ML20045E615
| ML20045E615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045E566 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-93-25, 50-325-93-25, NUDOCS 9307020243 | |
| Download: ML20045E615 (2) | |
Text
A.-r 2--
aeL
- . 4 u
1 ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Carolina Power & Light Co.
Docket Nos.: 50-325 and 50-324 Brunswick License Nos.: DPR-71 and DPR-62 During an NRC inspection conducted on May 17-21, 1993, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," the violation is listed below.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities affecting quality be prescribed by documented instructions or procedures, and shall be accom-plished in accordance with these instructions of procedures.
CP&L Nuclear Engineering Department (NED) Procedure 3.5 specifies the requirements for using, handling, and storing controlled documents.
The requirements of NED Procedure 3.5 were not followed by NED personnel as evidenced by the following examples.
1.
Paragraph 3.5.3.2 of NED Procedure 3.5 requires that uncontrolled copies of procedures shall not be used when designing changes to systems, structures and components.
Contrary to this requirement, uncontrolled copies of Structural Design Guides were used when evaluating short term structural integrity items in calculation number OSEIS - 1005.
2.
Paragraph 3.5.3.2 of NED Procedure 3.5 requires that uncontrolled copies of controlled documents be clearly distinguishable from controlled copies.
Contrary to this requirement, on April 20, 1993, NRC identified that uncontrolled copies of various NED documents, including procedures, structural design guides, and site procedures retained by NED personnel in their work areas and in the NED library were not distinguishable from controlled copies.
3.
Paragraph II.A in Attachment 2 of NED Procedure 3.5 requires that NED controlled documents be serialized and issued to specific individuals. This paragraph also requires that a receipt system shall be utilized to verify receipt of the controlled document and each revision thereto by the person to where the document or revi-sion was issued.
Contrary to this requirement, on April 19, 1993, NRC identified that Revision 3 of Design Guide III.16 had not been' issued to the Bruns-wick site TAC library (NED Control Copy No. 367). The receipt system was not utilized to verify distribution and determine that this document had not been issued to or received by the TAC library.
9307020243 930618 PDR ADOCK 05000324 G
______,-______.___________._.__.m______
Carolina Power & Light Co.
2 Docket Nos.: 50-325 and 50 ':N Brunswick License Nos.: DPR-71 and DPR-62 4.
Paragraph 3.5.3.2 of NED Procedure 3.5 requires that superseded revisions of controlled documents retained by NED personnel for reference must be clearly marked " superseded".
Contrary to this requirement, superseded copies of drawings, proce-dures and specifications retained by NED personnel in their work areas and in the NED library were not marked superseded.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Carolina Power & Light company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 18thday of June 1993 e
i w
+-