ML20141D952: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20141D952
| number = ML20141D952
| issue date = 05/19/1997
| issue date = 05/19/1997
| title = FOIA Request for Documents Re Supplemental SER Mentioned on Page 7 of Insp Repts 50-313/85-04 & 50-368/85-04 Dtd 850321 to Be Placed in PDR
| title = FOIA Request for Documents Re Supplemental SER Mentioned on Page 7 of Insp Repts 50-313/85-04 & 50-368/85-04 to Be Placed in PDR
| author name = Chapman N
| author name = Chapman N
| author affiliation = AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
| author affiliation = AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Line 12: Line 12:
| case reference number = FOIA-97-183
| case reference number = FOIA-97-183
| document report number = 50-313-85-04, 50-313-85-4, 50-368-85-04, 50-368-85-4, NUDOCS 9706300105
| document report number = 50-313-85-04, 50-313-85-4, 50-368-85-04, 50-368-85-4, NUDOCS 9706300105
| title reference date = 03-21-1985
| package number = ML20132B373
| package number = ML20132B373
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
Line 18: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:.
                                            /
                                  '                                                                                              ~
BliROli SERVICE FOR EVALUATING REGULATORY CHANGES
* FOV4% 4HtJEST Casa Nu      _ .29'- /28 Date Rec #      .. E- M -9 7 _
Actkx10ff:      .._En.o f May 19,1997                                                      Reisted ? ms: . , _ . . _
l Mr. D. II. Grimsley, Director                                                            -      l Division of Freedom of Information & Publication Services Office of Administration                                                                          j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                              l Washington, DC 20555 1
 
==Dear Mr. Grimsley:==
 
Pursuant to the 1 reedom of Information Act, and the implementing regulations in Title 10 of the  l Code of Federal Regulations, I am requesting that the supplemental safety evaluation report mentioned on page 7 of Inspection Report 50-313/85 04 and 50-368/85-04, dated March 21,          ,
I 1985 (pertinent page enclosed) be placed in the Public Document Room. An earlier Inspection Report 50-368/82-33 refers to an " internal Safety Evaluation Report" in the {{letter dated|date=January 18, 1983|text=letter dated January 18, 1983}} from W. C. Seidle to Williain Cavanaugh. It is requested that this report also be placed in the Public Document Room.
Very truly yours, dye, X C                        -
Nancy G. j apman SERCH Manager I
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION 9801 Washingtonian Blvd.. Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878-5356 Phone: (301) 417-3771      .
Fax: (301) 926-7036 l
l 9706300105 970624 PDR      FOIA CHAPNAN97-183            PDR
 
re c          4
      . e          s i
MAR 1195                                                                          ,
;~                    In Reply Refer To:
Dockets: 50-313/85-04 50-368/85-04 Arkansas Power & Light Company i                      ATTN: John M. Griffin, Senior Vice President -
                                ' Energy Supply P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Gentlemen:
l This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. D. Johnson and P. H.
Harrell of this office during the period February 1-28, 1985, of activities authorized by NRC Operating Licenses DPR-51 and NPF-6 for Arkansas Nuclear                                                                                    3 Orie. Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. J. M.                                                                                    i Levine, and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection incleded operational safety verification, maintenance, surveillance, followup on previously identified                                                                                    l items, quality assurance audit program review, onsite review committee, QA/QC                                                                                '
administration program, followup on IE Bulletins, and followup on licensee event reports. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors. The findings are documented in the enclosed inspection report.
One unresolved item is identified in paragraph 6 of the enclosed inspection report.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss the:a with you.
Sincerely.
                                                                                          " original signed Br.
D.R. HUNTER" D. R. Huntur, Chief Reactor Project Branch 2
 
