ML20141H310

Forwards Insp Repts 50-348/97-201 & 50-364/97-201 on 970127- 0314.No Violations Noted

ML20141H310
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	05/13/1997
From:	Gallo R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
Shared Package
ML20141H316	List: IR 05000348/1997201 ML20141H310
References
50-348-97-201, 50-364-97-201, NUDOCS 9705230273
Download: ML20141H310 (4)

See also: IR 05000348/1997201

Text

. . - . . , . .. .. - .

l

i  % .  :

i

t UNITED STATES

4

j ,j

s

'

'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

's WASHINGTON, D.C. ma "1  ;

} May 13, 1997

,

I

i

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. l

.

ATTN: Mr. D.N. Morey

-

r

Vice President'  !

,

Farley Project

P.O. Box 1295

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295

'

SUBJECT: DESIGN INSPECTION OF JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 <

(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-348/97-201 and 50-364/97-201)

Dear Hr. Morey:

From January 27 through March 14, 1997, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear  ;

Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear P.eactor Regulation (NRR), r

!

performed a design inspection of the Unit I auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system, *

the Unit 2 component cooling water (CCW) system, and their support systems at  :

the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. The purpose of the inspection was to  ; '

evaluate the selected systems regarding their capability to perform safety

.

functions required by their design bases, adherence to their design and r

t

licensing bases, and consistency of the as-built configuration and system

operations with the final safety analysis report (FSAR). 'i

The enclosed report discusses the results of this inspection. Overall, the

inspection team determined that the selected systems are capable of performing

their intended safety functions and have adequate design margins. Your staff  ;

has implemented. appropriate measures to resolve the immediate concerns >

identified by the team, and the team did not have any unresolved operability

Concerns. ,

-'

Although we consider the safety system self-assessments performed by your

staff to be a positive initiative, the assessments did not identify and

correct many of the issues raised by the team. The Farley design and

licensing bases have been adequately implemented in all but a few instances. ,

The system design documents adequately support the design, except as ,

i identified in the inspection report. Your engineering staff demonstrated I

adequate knowledge of the systems evaluated and provided excellent support to

the inspection team. (

The team had concerns with inadequate tornado missile protection of the '

_ turbine-driven AFW (TDAFW) pump vent stack and the exposed piping connections,

level transmitter, electrical conduits and cables of the condensate storage '

tank (CST). The as-built plant configuration for these did not conform to the

230034 ,

9703230273 970513 *

,

" ^="""= g31camR

- - - - .- -- ..-~- .-. - - - . - - . . ~ . . - . - -. -- .

..  !

!

, i

< ,

Mr. D. N. Morey -2-  !

,

' Farley design and licensing' bases. In addition, the exhaust silencers for the

. diesel generators (including.the station blackout diesels) were not protected  !

against vertical and other non-horizontal missiles. The NRR staff wi11' review  !

4 this issue associated with the diesel generators to determine whether the l'

'

tornado missile protection in the Farley Unit I and 2 design and licensing

' bases included missile spectra other than horizontal missiles.

i

Evaluations of plant modifications, conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59,

were generally adequate. .However, the team identified certain examples of

inadequate safety evaluations. For example, the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation for

.

an FSAR change deleting the requirement for tornado missile protection for

several CST piping connections did not identify a potential unreviewed safety  ;

question. Your staff evaluated this issue, notified the NRC in accordance i

with 10 C,FR 50.72, on February 27, 1997, and implemented interim corrective i

actions to maintain the operability of the system until the issue can be

'

resolved.  ;

l The team identified testing and surveillance deficiencies. For example, the

TDAFW pump discharge check valves were not tested in the reverse direction.  ;

. The corrective action for a notice of violation for a similar issue did not  !

e thoroughly tddress the check valve testing deficiency.  ;

,

The team noted design control issues for calculations, as well as .

'

nonconservative assumptions and inputs in calculations. In addition, the team

' identified discrepancies between the FSAR and other documents, such as j

procedures, functional system descriptions (FSDs), calculations, and drawings. ,

. Please provide a schedule, within 60 days, detailing your plans to complete  ;

the corrective actions for the open items listed in Appendix A to the enclosed  ;

'

report. This schedule will enable the NRC staff to plan for the reinspection <

and closecut of these items.

As with all NRC inspections, we expect that you will evaluate the '

applicability of the results and specific findings of this inspection to other

' systems and components throughout the plant.  :

!

!

!

!

>

l

l

l

~

l

l

.

'

l

l

- . --- . - . . - - - - - - , ,

- __ - -. .

.

.

..

,

Mr. D. N. Morey -3-

.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure

will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. Any enforcement action

resulting from this inspection will be handled by NRC Region II via separate

correspondence. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed

inspection report, please contact the project manager, Mr. J. I. Zimmerman, at

(301) 415-2426, or the inspection team leader, Mr. R.K. Mathew, at

(301) 415-2963.

,

Sincerely,

h

Robert M. Gallo, Chief

Special Inspection Branch

Division of Inspection and Support Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364

Enclosure: Inspection Report 50-348/97-201

and 50-364,'97-201

cc: see next page

l

,

l

l

i

l

l

1

)

I

___ -. . -. . . .. _- . . . . . - , . . - - . - . - .-, --

I

j ~e ,

i- .

!

~

'

. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant- l

Units-1.and 2  :

s :cc: j

.

.

Mr. . R. D. Hill, 'Jr.: 4

- General Manager'-

Southern Nuclear Operating Company

-

Post Office Box 470: .  ;

Ashford,. Alabama 36312' ,

e Mr. Mark Ajlunt,. Licensing Manager

,.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company .

.' Post Office Box 1295 l

j. Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1295

-Mr. M. Stanford Blanton 5

, Balch and Bingham Law Firm ,

3~

Post Office Box 306-

.1710 Sixth Avenue North .

D Birmingham,; Alabama 35201 l

,

i.. .Mr.' J. D. Woodard

Executive Vice President ,

. Southern Nuclear Operating Company )

Post Office Box 1295 .

' Birmingham, Alabama 35201

-

State Health Officer

! Alabama Department of Public' Health .

434 Monroe Street j

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1701 ,

'

Chairman-

Houston County Commission -

Post Office Box 6406

- Dothan, Alabama 36302 l

' Regional Administrator, Region II

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Atlanta Federal Center

61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 23T85 ,

Atlanta Georgia .30303 l

Resident Inspector .

U.S.- Nuclear. Regulatory Commission  ;

7388 N. State Highway 95

Columbia, Alabama' '36319

,

.

i

'

, I

. -. - .. . .