IR 05000348/1980040
| ML19350A837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1981 |
| From: | Bradford W, Julian C, Mulkey J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350A836 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-80-40, 50-364-80-50, NUDOCS 8103160960 | |
| Download: ML19350A837 (8) | |
Text
,
-
kH KEGO
'o UNITED STATES
.
!^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"
,
g REGION 11
-
- c
. (
"o,
101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W.. SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
....a Report Nos. 50-348/80-40 and 50-364/80-50 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 NPF-8 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, AL a*
2./lo/gl Inspectorst M
n (OM. 7. Bradford Date Signed Q-Db m
2ltolti h.P J. E Mulkey Date Signed
/F
!
'
'
Approved by:
%
~0 ate ' Signed C. A. Julian', Acting Section Chief -
RONS Branch SUMMARY Inspection on ilovember 3-28, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine inspection involved 230 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of plant status, cross connection of arvice water pumps' lube and cooling water, plant cleanliness, preparation for Unit I refueling, plant tours, Unit No. 2 testing status, Unit No. 1 plant operation, radiation emergency exercise, and TMI action items.
Results Of the 9 areas inspected, no violation or deviation was identified.
_
8103160960 i
-
,.
i DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employee W. G. Hairston, Plant Manager J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager D. Morey, Operations Superintendent R. S. Hill, Operations Supervisor W. D. Shipman, Maintenance Superintendent L. Williams, Training Superintendent R. W. McCraken, Technical Superintendent D. E. Mansfield, Unit 2 Startup Superintendent C. Nesbitt, C & HP Supervisor J. Mooney, Alabama Power Company Site Construction Manager Other licensee employees contacted included shift supervisors, shift fore-men, plant operators, security force members and office personnel.
Other organizations S. M. Hall, Westinghouse Startup Services Manager 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management inter-views with the plant manager and selected members of his staff.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
3.
Licensee Action of Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Item Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
One new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 6.
5.
Plant Status Unit 1 initiated a shutdown on November 7, 1980, to begin a refueling outage. The refueling outage is expected to last for eight to ten weeks.
Unit 2 was in the final stages of preoperational testing at the conclusion of the inspection period. The licensee's latest projection for initial fuel loading on Unit 2 is February 7,1981. The fuel load projected date is based upon completing an engineering evaluation of pipe hangers and modi-fying the hangers as require d
6.
Service Water Pumps' Lubricating and Cooling Water On November 12, 1980, che lis ensee determined that the water supply for lubrication and cooli'g of the "A" train service water puicps was reovided by the "B" train service water header and the "B" train pumps by the "A" train header.
The licensee's evaluation of this condition indicated that the resulting train separation for the service water system was not adequate to prevent a failure of one service water train from adversely affecting the second train during a loss of off-site power for various accident condition.
This condition was found to exist on Unit 1 and Unit 2 service water pumps.
The identified deficiency has been attributed to inadequate detail in the piping layout drawings used for construction. Unit 1 drawings were provided from Southern Services Inc., and Unit 2 drawings were provided from Bechtel Power Corporation.
The piping error was identified by the licensee while modifying the lube and cooling water system on unit 1.
The modification consisted of changing the existing carbon steel piping to stainless steel piping.
The licensee has initiated corrective action on Unit 1 and Unit 2.
The corrected piping design change has been completed on Unit 2 and will be completed on Unit 1 prior to entering mode 4 following completion of the cu rent refueling outage. The licensee has inspecteu the river water pumps'
lube and cooling system (a similar system) and has verified that this piping was installed correctly.
The inspectors are continuing to review the licensee evaluation of this piping deficiency. This is unresolved item No. 50-348/80-50-01.
7.
Plant Cleanliness The plant housekeeping and cleanliness controls are specified in admin-istrative procedures FNP-0-AP-35, " General Plant Housekeeping and Clean-liness Control"; FNP 0~44, " Cleanliness of Fluid Systems and Associated Components"; and FNI -0-39, " Fi re Surveillance".
These procedures, par-ticularly AP-35, were reviewed to verify that administrative controls and procedures had been issued to minimize potential fires and safety hazards.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncom'pliance or dt tions were identified.
8.
Preparation for Refueling Unit 1 The inspectors verified that the refueling activities for Unit I would be conducted by the use of approved procedures. These procedures include fuel handling, transfer of fuel from the reactor to the spent fuel pool, fuel inspectio1, and inspection of core internals. Inspectors also verified that the licensee's system for over all outage control was adequat.
9.
Plant Tours Tours of selected plant areas were conducted throughout the reporting period. The following items, as availabie, were observed:
a.
Fire Equipment Operability and evidence of periodic inspection of fire suppression equipment.
b.
Housekeeping Minimal accumulations 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.
Component-Tagging Implementation and observance of equipment tagging for safety or equip-ment protection.
e.
Communication Effectiveness of public address system in all areas toured.
f.
Equipment Controls Effectiveness of jurisdictional controls in precluding unauthorized work on systems turned over for initial operations or preoperational testing.
g.
Foreign Material Exclusion Maintenance of controls to assure systems which have been cleaned and flushed are not reopened to admit foreign material.
h.
Security Implementation of security provisions for both units.
Within the above a.reas, no items of noncompliance or deviations were observed thcr. compared to the applicable statior. yrograms and procedures.
10. -Unit No. 2 Plant Testing Status The status of the licensee's Phase II preoperational testing program was reviewed and is summarized below.
