IR 05000348/1988007: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML20148M951
| number = ML20151E887
| issue date = 03/28/1988
| issue date = 04/07/1988
| title = Insp Repts 50-348/88-07 & 50-364/88-07 on 880211-0310.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Monthly Surveillance & Maint Observations,Radiological Protection Program & Physical Security Program
| title = Corrected Ltr Forwarding Insp Repts 50-348/88-07 & 50-364/88-07 on 880211-0310.No Violations or Deviations Identified
| author name = Bradford W, Dance H, Miller W
| author name = Verrelli D
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name = Mcdonald R
| addressee affiliation =  
| addressee affiliation = ALABAMA POWER CO.
| docket = 05000348, 05000364
| docket = 05000348, 05000364
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 50-348-88-07, 50-348-88-7, 50-364-88-07, 50-364-88-7, NUDOCS 8804060267
| document report number = NUDOCS 8804150425
| package number = ML20148M938
| package number = ML20151E867
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 6
| page count = 2
}}
}}


Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
UNITED STATES
UNIT ED STATES .
  -
   *
   '
  * [ 6 081o k
    #pt Itopq'o
  '
    '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
  ,0 f o   nEGloN il J*i .. j  101 MARIETTA STRE ET. '
   [ '$  REGloN H 101 MARIETTA STREET, * {
    * ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323
t ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
   \...../
   *
Report Nos.: 50-348/88-07 and 50-364/88-07 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291 Docket Nos.: 50-348/88-07 and 50-364/88-07 License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility name: Farley 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: February 11 - March 10, 1988 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, Alabama Inspectors: ,./_ s ']
  ..... APR 01 M8 Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8 Alabama Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Gentlemen:
W! H Bradford bfv ktw "
SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-348/88-07 AND 50-364/88-07 This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 'nspection conducted by W. H. Bradford on February 11 - March 10, 1988. The inspect. ion included a review of activities authorized for your Farley facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection repor Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progres Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-51 Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact u
        *$ f7f fVY Date Signed LraL  . sin /w Date Signed W.HsMille7  ,
Approved by: -[
H. C. Da~nce,'Section Chief n  Y!M [
Dite S'igned
    /
Division of Reactor Projects SUMMARY Scope: This routine on-site inspection involved a review of monthly surveillance observation, monthly maintenance observation, operational safety verification, engineered safety system inspection, radiological protection program and physical security progra Results: No violations or deviations were identified, i
l l
l l
[
8804060267 880328
,
PDR ADOCK 05000348
[    R  tErcSS ._


. _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .______-___ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .
Sincerely, David M. Verelli, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects
  -
      .
.
Enclosure: (See page 2)
  ,
    .-
.
8804150425 000407 0 PDR ADOCK 0500
k
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1. Licensee Employees Contacted J. D. Woodard, General Plant Manager D. N. Morey, Assistant General Plant Manager W. D. Shipman, Assistant General Plant Manager R. D. Hill, Operations Manager C. D. Nesbitt, Technical Manager R. G. Berryhill, Systems Performance and Planning Manager J. J. Thomas, Maintenance Manager J. K. Osterholtz, Unit Supervisor, Administrative L. W. Enfinger, Administrative Manager J. E. Odom, Operations Unit Supervisor B. W. Vanlandingham, Operations Unit Supervisor T., H. Esteve, Planning Supervisor J. B. Hudspeth, Document Control Supervisor L. K. Jones, Material Supervisor R. H. Marlow, Technical Supervisor L. M. Stinson, Plant Modification Manager Scott Fulmer, Supervisor, Safety Audit Engineering Review Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operations personnel, maintenance end I&C personnel, security force members, and office personne . Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management interviews throughout the report period and on March 14, 1988, with the plant manager and selected members of his staff. The inspection findings were discussed in detail. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings and did not identify as proprietary any material reviewed by the inspection during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702)
This area was not inspecte Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)
The inspectors observed and reviewed Technical Specification (TS) required surveillance testing and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, test instrumentation was calibrated, lim' ting conditions for operation (LCO) were met, test results met acceptance criteria and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, deficiencies identified during the testing were
    .


