IR 05000348/1978033
| ML19276D620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1978 |
| From: | Elrod S, Hardin A, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276D613 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-78-33, NUDOCS 7901080074 | |
| Download: ML19276D620 (6) | |
Text
.
.
paafGo UNITED STATES
, g
[o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
,
REGloN 11 y
,, (
g
,
.
.-
r 101 M ARIETTA STREET. N.W.
"'
k I!f ATL ANT A. GEORGI A 30303 f
s,..m /
...
Report No. : 50-348/78-33 Docket No.: 50-348 License No. : NPF-2
.
Licensee: Alabama Power Company P. O. Box 2631 Birmingham, Alabama 35291 Facility Name: Farley Unit 1 Inspection at: Farley Site Inspection conducted: November 27 - December 1,1978 E
Inspectors:
A. K. Hardin Accompanying Personnel:
S. A. Elrod Approved by:
[-[,
/ Y/M78 R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on November 27 - December 1, 1978 (Report No. 50-348/78-33i Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee event reports, IE Circulars and Bulletins, plant operations and unresolved items.
The inspection involved 56 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Uf the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or devia-tions were identified.
790108007y
.
.
.
.
.
RII Report No. 50-348/78-33 I-1
,
DETAILS I Prepared by:
4.C. b
/2/n-/7/
M A. K. Hardin, Reactor Inspector Date
Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: November 27 - December 1,1978 Reviewed by: 8. C.
M
/2//t/7f
'
R. C. Lesis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
- Persens Contacted W. G. Hairston, Plant Manager D. C. Poole, Operations Superintendent D. N. Morey, Maintenance Supervisor" J. R. Campbell, Manager, Operations QA
R. D. Hill, Plant QA Engineer D. L. Cox, QA Engineer J. W. Kale, Jr., QA Engineer Other employees interviewed during the course of the inspection included Shif t Supervisors, Shif t Foremen, Reactor Operators, and Plant Engineers.
- Listed persons were present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insrection Findings (Closed) Unresolved (348/78-24-02):
The unresolved item dealt with failure of the liceasee to take prompt action to reduce power when calorimetric data showed power to be above 100 percent. On the current inspection, a review of log bookr., calorimetric calculations, and the surveillance test procedure for the daily calorimetric indicate action is being taken to adjust power to the 1001 level.
3.
Unresolved Items
' Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required ia order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
One unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph.
.
.
RII Report No. 50-348/78-33 1-2
.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted by an asterisk in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 1, 1978. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings without comment.
5.
IE Circulars
~
(Closed) IE Circular (348/78-CI-16):
Circular 78/16 discussed the failure of Limitorque valve actuators caused by repeated manual opera-tion.
The licensee stated they had not experienced failures on Limi-torque valve actuators similar to those described in the Circular.
The licensee had received a communication from the valve vendor sug-gesting methods for minimizing the potential for valve actuator f ailure.
The licensee has decided to issue a standing order to limit canual operation of the valves, to route information to applicable personnel to inform them of potential prob ems and, to utilize information regarding valve actuator failures i{n plant training programs.
.
6.
Licensee Event Reports Eight licensee event reports were reviewed in office and followed up at the site. Record reviews and interviews with licensee personnel were conducted to ascertain that the event was treated as required by Technical Specifications.
The reports reviewed are listed below and unless otherwise indicated the inspector had no further question relative to the event.
a.
LER No. 71
" Failure of Pond Level Switch LS 511" b.
LER No. 72
"1C DG Output Breaker Failed to Close on 4160 Volt Bus IH" Prior to licensing of Unit 1, jumpers were installed between Units 1 and 2 to blank out certain signals from Unit 2 to diesel generator IC control circuits.
e.g.
Unit 1/ Unit 2 separation.
Tests of diesel generator IC and response of the IC diesel generator to actual loss of of fsite power had previously demonstrated the jumpers were originally correctly installed.
On October 10, 1978 while per-f orming a surveillance test, IC DG output breaker failed to close on 4160V bus 1H after the DG had auto started and came up to : peed. The canse was found to be that the jumper installed for Unit;/ Unit 2 separation was incorrectly installed. The licensee cannot account for the jumper being moved f rom a correct to an incorrect terminal. The licensee is in the process of reviewing all temporary alterations and
.
.
.
.
.
RII Report No. 50-348/78-33 I-3
.
comparing the actual connection points with wiring diagrams.