==Enclosure:==
Appendix - NRC Inspection Report                                                                                                                              l 50-313/85-04 50-368/85-04                                                                                                                                              i cc: .(Seepage 2)                                                                                                                              g\            1 RIV:RPB)                      RPB2 DRHun$M
                                                                                                                                                              /y WDJohnsly      f                    er 1
3/gA/85 (                    3p/85                                                                                                              i\
l                  ::~:sae ~,u_.
PDR 1-O      ADOCR 68650313                                                                                                                                          I PDR
 
i,,                                                                                                  l
;g)-
i j                                                      :
:                    IE Bulletin 80-06, entitled " Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Reset
:                  Controls." was last discussed in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-368/82-06 for i                  ANO, Unit 2. The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has issued a      9
;                  supplemental-safety evaluation report based upon its review of the            $
:                  licensee's submittal of April 16, 1982. This report concluded that the ESF reset controls for ANO, Unit 2 were in compliance with NRC criteria. J This bulletin is closed.
: 5. Operational Safety Verification (Units 1 and 2)                  ,
The NRC inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs, and conducted discussions with control room operators. The inspectors verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records, verified proper return-to-service of affected components, and ensured that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in        ,
need of maintenance. The inspectors, by observation aM direct interview,        l verified that the physical security plan was by
* wiesented in            .
accordance with the station security plan. Thr. Inwiectors verified implementation of radiation protection controis during plant activ"tes.
The NRC inspectors toured accessible areas of the units to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibration. . The inspectors also observed plant housekeeping and cleanliness conditions during the tour. It was noted to licensee personnel that four areas in the plant needed additional housekeeping attention. The licensee stated that the identified areas would be                !
cleaned.                                                                          '
The NRC inspectors walked down the accessible portions of the Unit 2 service water system. The walkdown was performed using Procedure 2104.29 and Drawing M-2210. During the walkdown, the NRC inspectors noted minor discrepancies of an editorial nature between the drawing, procedure, and plant as-built conditions. Licensee personnel stated the discrepancies would be corrected.
The NRC inspector's review of the 200-gallcn diesel fuel oil spill which occurred on January 25, 1985, indicated th.et the event should have been reported to the NRC. 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vi)requiresNRCnotification, within four hours, of an event related to protection of the environment for which a news release is planned or notification to other government agencies has been made. On January 25, 1985, the licensee notified the            ,
U.S. Coast Guard and the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and            l Ecology of the oil spill. On January 26, 1985, following prior inquiries,        !
the licensee issued a press release concerning the oil spill. The NRC            l inspector was informed of the oil spill on January 26, 1985, and reported        ;
to the plant site. A review of the matter revealed that the licensee actions in response to the oil spill were found to have been prompt and          I complete except for the omission of the 4-hour report to the NRC.}}

Latest revision as of 12:24, 12 December 2021

FOIA Request for Documents Re Supplemental SER Mentioned on Page 7 of Insp Repts 50-313/85-04 & 50-368/85-04 to Be Placed in PDR
ML20141D952
Person / Time
Site: Arkansas Nuclear  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 05/19/1997
From: Chapman N
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To: Grimsley D
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20132B373 List:
References
FOIA-97-183 50-313-85-04, 50-313-85-4, 50-368-85-04, 50-368-85-4, NUDOCS 9706300105
Download: ML20141D952 (1)
v • d • e


Text

.

/

' ~

BliROli SERVICE FOR EVALUATING REGULATORY CHANGES

  • FOV4% 4HtJEST Casa Nu _ .29'- /28 Date Rec # .. E- M -9 7 _

Actkx10ff: .._En.o f May 19,1997 Reisted ? ms: . , _ . . _

l Mr. D. II. Grimsley, Director - l Division of Freedom of Information & Publication Services Office of Administration j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 1

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

Pursuant to the 1 reedom of Information Act, and the implementing regulations in Title 10 of the l Code of Federal Regulations, I am requesting that the supplemental safety evaluation report mentioned on page 7 of Inspection Report 50-313/85 04 and 50-368/85-04, dated March 21, ,

I 1985 (pertinent page enclosed) be placed in the Public Document Room. An earlier Inspection Report 50-368/82-33 refers to an " internal Safety Evaluation Report" in the letter dated January 18, 1983 from W. C. Seidle to Williain Cavanaugh. It is requested that this report also be placed in the Public Document Room.

