IR 05000348/1980003
| ML19309G904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1980 |
| From: | Conlon T, Miller W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G901 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-80-03, 50-348-80-3, 50-364-80-03, 50-364-80-3, NUDOCS 8005070754 | |
| Download: ML19309G904 (6) | |
Text
_....
.
.
. -... - - -.. -
- - - -
-~
.
t*^
UNITED STATES 8005070 7Sf
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
s REG lON ll
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
,
.....
,
MAR 241980 O
Report Nos. 50-348/80-03 and 50-364/80-03 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name: Farley Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos. NPF-2 and CPPR-86
)
Inspection at Farley site near Ashford, Alabama
,
Inspect 3 '/I~
as W. H. Miller, Jr.
Date Signed
'
8 - / 9 ' [O Approved by:
w T. E. Conlon, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on February 26-29, 1980 Areas Inspected i
This special, announced inspection involved 29 inspector-hours on site in the areas of fire protection / prevention.
Results Of the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
?
>
,e a-e
.
-
'
.
. -..
.. -.
.
.- - -
--
-
-.
.
.
.
i
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted l
Licensee Employees
'
R. P. Mcdonald, Vice President / Nuclear Generation
- W. G. Hairston III, Plant Manager J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- J. A. JMooney, Project Manager / Construction
- N. F. Kaup, Project Engineer / Construction
- J. G. Hegi, Project QC Engineer / Construction
- J. Mulligan, Sr. Construction Inspector / Construction
- R. M. Coleman, Supervisor Engineering
- H. M. McClellan, General Plant Engineer
- J. W. Kale, QA Engineer
- J. W. McGowan, Operations QA
- F. A. Wurster, QA Engineer
- F. G. Watford, Fire Marshal G. Meints, Engineering Aid L. Ward, Start-up Supervisor N. Hatton, Engineering Aid / Start-up
- R. L. George, Supervisor Engineering / Corporate
.
- J. D. Minor, Project Engineer / Corporate Other Organizations S. Ellis, Piping Manager /Daniels J. A. Curry, Forman/Grinnel Fire Protection J. C. Vance, Project Engineer / Southern Services i
!
J. E. Clark, Fire Protection / Southern Services W. H. Roberts, Fire Protection / Southern Services
NRC Resident Inspector
- W. H. Bradford
- Attended exit interview
.
'
'2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 29, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
- i 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
.
Not inspected.
~ '
..
-
.
.
.
_ _ _
-. _ _ _ -
- _ _ _ _ _
i
.
-2-
,
-
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is requested to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or
'
deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are
discussed in paragraph 5.a.(1) and 5.b.
5.
Fire Protection / Prevention a.
Fire Protection / Prevention Modifications The inspector evaluated the licensee's action taken on a portion of the fire protection modification and improvement commitments made to the NRC. The licensee's "Farley Nuclear Plant - Fire Protection Pro-gram Revaluation" (FPPR) dated September 15, 1977, including Amendments 1 through 4 which is Amendment No. 11 to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-2 and NRC's " Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report" (FPSER) for
,
this facility dated February 12, 1979 were used in this evaluation.
The following modification reviewed:
l (1) Automatic Sprinkler Systems
'
A walkdown inspection was made of the automatic sprinkler systems being installed in the safety-related areas of Unit I which are listed in paragraph II.B of the FPSER and the existing system in the fire pump house.
Section 4.1 (Table 4.1.1 Item E.3.(c)) of the FPPR states in part that the automatic sprinkler systems at the facility comply with the provisions of National Fire Protection Association Standard No.13 (NFPA-13), Sprinkler Systems, and Standard No.15 (NFPA-15),
Water Spray Systems. The type sprinkler systems being installed as part of the fire protection modification program are not described in the licensee's FPPR but are identified in paragraph II.B of.the FPSER and in the licensee's contract (Inquiry No.
SS-1114-13 dated September 20, 1978) with the fire protection contractor. The installation of the piping and mechanical portions
.
of these systems are practically complete and the installation of the automatic actuation portion of the systems is scheduled for
'
,
completion by September 1, 1980. The FPSER requires these systems
..
to be fully operational prior to the end of the second refueling outage. However, during this inspection a number of items were noted in which the sprinkler piping portion of the systems do not meet the provisions of NFPA-13 as stated by the FPPR. Some typical
,
'
,
examples are as follows:
(a) Many portions of the sprinkler protected areas contain from minor to serious obstructions to the discharge of water in
,
the event of fire. This is due to sprinkler heads (discharge
l
,
.
.
.
.
. - -
...-
_.
.
-3-
.
i nozzles) being obstructed by electrical and mechanical equipment and components and by structural beams and supports as a result of the design and/or installation of the systems and as a result, does not fully meet the provision of Sections 4-2.3, 4-2.4, 4-3 or 4-4 of NFPA-13. In general, sprinkler heads must be positioned to compensate for obstructions or additional heads must be provided.
(b) Sprinkler heads are installed below the ceiling / roof of structures at a greater distance than that permitted by the provisions of Section 4-3 of NFPA-13.
