IR 05000348/1981014
| ML20009G546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1981 |
| From: | Bibb H, Dance H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009G538 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-81-14, NUDOCS 8108040407 | |
| Download: ML20009G546 (4) | |
Text
____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
?
A UNITED STATES
-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
o y,
,E REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 e,4
-
&
ATLANTA, G EORGIA 30303
- .*
R Raport Nos.
50-348/81-14 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name:
Farley Unit i Docket No. 50-348 License No. NPF-2 Inspection at Farley Site Near Dothan, Alabam'a how-7 - 13-Ir/
Inspector: H. E. Bibb, Resident Inspector Date Signed
~7-/3 41 Approved by:
.e -
H. C. Dance, Section Chief, Resident and Date Signed Reactor Project Inspection Division
.
SUMMARY Inspection on June 23 - June 25,1981 Areas Inspected This routine, inspection involved 24 resident inspector-hours onsite in the areas of surveillance procedure review and annunciator response procedure compliance.
Results Of the 2 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
-
O 8108040407 810' 4
'
PDR ADOCK 05000348 G
..
s
'
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees W. G. Hairston, III, Plant Manager
- J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- J. W. Kale, SAER Engineer
- H. M. McClellan, Generating Plant Engineer
- J. J. Thomas, I&C Supervisor
- R. Yance, Electrical Maintenance Supervisor R. Morrow, I&C Planner R. Wood, Control Roor Operator Other licensee employees contacted included 2 technicians, and 2 operators.
NRC Resident Inspector
- W. H. Bradford
- T. A. Peebles
- Attended exit interview
-
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were sunnarized on June 25, 1981, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Surveillance Procedure Review The inspector reviewed three surveillance procedures for compliance with the following attributes:
a.
Completeness b.
Acceptance criteria met c.
Proper approved revision used d.
Qualified personnel used e.
Technical content f.
Procedure reviewed / approved as required by Technical Specification g.
Procedure contains controls to insure LC0's are met during test
.
'
.
-
.
h.
As-found/as-left conditions recorded i.
Acceptance values are within Technical Specifications j.
Calibration equipment is traceable k.
Return to service is controlled 1.
Calib;:1 tion / test sheets have been initialed to identify technician (s)
doing test m.
Compliance with FNP-0-AP-5, sheet 15, pa'ragraph 8.0, Reviews of Surveillance Results.
The three procedures reviewed were:
FNP-1-STP-213.2 (2A &2B), Revision 6, S/G 1A Loop Calibration and Functional Test FNP-1-STP-1.0, Revision 11, Daily Surveillance FNP-1-STP-12.0, Revision 3, Boron Injection Tank Operability Test No violations or deviations were found in the review of the three pro-cedures.
6.
Annunciator Response Procedure Compliance The inspector conducted a control room tour and compared annunciator targets for panels A and B from p'rocedure FNP-1-ARP-1, P,evision 2 with the actual printing on the control panel annunciator targets.
The following differences were noted:
-
Procedure Control Room Target Panel
"A" A54
,
Containment Cooler Service Water Containment Cooler Service Water Diff Flow Hi-lo Flow Panel "B" B21 CRDM Cooling Fan 1A Fault CRDM Cooling Fan 18 Fault B22 CRDM Cooling Fan IB Fault CRDM Cooling Fan 1A Fault B74 MLB-2 Off-Normal MLB-2 Ess Valves Off-Normal B75 MLB-3 Off-Normal MLB-3 ESS Valves Off-Normal
.
e
-
,
,
_.
. _ _..,,
_ _ - - - -- - - -,
r-
~.
.
.'
B83 MLB-4 Off-Normal MLB-4 ESS Valves Off-Normal B84 MLB-5 Off-Normal MLB-5 ESS Valves Off-Normal B85 MLB-6 Off-Normal MLB-6 ESS Valves Off-Normal The above discrepancies were discussed with the licensee during the exit interview and the licensee agreed to investigate and correct as necessary.
Additionally, the inspecto. recomended that the remaining annunciator panels be compared with the procedure and any further discrepancies corrected. The licensee concurred in this recomendation.
This item will be reviewed for correction at a future date; it will be identified as inspector followup item 50-348/81-14-01. The above noted discrepancies did not appear to be of such a nature as to prevent proper operator response or to endanger the public health and safety.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
,
e O
-
,,.
.,..,,,
-... -.,.
- -. - -