IR 05000364/1980024
| ML19332A007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1980 |
| From: | Conlon T, Gibbons T, Merriweather N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331E463 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-364-80-24, NUDOCS 8009100307 | |
| Download: ML19332A007 (4) | |
Text
.
_
.
(V o or
/
UNITEC STATES 8"
'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- a REGION 11
k
~*
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
g,.....,o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 AUG - 1580 Report No. 50-364/e0-24
.
Licensee: Alabama Powet-Company 600 North 18th Street
-
Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name: Farley Unit 2 Docket No. 50-364 License No. CPPR-86 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, Alabama Inspectors:
~ 'b
/![C
,
T. D. Gibbons Dat'e Signed
.
M lr >,
A-~Terriweather
'
~3 Date Signed-d d pj
[ - /- fa Approved
. E.' Conlon,' Sectio'n Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on July 8-11, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 53 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of instrumentation components and systems work and work activities; and instrumentation cables and terminations work and work activities.
.
8009100 30
-
.-
r
-
.,
.
.
.
I,
- v DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
..
Licensee Employees
.
- J. A. Mooney, Project Manager, Construction R. E. Hollands, QA Supervisor, Construction
,
- C. R. Kualheim, QA Engineer, Construction
- J. C. Payson, QA Engineer, Construction
- J. G. Hegi, Project QC Engineer
- D. E. Mansfield, Startup Superintendent Other Organizations
- L. F. Warrick, Project Manager, Daniel Construction Company
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 11, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to
'
determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 5.
,
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspectors conducted a walk through inspection of the plant examining the installed equipment for cleanness and protection. The inspector quest-ioned the installed separation of air compressors P18C00ZA-A and B-B.
The j
electrical portion of the compressors is adequately separated but the tanks
'
are about 8 inches apart. The licensee stated that the compressors are emergency backup air for the main steam isolation valves and.the power operated relief valves. _The inspector asked the licensee if there was a requirement _ for the physical separation of mechanical safety related equip-ment. This unresolved item will be identified ai 364/80-24-02 " Mechanical Separation".
Within the areas examined there were no items of noncompliance identified.
.
_,m
- - -
~T
.
.,
,
gx-2-6.
Instrumentation (Components and Systems) Observation of Work and Work Activities The following instruments were selected for examination:
2PT474, 2PT475, 2PT476, 2PT484, 2PT485 and 2PT486. The instruments were examined to assure
,
that the re lvirements of. the SAR, QAM and installation drawings were complied with in the areas of installation anchoring, separation, protection, indepen-dence inspection and nonconformance control. The inspector examined the receiving records and the electrical cable records for above instruments to assure that the required records were generated, controlled, and stored in a fire protected vault.
Within the areas examined there were no items of noncompliance identified.
7.
Instrumentation (Cables and Terminations) Observation of Work and Work Activities The following instrument cables were examined:
2V2V5001W, 2V3V5001X, 2V4V5003T, 2V2V5001X, 2V3V5001Y, and 2V4V5003U. The cabl s were' examined to assure that the requirements of the SAR, QAM and installation drawings were
complied with in the areas of storage, handling, identification, issue control, nonconformance control, material identification, inspection pro-cedures, work procedures, size, type of cable, wireway sealing, location, routing, protection, separation, grounding, wireway identification, loading, and terminations. The records identify lifted leads for reinspection.
Within the areas examined there were no items of noncompliance identified.
8.
Instrumentation (Cables and Terminations II) - Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspectors selected the following safety-related instrument cables for t
examination:
2VXW5007C 2V225001F 2VXW5008C 2V3Z5002F
,
2V1Z5001F 2V4Z5002B 2V2V5001Y 2V4V5003V 2V3V5001Z 2V1V5002J 2V2V5002J 2V3V5002F Work and work records were examined in the areas of storage, handling and identification. Completed " pull" and " termination" slips were reviewed to ensure that cable installation instructions.and inspections as required by QCP-5.4.3.1 and QCP-5.4.3.1A were specified and varified as being accomplished in the areas of special pull instructions, installed cable length, termination data, crimp tool numbers, cable routing and raceway identification. Cable size, type, physical-protection, separation and terminations were also examined.
,
.-
.
-,
._,~n.._
-
-.. - -...
-
-
,..
.- _
,
-
,
__
_ _ _.
.
.. -
.
k-3-The inspector examined instrument cables terminated in level switches (LS)
507, 508, 515, and 516. Signs of corrosion were ob..erved inside the four LS boxes; and water was observed inside LS508 and LS515. The licensee is presently evaluating the cause for the moisture inside the level switch boxes. This, item is identified as inspector followup * item 364/80-24-01, Level switch terminations.
~
Within the areas examined, there were no items of noncompliance identified.
9.
Instrumentation (Components and Systems II) - Observation of Work and Work Activit2es The following safety-related instruments were selected for examination:
PT494, PT495, PT496, FT424, FT425, FT426, LS507, LS508, LS515, LS516, RE0083B-N, RE0023A-N, RI0024A-A and RIO024B-B.
The instruments were examined to assure that the requirements of the SAR, QAM and installation drawings were complied with in the areas of identification, location, installation, inspection, separation, protection, cleanness, proce-
.
dures and nonconformance control.
Within the areas exanined, there were no items of noncompliance identified.
l I
l
'
i