In a subsequent telephone call to the licensee on December 6, 1978, the inspector expressed a concern that unlicensed (Unit 2 construction personnel) might have access to the terminals. The IL ensee stated that all terminal connections involved with Unit 1/ Unit 2 separation are under the control of licensee personnel.
c.
ER No. 73
" Failure of Control Air Supply Regulator to Instrument Air to Containment Iso Valve."
d.
ER No. 74
"BIF Sequencer Failure" e.
ER No. 75
" Excessive Time for 1-2A D/G to Close on Bus" The cause of this event was found to be a failed fuse in the 125V DC supply for the starting excitation circuit which caused the 1-2A D/G tc come up to voltage with residual magnetism. The time between occurrence of this event and the recognition of the cuase of the event was about 23 days. The licensee stated that the test being performed was not% test of the diesel and the slow response of D/G 1-2A was not recognized until data for the test being run was analyzed.
The' corrective action taken was to replace the fuse and test the diesel. No corrective action was taken to preclude failure to recognized the slow response of the D/G. Further review of this event will be conducted on a subsequent inspection to determine if the licensee has taken appropriate and adequate corrective action to eliminate failure to recognize slow response of the diesel. (348/78-33-01)
f.
ER No. 76
" Failure of IB D/G Air Start Solenoid Valve" g.
ER No. 77
" Failure of Inner Stage Relief Valve B Compressor for the IB DG Set" h.
ER No.,3
"Setpoir.t Drif t on Train A UV Relay on RCP 1A" 7.
Open Items Closed (348/78-32-03) Licensee Event Report No. 64 on steam driven auxiliary feed water pump. This ER was lef t as an open item pending receipt of a supplemental report and detailed review at the site. The supplemental report was received on November 22, 1978, and a re-inspec-tion of the event was made on the current inspection. The licensee's analyses, corrective actions and report relative to the event were deemed to have met regulatory requirement..
.
RII Report No. 50-348/78-33 I-4
-
8.
Plant Operations a.
Log Books Approximately 20 days of log books entries (November 1-19, 1978)
were reviewed in the Reactor Operator's Log and the Shif t Foreman's Log. The inspector observed an entry for which the reason for reducing power was nct logged.
In discussion of this item with operations management, the licensee stated 'that failure to log reasons for power reduction should not have occurred and the event would be discussed with operations personnel in appropriate training sessions.
b.
Plant Housekeeping During a tour of the auxiliary building the inspector observed that housekeeping was much below the standard previously observed at Farley Unit 1.
The specific areas in which improved housekeeping communicateg to the licensee.
The licensee was needed were stated they had reviewed the areas involved and agreed that improvement was needed.
At the exit interview the licensee stated the areas had been cleaned.
c.
Diesel Generator Buildirg Two potential problems were observed in the Day Tank Rooms for the diesel generators. The first related to a set of red and green signal lights for which there was no identification. The lights are installed to signal whether there is water in the Day Tank. During discussion with the licensee, the licensee stated that labels, identifying the function of the red and green lights, would be added in the day tank rooms at the light location.
The second item dealt with tubing attacbed to the drain line valve on eact of the day tanks.
According to the licensee the tubing was installed to aid in monitoring or observing tank levels and for observing water if present in the tank. According to a licensee representative the drain volves to which the tubing was attached were supposed to be closed. However, valves on two of the five tanks were found to be open on the current inspection.
The tanks are equipped with hi and lo level monitors and each day tank is located over a sump and the sump is monitored for liquid level. At the exit interview the inspector questioned the use of the tubing in view of the drain valves being left open.
On review of the finding in of fice on D-cember 4,1978, the inspector recognized that a modification had been made to the day tank drain system which introduced a potential for draining of the tanks and should have been evaluated per 10CFR 50.59.
The in
,
.
-
.
..
,
'
RII Report No. 50-348/78-33 I-5 office finding was discussed with the licensee by telephone on December 6, 1978. The licensee stated they did not consider a safety evaluation necessary for installation of the tygon tubing.
This item is unresolved pending a review on a subsequent inspec-tion. (348/78-33-02)
9.
Observation of Operations The inspector observed operations of the plant in the control center.
Discussions were held with plant operators regarding activated annun-ciator ala rms.
Review of compliance with Technical Specification staffing requirements was made. There were no items of noncompliance or deviations observed.
e R