_ _ _ _ _ _
  - .- ..  , . _- _ _ _
  .
      - _ _ - -_
'
.
'


properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel, and personnel conducting the test were qualifie Portions of the following test activities were observed or reviewed by the inspectors:
*
2-STP-1 RHR Pump 2A Monthly Operability Chec STP-2 Penetration Room Filtration Alignment Verificatio STP-22.18 Auxiliary Feedwater Automatic Valve Position Verificatio STP-121 Incore/Excore Detector Calibratio STP-33.2A Reactor Trip Breaker "A" Operability Tes STP-4 Miscellaneous Valves Inservice Tes STP-8 Diesel Generator 1-2A Operability Tes STP-8 Diesel Generator 1C Operability Tes STP-617.0 Penetr ation Room Filtration System Heater Tes No violations or deviations were identifie . Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)
*
Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and components were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides, industry codes and standards, and were in conformance with TS. Items considered during the review included: verification that limiting conditions for operations were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; approved procedures were used; completed work was inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality control records we e maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified personnel; parts and materials were properly certified; and, radiological and fire prevention controls were implemented. Work requests were also reviewed to determine the status of outstanding jobs to assure that priority was assigned to safety-related equipment maintenance which may affect system performanc The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
W87g  UNITED STATES .
KdR 116046A Repair fuel pump Leak on Diesel Generator 1 KWR 119228 Terminate cable for Diesel Generator 1-2A lube oil heate KWR 138284 Replace 2" service water piping to RHR Train A MCC-2A room cooler KdR 138286 Replace 2" service water piping to MCC-2A room cooler .
  .
  '
  '
 
*p *
l
Do NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
  .
  *
MWR 161626 Install pressure switch for breathing air syste MWR 163515 Test reactor trip breaker 2 GM- Insulation resistance testing for rotating equipment (air compressors A and B and auxiliary jacket water pump for Diesel Generator 1-2A).
  -['' n REGloN ll
 
  $.
i 0-MP-1 Diesel Air Intake and Exhaust Valve Visual Inspection (diesel V-B) Colt Model DC-2V Diesel Engine 1B, 18 Month f Inspectio MP-1 Colt Model DC-2V Diesel Engine IB, 18 Month Inspectio MP-1 Model DC-2V Diesel Generator Engine IB, Quarterly Inspectio Mp-28.114 Inspection and Testing of Reactor Trip Breakers (breaker for 2A).
 
2-IMP-25 P-4 Permissive Contact Verification (Unit 2 "A" train).
 
No violations or deviations were identifie . Operational Safety Verification (71707)
The inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the report period. 'lso, the operability of selected emergency systems was verified,
  .
tagout records were reviewed and proper return to service of affected components was verifie Tours of the auxiliary building, diesel building, turbine building and service water structure were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions, including fluid leaks and excessive vibrations and general housekeeping efforts. The inspectors verified compliance with selected limiting condition for operation (LCO) and results of selected surveillance test The verifications were accomplished by direct observation of monitoring instrumentation, valve positions, switch positions, accessible hydraulic snubbers, and review of completed logs, records, and chemistry results. The licensee's compliance with LCO action statements were reviewed as events occurre The inspectors routinely attended meetings with certain licensee management and observed various shif t turnovers between shif t supervisor, shift foremen and licensed operators, These meetings and discussions provided a daily status of plant operations, maintenance, and testing activities in progress, as well as discussions of significant problem On March 3,1988, the licensee notified the NRC resident inspectors that an accumulation of gas had been discovered in the piping of the "A" trains on Units 1 and 7 in the RHR discharge to the charging pumps suction piping. This gas was analyzeo and was found to contain the same
 
_ _ _________ __ . _ _ _
  -
  .
  .
  . .
  *
  *
j  101 MARIETTA STREET, 't  ATL ANTA, G EORGI A 3o323
%,,,,,#  hpR 01 M Docket Nos. 50-348, 50-364 License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8 Alabama Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-348/88-07 AND 50-364/88-07)
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspect. ion conducted by W. H. Bradford on February 11 - March 10,1988. The inspection included a review of activities authorized for your Farley facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection repor Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progres Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-51 Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact u


