IR 05000324/2006001

From kanterella
Revision as of 09:27, 15 January 2025 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IR 05000325-06-001, and IR 05000324-06-001, Carolina Power & Light Company, Errata Letter for Annual Assessment
ML061140344
Person / Time
Site: Brunswick  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/24/2000
From: Fredrickson P
NRC/RGN-II/DRP/RPB4
To: Scarola J
Carolina Power & Light Co
References
IR-06-001
Download: ML061140344 (7)


Text

April 24, 2006

SUBJECT:

ERRATA LETTER FOR ANNUAL ASSESSMENT LETTER - BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000325/2006001 AND 05000324/2006001)

Dear Mr. Scarola:

March 2, 2006

SUBJECT:

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT LETTER - BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000325/2006001 AND 05000324/2006001)

Dear Mr. Scarola:

February 8, 2006

SUBJECT:

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT LETTER - BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000325/2006001 AND 05000324/2006001)

Dear Mr. Scarola:

On February 8, 2006, the NRC staff completed its performance review of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Our technical staff reviewed performance indicators (PIs) for the most recent quarter and inspection results for the period from January 1 through December 31, 2005 (CY 2005). The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our assessment of your safety performance during this period and our plans for future inspections at your facility.

This performance review and enclosed inspection plan do not include physical protection information. A separate letter, designated and marked as Official Use Only - Security-Related Information, will include the physical protection review and resultant inspection plan.

Overall, Brunswick Units 1 and 2 operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and fully met all cornerstone objectives. Brunswick Unit 1 performance for the most recent quarter, and Units 1 and 2, for the first three quarters of the assessment cycle, were within the Licensee Response column of the NRCs Action Matrix. We based this conclusion on the fact that all inspection findings were classified as having very low safety significance (Green) and all PIs indicated performance at a level requiring no additional NRC oversight (Green). However, Brunswick Unit 2 performance for the most recent quarter was within the Regulatory Response column of the NRCs Action Matrix. We based this conclusion on the fact that the Unit crossed the threshold from Green to White for the Unplanned Power Changes per 7000 Critical Hours PI during the fourth quarter of CY 2005.

Enclosure 2