IR 05000348/1980013
| ML19327A196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1980 |
| From: | Bradford W, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19327A191 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-80-13, 50-364-80-15, NUDOCS 8008010254 | |
| Download: ML19327A196 (6) | |
Text
7R)
pa nuang 8'
D*t
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ae REGION il
,
o 01 MARIETTA ST N.W. SUITE 3100 Y,
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 o
.....
Report Nos. 50-348/80-13 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name: Farley License Nos. NPF-2 and CPPR-86 Inspection at Farle Site near Dothan, Alabama Inspector:
h4(d4 2t d[2-7/[O W. H. Brad d
g Cate Signed Approved by:
dt
// 47c 4/77[d
,
R. D. Martin, Section Chief, RONS Branch D6te Sif,ned SUMMARY Inspection on April 28 - May 30,1980 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 110 inspector-hours on site in the areas of Unit No. 2 hot functional testing, Unit No. 2 preoperational testing, Unit No. 2 plant testing status, Unit No. 2 plant tour, Unit No. 1 plant operation, Unit No. 2 structural integrity test, ESF system verifications, and site emergency drill.
Results Of the 8 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8008010 7N
_ -
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees W. G. Hairston, Plant Manager J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager W. D. Shipman, Maintenance Superintendent D. Morey, Operations Superintendent R. S. Hill, Operations Supervleer R. W. McCraken, Technial Superintendent D. E. Hansfield, Startup Superintendent, Unit No. 2 R. M. Coleman, Supervising Engineer H. d. McClelland, Plant Engineer K. W. Kale, QA Engineer.
Other licensee employees contacted included shift supervisors, shift foremen, plent operators, security force members and plant technicians, Alabama Power Startup Engineers, and office personnel Other Organizations S. M. Hall, Westinghouse Startup Manager Westinghouse Startup Engineers and certain 3ectel Engineers 2.
The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management inter-views on April 9 and 30, 1980, with the plant manager and selected members of his staff. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Unit No. 2 Hot Functional Testing The inspector witnessed the remainder of Unit No. 2 Hot Functional Testing from the 547 degrees F. test' plateau down to ambient temperature.
The inspector verified that the appropriate approved test procedures were in use, test prerequisites were being met, the required plant support systems were in service, test crew actions were correct and timely, and the required. data was being collected and recorded as required by the various test procedures.
L
..
-_
.
-2-t Discussions with test personnel revealed that the licensee's administrative practices were maintaining proper test discipline concerning test execution, test procedure changes, and test records.
The inspector reviewed the control room shift logs to verify that a complete and accurate record of the testing in progress was being maintained.
Control room activities were observed to verify that proper control of the various plant systems was being maintained. Within the areas inspected the inspector had no adverse comments or questions.
6.
Witness of Preoperational Testing Portions of the following preoperational tests were witnessed by the inspec-tor.
Test results were reviewed to verify that acceptance criteria was met.
The performance of each test was evaluated against the requirements of ANSI N 18.7-1972, section 6.0, " Test and Inspection Procedures", ANSI N45.2-1971, section 12, " Test Control", and chapter 14 of the FSAR, " Initial Tests and Operation."
052-5-011
" Safety Injection Hot Pre-op"
-
464-3-014
" Reactor Coolant Low Flow Trip and Alarm
-
Within the areas inspected there were no deficiencies identified.
7.
Plant Tour - Unit No. 2 The inspector toured the bait No. 2 reactor containment building, auxiliary building and turbine building during the conduct of the hot functional testing program. The following items, as available,were observed:
a.
Fire Equipment Operability, and evidence of periodic inspection, of fire suppression equipment.
b.
Housekeeping Minimal accumulation of debris and maintenance of required cleanliness levels in systems under, or following, testing.
c.
Equipment Preservation Maintenance of special preservative measures for installed equipment as applicable.
d.
Componene. Tagging Implementation and observance of equipment tagging for safety or equipment protection.
'
-
~
-
- _ _. _ _ -.
. _.
.
.
-3-
.
e.
Communication Effectiveness of public address system in all areas toured.
j f.
Equipment Controls k
Effectiveness of jurisdictional controls in precluding unauthorized work on systems turned over for initial operations or preoperational
<
testing.
g.
Maintenance of controls to assure systems which had been cleaned and flushed are not reopened to admit foreign material.
a h.
Security Implementation of security provisions.
Within the above areas, no items of noncompliance or deviations were observed when compared to the applicable station program and procedures.
8.
Unit No. 2 Plant Testing Status
The status of the licensee's Phase II Preoperational Testing Program was
"
reviewed and is summarized below:
Testing Completed 29.3%
Testing in Progress 19.2%
Testing not Started 43.4%
Test Data Approved 8.1%
l
"A review of turnover records of systems remaining to be turned over to r
startup from construction indicates that 80% of the systems or portions of system had been turned over to startup for testing.
J 9. ' Unit No.1 Plant Operation The inspector reviewed plant operation to ascertain conformance with regu-latory requirements, technical specifications and Administrative Procedure No. 16, "Conjuct of Operation - Operation Group". The following areas were reviewed:
The licensee's adherence to the limiting conditions for operation.
a.
'
b.
Instrumentation and recorder traces were observed for abnormalities.
Approved procedures are adhered to by the operating staff.
c.
.-
--
o-4-
.
d.
Proper shift manning.
e.
Operating logs and records were reviewed.
f.
That the flow path for selected engineered safeguards trains were in the correct line up and that power supplies were properly aligned for components that must actuate upon an initiation signal.
g.
That the licensee's equipment tag out records for maintenance was in accordance with Administrative Procedure No. 14, " Safety Clearance and Tagging."
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Unit No. 2 Structural Integrity Test The inspector observed a portion of the structural Integrity Test performed on Unit No. 2.
The inspector had no adverse comments or questions in this area.
11.
System Verification A walk through was conducted of the auxiliary feedwater system to verify that the installed system is in conformance with the FSAR. The installed system was compared with Figure 6.5-1 of the FSAR.
There were no discrepancies identified.
The auxiliary feedwater system is used for plant startup and cooldown and during normal operation it is placed in a standby status to deliver feed-water for emergency operation. The system is automatically started upon receipt of various emergency signals.
The system consists of two motor driven units and one steam turbine driven unit. The portion of theinstalled system which was verified was from the primary feedwater source, which is the condensate storage tank, to the connection at the main feedwater lines outside containment.
The backup source of water, which is provided from the service water system, was also verified.
Operation of the system is covered in various system operating procedures (SOP), unit operating procedures (UOP) and emergency operating procedures (EOP).
These procedures were compared with the operational description presented in Section 6.5.2.1 of the FSAR. No discrepancies were identified.
12.
Emergency Drill
.
The inspector witnessed the conduct of an emergency drill which was conducted on May 27,1980.
..
_. -,
.
,
e-5-
.
The purpose of the drill was to train individual plant groups in their expected response to emergency conditions and to test the various groups on their response to the drill. The groups included in the drill consisted of Radiation Monitoring Team, Emergency Repair Party, Plant Emergency Vehicle Drivers, Emergency Directors, Technical Staff, Operating Staff, Fire Brigade, Chemistry and Health Physics Staff, Security Staff.
The inspector attended a critique of the emergency drill on May 28, 1980.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviai.lon were identified.
4