IR 05000348/1980007
| ML19323G725 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1980 |
| From: | Bradford W, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323G711 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-80-07, 50-348-80-7, 50-364-80-04, 50-364-80-4, NUDOCS 8006060550 | |
| Download: ML19323G725 (6) | |
Text
.
.
.
.
. _.. _... _ - _ _ _. _ _ _ -.....
-- - - -
_
_ _ _ _ _ _
t f " Coq
h UNITED STATES Oi
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
g
-' ga z REGION ll o
I
[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
...../
%.#
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.
Report Nos. 50-348/80-07 and 50-364/80-04 Licensee: Alab;ma Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Facility Name: Farley Docket Nos. NPF-2 and CPPR-86 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, Alabama Inspected by: _N. ~ dford I
Jh 3 b6/Ro W.HfB Date Signed
Approved by:
J
$
,
R. P. Martin, Section Chief, RONF Branch D e igned
'
SUMMARY l
Inspection on February 4-29, 1980 l
Areas Inspected This routine inspection involved 133 inspector-hours on site in the areas of Unit No. I plant operations, plant security, Unit No. 2 plant tour, unit No. 2 preoperational startup testing, unit No. 2 final cleaning of exterior stainless steel pipe surfaces, and plant design changes and temporary modifications.
.
Results Of the 5 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or dem itions were identilied in 4 areas; 1 item of noncompliance was found in 1 ares (idraction - unauthorized use of " Scotch Bright" pads for final cleaning of stainless steel pipe surfaces
{
and failure to perform work without an approved procedure).
)
'
g00606060
__-. _.. - _.
. __
_ _
. _. _ _
._._m
- - - ---
--
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees W. G. Hairston, Plant Manager J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager W. D. Shipment, Maintenance Superintendent i
Dave Morey, Operations Superintendent R. D. Hill, Operations Supervisor l
J. E. Odom, Assistant Operation Supervisor R. W. McCracken, Technical Superintendent i
K. W. Kale, QA Engineer H. M. McClelland, Plant Engineer R. M. Coleman, Supervisor Engineering D. E. Hansfield, Startup Superintendent Unit No. 2 R. L. George, APC0 Corporate Engineering Supervisor F. G. Watford, Fire Marshall J. A. Mooney, APC0 Construction Project Manager J. G. Hegi, Plant QC Engineer (Unit 2)
Jim Hullican, Senior Construction Inspector (Unit No. 2)
N. F. Kaup, Project Engineer (Unit No. 2)
J. D. Minor, Jr, Project Engineer (Unit No. 2)
R. E. Hollands, QA Supervisor (Unit No. 2)
Other licensee employees contacted included shift supervisors, shift foremen, plant operators, technicians, and office personnel.
Other Organizations
'
\\
S. M. Hall, Westinghouse Startup Manager W. Blevins, Westinghouse Startup Engineer 2.
Management Interviews The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management inter-views on February 8, 23, and 29, 1980 with the Plant Manager or Assistant Plant Manager and selected members of his staff. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Insp-ction Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio _
_ _ _. _.._._
-.
. ~.. _
_.. _ ~.
_.
.
.
.
.
-2-
5.
Plant Operation The inspector reviewed plant operation to ascertain conformance with regu-latory requirements, technical specification and Administrative Procedure No. 16, " Conduct of Operation - operation Group".
Station logs, such as the shif t supervisor, shif t foreman, control room operators, shif t turnover, the out of service equipment log, night order log book, and the limited condition of operation log were reviewed. The inspector conducted tours of selected areas of the plant which included portion of the auxiliary building, diesel generator building, and the river water pump house. Observations were made of plant operation, monitoring instrumentation, radiation controls, fluid leaks, piping vibration, pipe hangers, certain valve position, house-keeping, fire hazards, and equipment tagged out of service for maintenance.
Discussions were held with plant operators throughout the plant concerning certain alarm functions and plant operations.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Plant Security The inspector verified that physical barriers were intact and that gates into the protected areas were closed and locked if not attended, that doors into vital areas were closed and locked or attended, and that isolation zones were free of visual obstruction.
The inspector verified that access into protected areas was controlled, that persons and packages were identified and authorized prier to entry into protected areas, and that all persons, packages and vehicles were searched prior to entry in accordance with regulatory requirements and security procedures.
Within the areas inspected, no deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Plant Tour - Unit No. 2 The inspector conducted tours of the Farley Unit No. 2 facility to determine the following:
-
That welding, burning and cutting in areas turned over to operations had adequate fire protection and that protective measures for equipment in the area had been initiated and were observed.
Housekeeping practices had been initiated and were observed.
-
A method had been initiated for equipment preservation and that an
-
equipment tagging procedure was beinh carried out on equipment not undergoing testing.
_
.
.-._ -... -.-
.. -
.-e
-
-.. - -
~ ~ -
-.. -
- - - - -
.
.
.
-3-
That installed instrumentation was protected r:d had not been abused.