Very truly yours, dye, X C -

Nancy G. j apman SERCH Manager I

BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION 9801 Washingtonian Blvd.. Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878-5356 Phone: (301) 417-3771 .

Fax: (301) 926-7036 l

l 9706300105 970624 PDR FOIA CHAPNAN97-183 PDR

re c 4

. e s i

MAR 1195 ,

~ In Reply Refer To

Dockets: 50-313/85-04 50-368/85-04 Arkansas Power & Light Company i ATTN: John M. Griffin, Senior Vice President -

' Energy Supply P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Gentlemen:

l This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. D. Johnson and P. H.

Harrell of this office during the period February 1-28, 1985, of activities authorized by NRC Operating Licenses DPR-51 and NPF-6 for Arkansas Nuclear 3 Orie. Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. J. M. i Levine, and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during the inspection incleded operational safety verification, maintenance, surveillance, followup on previously identified l items, quality assurance audit program review, onsite review committee, QA/QC '

administration program, followup on IE Bulletins, and followup on licensee event reports. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors. The findings are documented in the enclosed inspection report.

One unresolved item is identified in paragraph 6 of the enclosed inspection report.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss the:a with you.

Sincerely.

" original signed Br.

D.R. HUNTER" D. R. Huntur, Chief Reactor Project Branch 2

Enclosure:

Appendix - NRC Inspection Report l 50-313/85-04 50-368/85-04 i cc: .(Seepage 2) g\ 1 RIV:RPB) RPB2 DRHun$M

/y WDJohnsly f er 1

3/gA/85 ( 3p/85 i\

l  ::~:sae ~,u_.

PDR 1-O ADOCR 68650313 I PDR

i,, l

g)-

i j  :

IE Bulletin 80-06, entitled " Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Reset
Controls." was last discussed in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-368/82-06 for i ANO, Unit 2. The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has issued a 9
supplemental-safety evaluation report based upon its review of the $
licensee's submittal of April 16, 1982. This report concluded that the ESF reset controls for ANO, Unit 2 were in compliance with NRC criteria. J This bulletin is closed.
5. Operational Safety Verification (Units 1 and 2) ,

The NRC inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs, and conducted discussions with control room operators. The inspectors verified the operability of selected emergency systems, reviewed tagout records, verified proper return-to-service of affected components, and ensured that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in ,

need of maintenance. The inspectors, by observation aM direct interview, l verified that the physical security plan was by

  • wiesented in .

accordance with the station security plan. Thr. Inwiectors verified implementation of radiation protection controis during plant activ"tes.

The NRC inspectors toured accessible areas of the units to observe plant equipment conditions, including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibration. . The inspectors also observed plant housekeeping and cleanliness conditions during the tour. It was noted to licensee personnel that four areas in the plant needed additional housekeeping attention. The licensee stated that the identified areas would be  !

cleaned. '

The NRC inspectors walked down the accessible portions of the Unit 2 service water system. The walkdown was performed using Procedure 2104.29 and Drawing M-2210. During the walkdown, the NRC inspectors noted minor discrepancies of an editorial nature between the drawing, procedure, and plant as-built conditions. Licensee personnel stated the discrepancies would be corrected.

The NRC inspector's review of the 200-gallcn diesel fuel oil spill which occurred on January 25, 1985, indicated th.et the event should have been reported to the NRC. 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vi)requiresNRCnotification, within four hours, of an event related to protection of the environment for which a news release is planned or notification to other government agencies has been made. On January 25, 1985, the licensee notified the ,

U.S. Coast Guard and the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and l Ecology of the oil spill. On January 26, 1985, following prior inquiries,  !

the licensee issued a press release concerning the oil spill. The NRC l inspector was informed of the oil spill on January 26, 1985, and reported  ;

to the plant site. A review of the matter revealed that the licensee actions in response to the oil spill were found to have been prompt and I complete except for the omission of the 4-hour report to the NRC.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20141D952&oldid=3365936"