IR 05000348/1979037
| ML19312D726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1979 |
| From: | Bradford W, Martin R, Moon B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312D693 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-79-37, 50-364-79-17, NUDOCS 8003250250 | |
| Download: ML19312D726 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . O f' 'o,, UNITED STATES E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e,
,a REGION 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100 g ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 ..... Report Nos. 50-248/79-37 and 50-264/79-17 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Facility Name: Farley 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-264 License Nos. NPF-2 and CPPR-86 Inspection conducteq at Farley Site ./ ht i L- -o ' 2 7 /i /'?"> Inspectors: f W.
H.~ Bradford () Datd Sif,ned , -- fbdf.
.) h]in > t i/W/7 B. T. Moon,9J Date Signed Approved by: [[ f & 2 /7/4 h g .-m.
R.
D'. Martin, Chief, RPS //2 Date Signed ~ SUMMARY laspection on November 13-16, 1979 Areas Inspected-This routine, unannounced inspection involved 60 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of operations review; review of Unit No. 2, preoperational startup test program; calibration of inplant technical specification required instrumentation; calibration of meastring and test equipment used on safety related systems; and surveillance of inplant technical specification required systems.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in four areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Deficiency - Failure to f.llow procedures on surveillance program administrative control - Parag :aph 5.c ).- ' 8 e 032 501$O e
. . .. t.
DETAILS .1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. G. Hairston, Plant Manager
- J. D. Woodard,' Assistant Plant Manager
- J. W. Kale, QA Engineer
- H. M. McClelland, Plant Engineer
- L. S. Williams, Training Supervisor
- C, D. Nesbitt, C&HP Supervisor
- B. R. Yance, Plant Engineer
- R. D. Hill, QA Engineer
- J. J. Thomas, I&C Supervisor
-
- R.G. Berryhill, Technical Supervisor
- M. H. Carnley Don Mansfield, Unit No. 2 Startup Superintendent Other licensee employees contacted included 5 technicians, 6 operators, and office personnel.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 16, 1979 with .those persons indicated in. Paragraph 1 above. The item of noncompliance was acknowledged by the licensee.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings hot inspected.
4-Unresolved items . . f Unresolved items were not identified during this insp=ction.
5.
Surveillance Test F uc. dure and Results Verification a.- -The inspector conducted a review of the following surveillance . procedures and results: 1.
.STP-3.1, Borated Water Sources Operating - 2.. STP-7.0, Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio Calculation ) 3.
STP-41.3, Power Range Ncittron Flux Channel Functional Test (N42) , ..., ..., - -, - ' ' ' ' ' *
- _... . ... . . -2-J- 4.
STP-33.0, Solid State Protection Systens Train A(B) Operability Test 5.
STP-43.0, Radiation Monitor R-25B Channel Functional Test 6.
STP-51.0, Fire System Water Supply Check The inspector also monitored the performance of portions of the steam generator 1A surveillance tests, FNP-1-STP 213.2B, conducted on 11/15/79.
b.
The test procedures and test results were reviewed to verify the
- following:
1.
'That test prerequisites and plant conditons were specified and reviewed, and approvals had been performed.
2.
That contents of the procedures were correct and the tests were performed on scheduled.
3.
That test instruments were listed in the procedures and instruments used were identified in the results.
4.
That test results were recorded and compared with acceptance criteria.
5.
The.eturn of the system / equipment to service and removal of test equipnant was verified upon completion of the test.
The inspector used one or more of the following acceptance criteria c.
for the above items: 1.
ANSI N18.7 (1972), Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants.
2.
ANSI N18.1 (1972), Selection and Training of Nuclear Plant Personnel.
3.
Operations Quality Assurance Policy Manual.
~4.
Administrative Procedure (FNP-0AP-5), Surveillance Program Administrative Control.
- 5.
Technical Specifications, 6.8.1.
' 6.' . ANSI-N45.2(1971),1 Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants, _ d.
One. apparent item of noncompliance was identified. Technical-Specifi- -cation 6.8.1.C, requires that written procedures shall be established, ^ .~ implemented and maintained covering the activities concerning surveil-lance and test of safety-related equipment.
Section 3.2.9 of Farley.
L --
r e e g , v,- - - m--r- - -, ,
.- ...
- (
' -2-3-Nuclear Plant Administrative Procedures AP-5 (Surveillance Program-Administrative Control) states that each plant staff group performing surveillance tests shall review results of such test to determine that all required data have been properly recorded and signed-off or initialed where required.
