IR 05000348/1980022
| ML19345F654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1980 |
| From: | Bradford W, Martin R, Mulkey J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345F645 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-80-22, 50-364-80-29, NUDOCS 8102180802 | |
| Download: ML19345F654 (7) | |
Text
o#,...,'o
-
UNITED STATES
! ",,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
n
$
E REGION ll
.
,
[
101 MARIETTA ST N.W.. SUITE 3100 o
'
Og j'
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
.....
Report Nos. 50-348/80-22 and 50-364/80-29 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name: Farley Licena Nos. NPF-2 and CPPR-86 InspecttG at Farley Euclear Plant near Dothan, AL
~,
.
Inspectors: Dh u
.66P 80, leg e gg W. H. Bradford Date Signed S^
M SEPinr9eo
@\\J. P. Mulk Date Signed Approved by:
Y
__ 9/N!Po R. D. Hartiti, Section Chief, RONS Branch Dife digned SUMMARY Inspection on July 1,1980 - July 31,1980 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 350 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of Unit No.1 Plant Operation, Licensee Event Reports, Operational Staffing, Plant Safety Committee, Plant Procedures, Unit No. 2 preoperational test program, witness of preoperational test, Unit No. 2 Plant Tour, licensee's strike contin-gency plan.
Results I
Of the 9 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in 8 areas:
I apparent item of rioncompliance was found in 1 area (Failure to follow procedures, Paragraph 5).
810:2180% @
_ _ ____ __
.
l
.
DETAILS l
I
,
1.
Persons Contacted l
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 Supervisor R. W. McCracken, Technical Superintendent
D. E. Mansfield, Startup Superintendent R. M. Coleman, Supervising Engineer C. Nesbitt, C & HP Supervisor H. Garland, Maintenance Superviosr L. Williams, Training Superintendent Other licensee employees contacted included shif t Supervisor, shif t formen, plant operators, security force members, and office personnel.
Other Organizations S. M. Hall, Westinghouse Startup Service Manager 2.
Exit Intervice The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management interviews on July 18 ane 31, 1980, with the plant manager and selected members of his staff. The licenraa 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.1 Plant Operation i
The inspectors reviewed unit 1 operation to ascertain whether it was in conformance with regulatory requirements, technical specifications, and
-
'
administrative Procedure No. 16, " Conduct of Operation-Operations Group.
The following areas were reviewed:
The licensee's adherence to the limiting conditions for operation.
a.
-
_
. -
_,
,
.-
-
_ -
.
-2-
,
b.
Instruumation and recorder traces were observed for abnormalities.
Approved procedures were adhered to by the operating staff, c.
d.
Proper shif t manning.
e.
Operating logs and records were reviewed.
f.
That the flow path for selected engineered safeguards trains were in the correct lineup 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 at.d Tagging".
The above areas were inspected by selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel and observation cf operating shif t persoanel.
Two successive performances c,f Surveillance Test Procedure (STP), FNF-1-STP-21.1, " Main Steam Line Isolation Valve Operability Test, (Partial Closure)",
conducted on April 23 and May 23, 1980, were reviewed. The STP requires that the acceptance criteria for tM time required to stroke the valves to be derived from the " Inservice Valve Exercise Data Book". During the review of the STPs it was noted that errors existed in the recorded values of the acceptance criteria for the valve stroke time. The valves listed were not consistent with the calculation procedure and methods described in the Inservice Valve Exercise Data Book and the STP. Also each STP contained recorded data which had been deleted inconsisten1ty with approved methods.
During the exit interview of July 18, 1980 the inspector discussed the above findings and stated the items appeared to be in noncompliance with the Technical Specification which requires procedures to be implemented.
This item of noncompliance is classified as a deficiency (50-3481/80-22-01 -
Failure to follow procedures).
6.
Review of Nonroutine Events Reported by the Licensee The following licensee event reports were reviewed for potential generic problems, to determine trends, to determine whether the information included in the report meets the NRC reporting requirements, and to consider whether the corrective action discussed in the report appears appropriate. Licensee action with respect to selected reports was reviewed to verify that the events were reviewed and evaluated by the licensee as required by the Technical Specificaitons, that corrective action was taken by the licensee, and that safety limits, limiting safety settings, and limiting conditions of operation were not exceeded.
The inspector examined selected plant operations review committee minutes, incident reports, logs and records, and interviewed selected personne.
.
-3-
.
LER-80-13 Containment isolation valve (1-CCV-HV-3095) failed to close during performance of surveillance test LER-80-14 Motor Driven Auxiliary Feed Pumps Auto-Defeat Selector Switch to allow bypass of control grade auto start signal.
LER-80-17 Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feed Pump inoperable LER-80-18 Pressurizer Pressur e channel (PT-457) inoperable.
LER-80-19
"B" Train Control Room Emergency Ventilaiton System inoperable.
LER-80-21 Surveillance Tes, not performed within required surveillance interval.
LER-80-22 Inoperable fire barrier penetration.
LER-80-23 Boron Injection Tank (BIT) inoperable.
LER-80-24 Tavg decrease below 541F.
LER-80-26 Delta T Channel 412 A on "1A" loop inoperable.
LER-80-27 Turbine First stage pressure bistable (PB 447 E) inoperable.
LER-80-28 Diesel Generator IB inoperable LER-80-29 Intermediate Range NIS Channel N-35 inoperable.
LER-80-30 Fuel Stroage Pool Area monitor (R25A) inoperable.
LER-80-31 Digital Rod Position Indication System (DRPI) inoperable.
LER-80-32 Control Room chlocine detectors 1 & 2 inoperable.