composition of H2 volume control tank overpressure of hydrogen. The RHR to charging pump suction is used during the recirculation phase during accident conditions. The licensee vented the gas from Unit 1 "A" train on February 26, 1988. The amount of gas vented was equivalent to 450 gallons of water. No gas was found on Unit 1 "B" train. Unit 2 "A" train was vented on February 29, 1988. The equivalent of 310 gallons of gas was removed. No gas was found on "B" train. Successive venting was conducted    s:
Sincerely, David M. Verelli, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure: (See page 2)
on March 1 and 2 with decreasing amounts of gas accumulation. The licensee went to a 8 hour venting schedule and no more accumulation of gas was found. The immediate concern was the safety significance in regard to the high pressure charging pump operation during accident conditions. The licensee contacted Westinghouse Corporation and was informed by Westinghouse and Pacific Pump (Manufacturer) that the gas volume be limited to less than 6 cubic feet. However, the licensee has initiated a program to not allow any gas build up. This program consists of regular venting and charging pump operation which will preclude the gas buildu The licensee is investigating certain modifications and alternatives as a    ,
permanent fix to the gas accumulation. For further information refer to Inspection Report No. 348-364/88-0 No violations or deviations were identifie . Radiological Protection Program (71709)
Selected activities of the licensee's Radiological Protection Program were reviewed by the inspectors to verify conformance with plant procedures and NRC regulatory requirement. The areas reviewed included: organization and management  of the plant's health physics staff, " A LARA" implementation, Radiation Work Permits (RWP's) for compliance to plant procedures, personnel exposure records, observation of work and personnel in radiation areas to verify compliacce to radiation protection procedures, and control of radioactive ma:erial No violations or deviations were identifie . Physical Security Program (71SSI)
Licensee's compliance to the approved security plan was reviewed by the inspectors. The inspectors verified by observation and interviews with security force r?mbers that measures taken to assure the physical protection of the facility met current requirement Areas inspected included:  organization of the security force,  establishment and maintenance of gates, doors, and isolation zones, access control, and i
badging procedures.
 
I  No violations or deviations were identified.
 
'
l
          -
l l
i
_-. __
    - - . _ _ - _ . . _ - _ . . . _ - . - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . , , _ . . _ . _ ~ , -
        ,_.._., , _ _ - - , _ . _
 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  -
  .
  ,
  . .
  *
S
  .
9. Engineered Safety Systems Inspections (71710)
The inspectors performed inspections of portions of various safety related systems during this inspection period. Major components were checked for leakage and any general conditions that would degrade performance or prevent fulfillment of functional requirement The following Unit 2 systems were inspected in detail:
Auxiliary Building Ventilation Syste Penetration Rooms Filtration Syste Containment spray System Including Chemical Additive Syste Residual Heat Removal Syste Items inspected included: confirmation that licensee's system line-up procedures matched plant drawings; surveillance procedures included the surveillance requirements of the Technical specifications; system valves and electrical breakers were in correct alignment or position; instrumentation was inservice and calibration was current; hangers and supports were aligned and in service; equipment was properly labeled; and, general housekeeping and cleanliness were properly maintaine The components inspected were found inservice / operable or if not inservice were covered by applicable "Tag Out" procedures to meet the requirements
,
of the T No violations or deviations were identified.
 
,
i
,
[
_ - _ _ _ - _ . __ _ _      _____________________________ -
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 13:17, 25 October 2020

Corrected Ltr Forwarding Insp Repts 50-348/88-07 & 50-364/88-07 on 880211-0310.No Violations or Deviations Identified
ML20151E887
Person / Time
Site: Farley  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 04/07/1988
From: Verrelli D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Mcdonald R
ALABAMA POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20151E867 List:
References
NUDOCS 8804150425
Download: ML20151E887 (2)


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

UNIT ED STATES .

  • [ 6 081o k

'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ '$ REGloN H 101 MARIETTA STREET, * {

t ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

..... APR 01 M8 Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8 Alabama Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-348/88-07 AND 50-364/88-07 This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 'nspection conducted by W. H. Bradford on February 11 - March 10, 1988. The inspect. ion included a review of activities authorized for your Farley facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection repor Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progres Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-51 Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact u

Sincerely, David M. Verelli, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects

.

Enclosure: (See page 2)

.-

8804150425 000407 0 PDR ADOCK 0500

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

- _ _ - -_

W87g UNITED STATES .

'

  • p *

Do NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-[ n REGloN ll

$.

j 101 MARIETTA STREET, 't ATL ANTA, G EORGI A 3o323

%,,,,,# hpR 01 M Docket Nos. 50-348, 50-364 License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8 Alabama Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-348/88-07 AND 50-364/88-07)

This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspect. ion conducted by W. H. Bradford on February 11 - March 10,1988. The inspection included a review of activities authorized for your Farley facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection repor Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progres Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-51 Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact u

Sincerely, David M. Verelli, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure: (See page 2)