The inspector found that the required signatures were omitted a total of eight different places throughout STP-33.0, which was performed on 12/9/78, and STP-7.0 which was performed on 1/22/79 and 2/18/79.
These steps included (1) initial conditions for reactor trip breakers (2) initial conditions for above 50% of rated thermal power and (3) making entries in conjunction with the quadrant power tilt cal-culation.
During a discussion with licensee personnel it was established.that ' actual calculations were performed under tF appropriate conditions.
Nontheless these documents had received two levels of review (shift ' foreman and Technical Group) and were filed in the document control room with these unadequacies.
Neither review had identified the omission.
Similar examples of inadequate reviews were brought to your attention in our inspection report No. 50-348/78-24 dated 10/23/78.
l This is an item of noncompliance (348/79-37-01).
6.
Calibration The inspector conducted a review of the calibration procedures and a.
results as follows: 1.
STP-228.7A, Nuclear Instrumentation System Power Range Channel N43 Calibration.
2.
STP-213.24A, Steam Line Isolation High Steam Flow and Low-low Tavg Channel Calibration.
3.
STP-201.2A, Pressurizer Level High Channel Calibration.
4.
STP-220-1A, SI, Turbine Trip and Feedwater Isolation Containment Pressure High Channel Calibration.
-b.
'The inspector also monitored, on November 15, 1979, the performance of portions of the calibration performed on STP-254.1, SMA-3 Accelerograph 1C calibration, and STP 213.11A, Steam Generator 1A (PT-475) IB(PT-485) _.
-and 1C (PT-495) Loop Calibration. The calibrations above were reviewed to verify: -1.
Reviews and approvals were being conducted, and data was recorded and evaluated.
,
.- . . -4- _, 2.
Test instruments were listed and identified in test results.
3.
Adherence to Technical Specifications required and limiting conditions for operations.
4.
Technical contents were correct, verification of return of equipment to service and removal of test equipment.
The inspector also conducted an inspection of instrument storage area, c.
calibration lab and chemistry lab. The facilities were inspected to , verify: 1.
That standard test instruments were labeled and included in the calibration program.
2.
Instruments were being calibrated;on schedule and labeled with calibratica status.
3.
Storage facilities were proper for protecting the equipment.
4.
Certification and calibration recsrds were available and being maintained for test equipment.
d.
The inspector used one or more of the following acceptance criteria-for evaluating the above items in the calibration program: 1.
Technical Specifications.
2.
ANSI N18.7 (1972), Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants.
. 3.
Operations Quality Assurance Policy Manual.
4.
ANSI N45.2(1971), Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants.
5.
Administrative Procedure (FNP-0-AP-11), Control and Calibration of Test Equipment and Instrumentation.
6.
Industry Practice.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified. The inspector noted during the monitoring of STP-254.1, SHA-3 Accelerograph IC Calibration, that work Authorization (No. 7620) for the surveillance contained an equipment designation (NIT 34YT3454B) _ which does not agree with the intended sections of the procedure. The inspector requested an explanation of this discrepancy before the calibration was conducted. Later, it was identified that this was due to an equipment designation error made by the originator of the work authorization.
It was determined that maintenance was performed on the' correct piece of equipment.
. .- - --.
__ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ,. .. >
-5-7.
Plant Operation The inspector reviewed plant operations to ascertain conformance with regulatory requirements,. technical specifications and administrative procedures. Station logs, such as the supervisors. logs, control room operators logs, the shift turnover logs, the out of service equipment log, and the night order log book were reviewed.
In addition, a tour was conducted of selected areas of the plant including portions of the auxiliary building and service building. Observations were made of monitoring instrumentation, radiation controls, fluid leaks, piping vibration, pipe hangers, valve positions and housekeeping.
The inspector noted in the review of the shift turnover logs that certain sections of.the logs had not been completed.
The licensee stated in the exit interview that he would incorporate instructions on completing the log . sheet and a requirement that the log sheets be completed in the appropriate ' administrative procedure.by January 1980.
Until the. appropriate administrative procedure is revised and implemented
this item will remain open (79-37-02). This area will be re-examined at a ' . subsequent inspection.
8.
Unit No. 2 Preoperational Testing Program The inspector met with Mr. Donald E. Mansfield, Startup Superintendent, to review the status of the preoperational testing program. Certain documents were reviewed to determine the procedure preparation status, procedure ' approval status and preoperational test completion status.
The inspector had no further questions.
i _ l l }}