__
pn neco
/
[o, UNITr O STATES
['
- "e J'. j NUCLEAR REGUuATORY COMMISSION
//
E WASHlh.370N, D. C. 20555 o%, v
/
. ULY 2 0 1979 Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 Mr. J. A. Jones Executive Vice President Carolina Power & Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Jones:
RE: BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 We are reviewing your submittal dated April 23, 1979 in response to
!E Bu.'letin 79-08. We have detemineJ that the ec'ditional infomation requested in the enclosure is necessary in order to complete our safety evaluation.
We request that responses to the items in the enclosure be forwarded to this office within two weeks of your receipt of the enclosure, which was previously transmitted to you by telecopy.
Please contact William F. Kane at (301) 492-/745 if you require additional discussions or clarification regarding the infomation requested.
Sincerel Thomas A. Ippolit, Chi f Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors
- nclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 35+
o)o i
. a oao80 '3 T
Carolina Power & Light Company JULY 2 0 1979 cc: Richard E. Jones. Esquire Carolina Power.
.ght Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Washington, D. C.
20036 John J. Burney, Jr., Escuire Burney, Burney, Sperry & Barefoot 110 North Fifth Avenue Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Southport - Brunswick County Library 1^9 'J. Moore Street Southport, North Carolina 28461
.s c
4 4
mg.,
sk-4 6 MM**
499 347
Enclosure BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 REQUEST FOR ADDICONAL INFORMATION IEB 79-08 Item ho. 1 1.
Confim that the review of item 1 of IEB 79-08 by all licensed operators, plc.nt.nanagement and supervisors with operational responsibilities has been documentad in your plant records.
Item No. 2 1.
Your response indicates that you reviewed the design initiation for containment isolation of all valves whereas the Bulletin refers to all lines.
Corifirm thM your review considered isolation of all lines penetrating containment.
2.
In your response you state that you reviewed tLe containment isolation design but not related procedures.
Confirn that your review included all procedures related to the initiation of containment isolation.
3.
Confirm that valve CAC V-16 ar.J CAC V-17 are open only when a negative pressure exists inside containment.
If such is not the case, provide for closure of these valves, either manually or aatomatically Jpon all automa'i-initidtions of safety injection.
4.
Provide a schedule for any act. ions on Item No. 2 of ICB 79-08 that have not yet been completed.
Item No. 6 1.
It is not clear from your response that positive administrative controls have been implemented to assure that systems requiring retest are in fact retested priot to the need for their operability.
Please clarify your response to provide assurance that safety related valves are returned to their correct positicns following necessary manipulations.
Your response did not clearly indicate that all accessible safety-related
')
valves had been inspected to verify prcper position.
Nor was a schedule for performing the position verification for all safet -related valves provided.
Please supplement yote response to orovide
'is information.
q'j()
.) O U
BRUNSWICK 1 L 2 Item No. 7 1.
Your response is not uolicit with regard to the effect of reset on valves in the Containment Atmospheric Control (CAC) system.
Provide assurance that inadvertent transfer of radioactive gases will not occur through the CAC Systen on resettint of engineered safety features instrumentation.
item No. 8 1.
We understand from your response that operabi.ity is verified for redundant safety related systems prior to removal of any safety related system from service.
Since you may be relying on prior operability verification within the current technical specification surveillance interval, cperability should be further verified by at least a visual check of the system status to the extent practicable, prior to removing the redundant equipment from service. Please supple-ment your response to provide a commitment that you will revise your maintenance and test procedures to adopt this position.
2.
It is not clear from your response tnat all involved reactor operational personnel in the oncoming shift are explicitly notified about the status of systems removed from or returned to service.
Please indicate how this information is transferred at shift turnover.
Item No 9 1.
Technical Specifications and other documents may not include all relevant notification criteria required by item 9 of IEB 79-05.
We note that, at this time, adequate guidance cannot be given on what constitutes an event requiring one hour notification.
We will requirc-a general statement concerning reactor operation in an uncontrolled or unexpected condition until sufficient experience is accumulated to warrant issuance of a specific set of notification criteria.
- Further, you must conmit to notifying the NRC within one hour and to the
'.stablishment of an open continuous O mnication channel, l} ') ()
b0]