_
-
..
4 Testing Completed 83%
Testing in Progress 12%
Testing not Started 5%
Test Data Approved 75%
11.
Unit No.1 Plant Operation The inspector reviewed operation to ascertain conformance with regulatory requirements, technical specifications and Administrative Procedure No. 16,
" Conduct of Operations - Operation Group". Station logs, such as the shift supervisor, shift foreman, control room operators, shift turnover, the out of service equipment log, night order log book, and the limited condition of operat on log, were reviewed.
The inspector conducted tours of selected i
areas of ti.9 plant which included portions 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 positions, house-keeping, fire hazards, and equipment tagged out of service for maintenance.
Discussions were held with plant operators throughout the plant concerning certain alarm f9nctions and plant operations.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
12.
Radiation Emergt:ncy Exercise The inspectors witnessed an emergency drill which was conducted on November 19 and 20,1980 at the Farley Nuclear Plant and the surrounding Houston county, Alabama and Early County, Georgia areas.
The drill con-sisted of the following simulated sequential events:
a.
A fire in the Unit 1 turbine building.
b.
A non-isolable leak in the reactor coolant system c.
A valve alignment error in the post-loss of coolant accident (10CA)
venting system which resulted in a radioactive release to the environ-ment.
d.
A subsequent failure of the post-LOCA venting system with additional radioactive releases to the environment.
The objectives of the radiation emergency exercise were to:
(1). Test the activation of the plant emergency organization.
.(2). Test the notification procedures and communications systems to and from states, local governments, regulatory agencies, and off site support groups.
.-.
Q
.
(3). Test the emergency response capability of the plant, state author-ities, local support agencies, and appropriate federal agencies.
(4). Test the initiation and followup of protective actions to be taken for the plume exposure and ingestion pathways.
(5). Test the procedures for periodic public information release.
(6). Test the recovery procedures.
NRC representatives were positioned to observe personnel actions and the adequacy of procedures at the following locations:
-
Fire location, plant fire brigade and offsite fire support agency.
Control room.
-
-
-
Emergency Operations Facility.
-
Radiation monitoring team.
Emergency repair party.
-
Houston County, Alabama and Early County, Georgia Civil Defer.se
-
Centers.
After the drill was terminated on November 20, 1980, a critique was held with licensee personnel. During the critique NRC observations and noted deficiences were presented to licensee management.
The inspectors had no further questions.
13.
Unit No. 2 Action Items Required to be Completed Prior to Fuel Loading.
The inspector reviewed and verified that the following items had been completed. These items are required to be completed by the licensee prior to fuel loading on Unit No. 2.
The items are identified by Task numbers and Safety Evaluation Report (supplement No. 4) section numbers.-
Task No. I.D.I Control Room Design The inspectors have reviewed the following Unit No. 2 control room modifi-cations required to be completed prior to fuel loadin o
.
a.
Category 1 Discrepancies (1). Annunicator prioritization The licensee has identified annunciators which should receive more operator attention during an accident. The annunciators have been prioritized by colur.
(2). Extention of hori:cntal portion of main control board The licensee has installed a horizontal protective extension on the main - control board to prevent inadverdent operation of controls.
(3). Operator aids The licensee has installed permanent operator aids which consist of colored tape to flag imcortant meters.
(4). Labeling The licensee has completed a review of the main control board labeling. The instrumentation has been relabeled where required.
(5). Controllers The licensee has relabeled valve controllem for consistency.
b.
Category 2 Discrepancies (1). Labeling The licensee has relabeled selector switches to correlate to the steam generator level instrumentation. The steam generator feed pump turbine oil temperature recorders have been relabeled as Unit 2 recorders. The emergency power board has been relabeled (white background with black lettering).
The Unit 2 main control room floor has been covered with tile.
(2). Process Ccaputer The licensee has placed a cross i:. tex of data address points in-the control room.
(3). Hood for CRT The licentee has installed a hood on the control room CRT to reduce glare on the scree. - -
-
-
\\
,
.
i
'
(4). Controls The licensee has labeled the generator speed and voltage controls to indicate increase / decrease.
c.
Category 3 Discrepancies (1). Switch Color Plate The licensee has changed the 4160V and 500V systems switch color plates.
(2). Legend Status Light The licensee has labeled the matrix utilized to identify the status lights.
(3). Shift Turn-Over Procedure Lamp Test The licensee has revised the shift turnover procedure to include a walkdown of the main control board for verification that all indi-cating lights are illuminated.
(4). Labeling The licensee has changed the labels on the turbine oil controller and bearing oil meter for consistency.
(5). Annunicators The licensee has installed a guard on the annunicator panel to eliminate a shock hazard to the operator while replacing annun-ciator bulbs.
Task No. II.D.3 Pressurizer Relief and Safety Valve Position Indication The inspector has reviewed and confirmed that the pressurizer relief and safety valve position indicators have been installed.
The inspector reviewed test procedure No. 054-3-012, " Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV) and Safety Valve Indication Calibration and Functional Test," completed on October 23, 1980, to verify that the position indic&cors had been functionally tested.
The licensee has performed a seismic evaluation of the pressurizer PORV/ Safety valve indicating components.
This is cocumented in a letter from Mr.-A. A. Vizzi of Bechtel Power Corporation to Mr. O. D.
Kingsley, Jr., of Alabama Power Company dated November 10, 1980.
Pending review of tFis evaluation by NRR this item will remain open.