ML19256C266
| ML19256C266 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1979 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256C260 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-79-19, 50-325-79-19, NUDOCS 7910040491 | |
| Download: ML19256C266 (2) | |
Text
. c APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Carolina Power and Light Company License Nos. DPR-62 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 & 2 DPR-71 Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on May 14-25, 1979, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as. indicated below.
These items have been categorized as describad in our correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974.
A.
Technical Specifications Section 6.9.1.9.b requires the licensee to submit to the Regional Office within 30 days of occurrence, conditions leading to operation in a degraded mode permitted by a limiting condition for operation.
1.
Contrary to the above:
The licensee's records (Limiting. Condition for Operation Reports 1-79-5, 6 and 7) indicate that three containment isolation valves were determined inoperable, placing the Unit 1 facility in a degraded mode permitted by a limiting condition for operation.
The licensee's records did not indscate that a 30-day report was submitted to the Regional Office.
2.
On February 19, 1979, during a surveillance test of the High Pressure Coolant Injection System (HPCI), the licensee determined the system had failed the test and as a result placed Unit 2 in a degraded mode permitted by a limiting condition for operation.
This was not reported to the Regional Office.
This is an infraction.
S.
Technical Specifications Section 6.5.1.6.e requires the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC) be responsible for investigations of all violations of the Technical Specifications.
Additionally, Technical Specifications Section 6.5.1.7.b requires the PNSC to render determinations in writirg with regard to whether or not each item considered under Technical Specifi-cations Section 6.5.1.6.e constit;tes an unreviewed safety question.
Contrary to the above, the inspector found, by discussions with licensee representatives and by review of PNSC minutes, that violations of the TS which are identified in NRC inspection reports were not investigat'ed by PNSC as required above.
This is an infraction.
t BDD J
7910040 %
,e.-
..w..
e-4
- e semm e
- st
+h.
e
=-e
-J e A
.u"
.-m
.__A,_.w..
ew".-
Appendix A -
C.
10 CFR 50.59.(a)(1) and (2) state:
(a)(1) The holder of a ' license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may (-i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the procedures as described
- in the safety analysis report, (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the sa'ety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposec change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
(2) A proposed change, test, or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question (i) if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of c' accident or malfunction-of equipeent important to safety previousi) avaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased; or (ii) if a possibili'ty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safet" analysis report may be created; or (iii) if the margin of safety as defined in the basi' for any technical specification is reduced.
Contrary to the above, the licensee made changes to the Quality Assurance Program as described in Section 13 af the Brunswick FSAR and had not evaluated thess changes to determine if an unreviewed safety question was involved.
This is an infraction.
~~
e s
_ _ _