-
That cable pulling activities appeared to be correct and that there
-
was no cable damage during the cable pulling activities.
That openings into systems were protected and that cleanliness control
-
was observed.
That deficiencies identified during testing were entered on a control
-
punch list.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance were observed.
8.
Pre Operation Startup Testing The inspector observed a portion of Preoperational Test Procedure 052-5-009,
" Boron Injection Preop".
Test data was reviewed for the portions of the testing which was completed.
The inspector verified that the test was conducted in accordance with approved procedures, that an approved test procedure was used by personnel conducting the test, that test equipment had been installed and calibrated, that test data was collected and recorded properly, and that test personnel were qualified to conduct the test.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Final Cleaning of Exterior Stainless Steel Pipe Surfaces The inspector noted in inspection report no. 50-364/80-1 that " scotch bright" pads were being used for the final cleaning of stainless steel piping exterior surfaces prior to applying insulation. The inspector was concenhed about the chloride content of the " scotch bright" pads. This item was identified as open item no. 50-364/80-02 pending the inspectors review of Field Quality Control procedures.
The inspector reviewed Field QC Procedure No. 5.4.2.4, " Cleaning of Fabricated Pipe".
This procedure addresses the cleaning of stainless steel piping exterior surfaces prior to installation of pipe insulation. Section 4.1 of this procedure states that piping will be cleaned using a stainless steel brush which has not been used for cleaning of stainless rteel pipe exterior surfaces prior to installing insulation.
Field QC Procedure no. 5.4.2.3, " Installation of Equipment and Piping Insulation" addresses the final rinsing of piping surfaces and the testing for chloride which meets the Westinghouse specification for chlorides prior to insulation the piping. The inspector " determined" that there is no Field QC procedure which allows the use of " scotch bright" pads for cleaning of stainless steel pipe exterior surfaces prior to applying insulatio.-
.
..
- -... -
..
-
. -.. - -
- - - -
.-
.
.
.
.
-
9 The unauthorized use of " scotch bight" pads in cleaning exterior surfaces of stainless steel piping prior to insulating and failure to perform this work without an approved procedure is an item of noncompliance (80-04-01).
During the management interviews of February 29, 1980 the licensee made the following commitments:
The use of " scotch bright" pads for cleaning stainless steel piping a.
has been terminated.
b.
The use of " scotch bright" pads for cleaning stainless steel will be evaluated by the Architecture Engineer.
A Field QC procedure will be established which will identify the c.
methods to be used for cleaning exterior surfaces of stainless steel piping prior to applying insulation.
10.
Plant Design Changes and Temporary Modification The inspector reviewed station Incident Report No. 1-80-81 dated 2/14/80 and Maintenance Work Request No. 22355 dated 2/14/80 which involved the failure of 1A and IB motor driven auxiliary feed pumps to automatically start when both main turbine driven feed pumps are tripped.
This condition was found while performing STP-22.9 Auxiliary Feed Water Pumps IA and IB Start Test".
,
l A design change was implemented in September 5,1978, which installed a
{
" auto-defeat" selector switch to allow by pass of the control grade auto start signal of the motor driven auxiliary feed pumps upon a trip of both main feedwater pumps when the main feedwater pump = were intentionally removed from service.
Investigation by the licensee revealed that the installed hand switches were incorrectly labeled and that links associated with the circurity were found open. The licensee determined that the links were opened during the implementation of the design change and had not been reclosed.
The licensee investigation revealed that loss of off-site power, safety injection and low-low steam generator safety grade auto-start circuits and manual start circuits were all operable during this period.
The licensee has submitted a 30 day Licensee Event Report (LER) on this occurance.
'
This event is attributable to inadequate design change control and functional testing was inadequate in that it did not identifiy that the hand switches were mislabled and links were opened.
.
.
_.
.. -., -
...
. -... -_:.
--
\\
-
-
-
i-5-
,
The corrective action by the licensee, as stated in the LER, is as follows:
The hand switches were relabled, links closed and the surveillance a.
test was successfully performed.
b.
Implementation of Administrative Controls over design changes had already been strengthened prior to discovery of this event and has been reviewed for adequacy. The preengineering review has been strengthened and includes a review to identify procedures affected by the design change, a review to verify compliance of design with Technical Specifications and other license requirements, and a determination of implementation of testing requirements.
A Technical Specification change to delete the surveillance require-c.
ments of section 4.7.1.1.2.b for the auto start of the motor driven auxiliary feed pumps on loss of main feedwater pumps has been initiated.
During the management interview of February 29, 1980 the licensee made the following commitment:
A sub-committee of the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) has been appointed to review and revise Administrative Procedure No. 13, " Bypass of Safety Functions and Jumper Control" and prepare a draft procedure for PORC review within 30 days.
It is anticipated that the final draft of the procedure will be approved within the following 30 days and will be implemented immediately.
Training on temporary alterations and associated control of alterations will be conducted for operating personnel, instrument mechanics, and craftsmen.
This is open item No. 80-07-02 and will be reinspected at a later date.
t.