(c) The sprinkler piping for the pre-action systems which contain over 20 heads are not supervised as required by Section 5-3.5.2 of NFPA-13.
(d) Test pipes (main drains) arranged to properly test the water supply to each system are not provided as required by Section
2-9 of NFPA-13.
(e) Sprinkler heads of different orifice sizes (1/2 and 3/8 inch) are used to hydraulically ballance the systems. This is clearly prohibited by Section 7-4.3.1.5 of NFPA-13.
(f) The water spray system for the protection of motors at the service water intake structure utilizes closed type spray
'
nozzles in lieu of the normally open type nozzles as required by Sections 1-3 and 2-3 of NFPA-15.
The licensee has inspected each sprinkler system and has noted a number of areas in which the systems do not meet the provisions of NFPA-13 or 15. - The licensee's list of code deviations includes
'
the above examples. An evaluation is being made by the licensee to determine the appropriate corrective action to be taken. The licensee advised that the results of this evaluation will be forwarded to NRR for review. This item is identified as Unre-solved Item (50-348/80-03-01) Substandard automatic sprinkler systems, and will be reevaluated upon completion of the licensee's and NRR's evaluation.
~
,
..
(2) Exterior Fire Protection Water System A review was made of the underground fire protections piping installation from the existing Unit I fire loop to the service water intake structures as shown on Drawing No. D-170391. Docu-mentation was not available to provided ; details on the pipe installed; however, the licensee advised that the pipe used was surplus pipe left over from the original fige main installation.
The available documentation indicated that e QC i~nspection was conducted to assure that the installation was in conformance with the construction drawing sad that a. hydrostatic pressure test of
.
__
_ _ _ _. _ _
_ _
_
_
_
_ _
_
._
.
,
-4-i 200 psi for two hours was
'
conducted on.the piping.
However, documentation was not available to indicate that the system had been flushed. The licensee advised that the specification " Fire Protection Piping - Section I - Header and Riser Systems" dated May 21, 1971, prepared by the Alabama Power Company Engineering
Department was used as the installation and inspection document
'
for this system.
This specification required a hydrostatic pressure test, flushing test, hydrant test and valve test to be
,
conducted, but did not indicate how these tests were to be docu-mented. The licensee advised that the piping had been flushed in
{
accordance with this criteria and at the conclusion of this
inspection was attempting to locate the test results. The unavail-able flushing test documentation is identified as Inspector Followup Item (50-348/80-03-02 and 50-364/80-03-02) Unavailable flushing test data on underground fire protection piping to
,
service water intake structure.
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent NRC inspection. Also, refer to paragraph 5.b for comments on the fire protection QA program.
b.
Fire Protection QA Program Section 4.4.3 of the FPPR (Amendments 1 and 3) states that the QA
,
program for fire protection will be incorporated under the management controls of the appropriate construction or operational QA/QC organi-zation. However, it is not clear which date the fire protection QA I
program became effective. The program description which is primarily in Amendment I to the FPPR is dated February 1978, but this amendment was not officially approved until the issuance of the FPSER which is
,
!
dated April 13, 1979. Furthermore, the FPSER states that the adminis-trative controls for fire protection which includes the QA program was not required to become effective until 90 days following the November 5,
1979 startup for Cycle 2 operation which was February 3, 1980. The j
licensee advises that adequate controls were provided during this time period to assure that the fire protection modifications and instal-
!
lations being conducted as a result of the FPPR and FPSER were (are being) accomplished properly and meeting an acceptable level of quality,
.
but that documentation may not meet the requirements of the existing i
safety-related operational and construction QA Programs. A review of
the documentation available on the automatic sprinkler system instal-lations and exterior fire protection piping (yard loop) installation
,
~
o'
confirm this statement. The licensee has agreed to develop by Jt.ne 1, 1980 a list of QA/QC documentation and record data which will be -
i provided for all completed fire protection modifications and those
modifications presently in process.
This item is identified as
Unresolved Item (50-348/80-03-03). Reevaluation of fire protection QA
'
program, and will be reviewed during a subsequent NRC inspection.
"
{
c.
Plant Tour
,
~
~
!
A tour was made of the plant to conduct a walkdb inspection of the installation of the above listed automatic sprinkler system. During
,
?
.
-
.
..
-- -..
...
.
,.
_ _
.
.
.
.
-5-r n
the inspection of the fire pump house it was noted that fire walls had been provided to separate each fire pump. However, the batteries and chargers for diesel driven fire pump DFP-1 were located in the enclosure for the electric driven fire pump (EFP) and the start-stop switch for the electric fire pump was located in the enclosure for diesel fire pump DFP-1. The licensee had issued production change request PCR-80-623WY to relocate the batteries and changer from the electric pump enclosure to the enclosure for diesel pump DFP-1 and advised that a production change request will be issued to evaluate the safety significants of the location of the start-st p switch for the electric fire pump.
This item is identified as Inspection Followup Item (50-348/80-03-04, 50-364/80-03-04), Inadequate fire barriers between fire pumps DFP-1 and EFP, and will be reevaluated during a subsequent NRC inspection.
Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
,
,
.
,0 e
a 6.
.
.
4 t
i