LER-80-33 1-2A diesel generator inoperable due to speed control failure.
LER-80-36 1A RHR Heat exchanger discharge valve (FCV603A) inoperable.
'
7.
Operational Staffing l
The inspectors reviewed the plant staffing requirements to determine that l
the Operation's organization meets the qualification requirements of Section i
13.1.2 of the FSAR and Section 6.3 of the Technical Specification. The inspectors verified that all.itaff positions were filled for the following l
positions: Plant Manager, Assistant Plant Manager, Operations Superintendent, Operations Supervisor, Maintenanee Superintendent, Maintenance Supervisor, i
Technical Superir.tendent, Shift Supervisors, Shift Formen, Licensed Opera-l tors, Un11cenied Operators, Training Superintendent, Technicians and Mechanics, and the onsite operations Quality Assurance staf, _
. _. _
__ _.
_ _ _ _
_
_ __
_
-4-
.
t
The Chemistry and Health Physics Supervisor's qualifications were reviewed to insure conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.8-1975 of the Technical Specifications.
'
as implemented by Section 6.3 The inspectors had no further questions.
8.
Plant Safety Committees The onsite and offsite safety review committee functions were reviewed to ascertain the following:
a.
Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC). The Technical Specification meeting frequency of at least once per calander month was met.
The Technical Specification requirements for committee compostion, quorum, and alternates were verified to have been met. Those areas requiring review by Technical Specifications are being reviewed.
b.
Nuclear Operations Review Board (NORB). Meeting frequency, quorum, review board composition, and areas reviewed were verified to comply with Technical Specification.
9.
Plant Procedures The inspectors reviewed the licensee's Administrate Procedures, Plant Operating Procedures, Maintenance Procedures, and Emergency Procedures to confirm the following:
a.
That Administrative controls had been established for the review, approval, and periodic updating of the procedures.
b.
That responsibilities had been assigned in writing to assure that the above procedures will be reviewed, updated and approved.
c.
That the program includes provisions for assuring that procedure revisions or changes are distrib9ted to the organi7ation responsible for performing the prescribed activity.
,
10.
Preoperational Test Program Section 14.1 of the FSAR describes the testing program, including develop-ment of the preoperational test program per Regulatory Guide 1.68 and i
review and approval requirements. FSAR Section 14.1.3 lists the preopera-tional tests and synopses of the objectives, prerequisites, test methods and acceptance criteria. The inspectors reviewed the preoperational test program to verify that the program met the above criteria.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
.
--.
-
. _..
_ _.
.
. -
-
__
.
.
,
-5-
,
11. Witness of Preoperational Testing
,
Portions of the following test was witnessed by the inspectors. The perfor-mance of the test was evaluated against the requirements of ANSI N18.7-1972, Section 6.0, " Test and Inspection Procedures," ANSI N45.2 1971, Section 12,
" Test Control," FSAR chapter 14, " Initial Tests and Operations," and Regula-tory Guides 1.6,1.9, and 1.41.
048-5-002 - Reactor Protection and Safeguards Logic Pre-Operational Test.
i The purpose of this test is to verify the operation of the Solid State Protection cabinet by simulation of inputs and noting the corresponding output.
Within,the areas inspected no discrepancies were identified.
12. Plant Tour - Unit 2 The inspector toured the Unit No. 2 reactor containment building, auxiliary building, and turbine building.
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 i
levels in systems under, or following, testing.
c.
Equipment Preservation
.
Maintenance of special preservative measures for installed equipment as applicable.
l d.
Component Tagging Implementation and observance of equipment tagging or safety equipment protection.
e.
Communication Effectiveness of public address system in all areas toured.
,
i f.
Equipment Controls Effectiveness of jurisdictional controls in precluding unauthorized work on systems turned over for initial operations or preoperational testing.
t m----1.---
-. _ _ -,.., -, _
_
_ _.,..., -, _.
-
,
_
,
,._ -
_
_
__-
_
_ _ _ _
..
~
.
o-6-g.
Foreign Material Exclusion Maintenance of controls to assure systems which had been cleaned and flushed are not reopened to admit foreign material.
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.
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 48%
Testing in Progress 20%
Testing not Started 32%
Test Data Approved 21%
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's integrated construction deficiency punch list for all plant aystems. There were approximately 1250 outstanding items.
The inspectors noted that a majority of these outstanding items involved pipe hangers.
During the exit interview of July 31, 1980 the inspectors expressed concern that the number of outstanding items appeared to be excessive in light of a projected fuel loading date of September 1, 1980. The licensee stated in a subsequent meeting with the inspectors, the Startup Superintendent, and a representative from Alabama Power Company Construction department that the punch list items are being tracked, and that there is an identified path for completion of these items. The inspec-tors will continue to follow these system deficiencies.
14. Licensee Contingency Plan For Coping With Strikes The inspectors reviewed the licensee's contingency plan for coping with strikes. The contingency plan was reviewed to verify the following:
a.
Plant staffing and on duty hours during a strike will be capable of meetag regulatory requirements.
b.
Refresher training of licensed personnel and non-licensed personnel has been scheduled or conducted.
i Provisions have been or will be made with local support agencies for c.
consumable suppl!es, medical treatment for injured employees, and local law enforcemen agencies.
d.
Arrangements for onsite and offsite shipments of radioactive material are included in the contingency plan.
-.
_-.
.
.
'
.
7-
-
c Emergency communication equipment is available and operable, e.
f.
The number of personnel required to implement the emergency plan is sa tis facto ry.
The inspectors had no further questions.
i
!
.
e c
-
~
,,.
-
y
-
a