ML19323D699
| ML19323D699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1980 |
| From: | Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323D684 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005220173 | |
| Download: ML19323D699 (2) | |
Text
_. _ _ _
Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Strcet Post Office Box 2641
.H 6
Birmingham Alabama 35291 J#
8
(
Telephone 205 323-5341 b h ?.'..'
b F. L. CLAYTON, JR.
Alabama Power Senior Wce President l.
l,]
A &,* } l Ite scxten &ctic system April 1, 1980 J. M. Farley Nuclear Plant NRC Inspection of December 31 - February 1,1980 Mr. R. C. Lewis United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Dear Mr. Lewis:
t RE: RII:WHB 50-348/80-2 50-364/80-2 i
1 This refers to the apparent deficiency in the subject inspection report which states:
i "As required by Technical Specification 6.8.b.c, written procedures shall be established and implemented for surveillance and test l
activities of safety related equipment.
l Contrary to the above, on January 27, 1980, Work Request No. 21908 l
on 1-A boric acid transfer pump was not completed in accordance with
)
the instructions delineated in Farley Nuclear Plant Administrative Procedure No. 52 in that the boric acid transfer pump was erroneously indicated to be operable during the performance of maintenance and the restoration and retest requirements were not listed or appended to the work request as required, even though the retest requirements had been completed."
i In addition, page 3 of the subject report states:
I "The inspector reviewed Work Request No. 21908, dated January 27, 1980 which had been issued for shaft seal replacement on 1-A borie acid transfer pump. The inspector noted that the work request had f'
not been properly completed as delineated in FNP-1-AP-52
" Equipment Status Control and Maintenance Authorization" in that:
(1) block 5
No. 21 is to be checked as to whether the equipment is operable or inoperable while undergoing maintenance. 'Ihe block was checked 4
8005g gg l} }
L
\\
operable when in fact the pump was required to be removed and disas-sembled to perform the maintenance; and (2) item No. 28 - Test and Restoration was not adequate in that the retest requirements and a check list be performed on the affected system and on portions of other systems located in the area. These requirements are to be specified on the work request, or appended to the work request.
The retest requirement only stated, " ensure no seal leakage".
The inspector verified that acceptable retest and independent verifi-cation of valve, electrical and/or instrumentation alignments had been performed prior to returning the pump to service even though the requirement was not listed on the work requests."
The following corrective actions are being taken:
1.
The responsible individuals have been re-instructed regarding the requirements of FNP-1-AP-52.
2.
This incident has been included in the license requalification program.
We do not consider the information in the subject report to be of a proprietary nature.
Sincerely yours, d
'#~
g s
. L. Clayto, Jr.
FLC/HMMc:kwl cc: File i
l
_