IR 05000348/1981011
| ML20030D602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1981 |
| From: | Bradford W, Kellogg P, Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030D562 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-81-11, 50-364-81-14, NUDOCS 8109010599 | |
| Download: ML20030D602 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES
- o
!
f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
E REG]ON 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST N.W.. SUITE 3100 ATt.ANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
Report Nos. 50-348/81-11 and 50-364/81-14 Licensee. Alabama Power Company E00 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name:
Farley Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-36A License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8
Inspection at Farley Site near Dothan, Alabama
.
Inspectors:
i fA-v 5.-
T
~. E'
~
W. H, Bjadford, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed
! ll x
_
/
-
t
.
-
,-
- -i
- ;- -:,..,
.
/,,
.
.
'
r i
Date Signed T. A. Pe,ebleg
-
VR
.
n
.
,
Approved by:
- $-r' P..Y
...I &
b _-
-
?
~
Paul J. Kellogg, Acting Chief, Reactor Project Date Signed Branch'2, Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection SUMMARY Inspection on May 13, 1981 through June 15, 1981 Areas Inspected This rcutiae inspection involved 196 hours0.00227 days <br />0.0544 hours <br />3.240741e-4 weeks <br />7.4578e-5 months <br /> on site by the resident inspectors in operational safety verification, monthly maintenance observation, Unit 2 lice.ising condition, Unit 2 startup testing, independent inspection effort, review of plant operation, and plant trips.
Results Of the 7 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were found in 6 areas; 1 violation was found in 1 area (Failure to follow procedues paragraph 5).
.
.
.
8109010599 810814'
"
PDR ADOCK 05000348
'
G PDR
,._
._. _ _ -
_ _ __
_ --.
,
_
_, - - _. -
-.
_____
.
.
.
.
,,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees 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 R. W. McCraken, Technical Superintendent D. E. Mansfield, Unit 2 Startup Superintendent C. Nesbitt, C&HP Supervisor L. Williams, Training Superintendent W. C. Carr, Supervisor of SAER K. W. Kale, SAER Engineer R. D. Rogers, Technical Supervisor R. H. Marlow, Engineering Supervisor L. A. Ward, Planning Supervisor R. G.Berryhill, Systems Performance and Planning Superintendent Other licensee employees contacted included technicals, operating personnel, maintenance and I&C personnel, security force members and office pesonnel.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 22, 1981 and June 10, 1981, with the plant manager and selected members of his staff.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) 50-348/80-42-01, 50-364/80-53-01 This violation concerned evidence of smoking in the no smoking area of the diesel generator building.
The licensee has initia'ted corrective action which has been reviewed by the inspector.
The inspector has no further questions.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved. items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Operational Safety Verification The inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the report L.
.
.
_
-_
-
-
..
.
.
.
.
.,
'
period.
The inspectors verified the operability of selected emergency
'
systems, reviewed tagout records and verified proper return to service of affected components. Tours of the auxiliary, diesel, and turbine buildings l
were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions including potential fire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify that maintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need of maintenance.
The inspectors by observation and direct interview verified that the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the station security plan.
,
The inspectors observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and j
verified implementation of radiation protection controls. The inspectors walked sown the accessible portions of various safety-related systems on Units 1 and 2 to verify operability. The inspectors also witnessed portions of the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments.
,
These reviews and observations were conducted to ascertain that facility operations were in conformance with regulatory requirements, technical specifications and administration procedure No. 16, (Conduct of operation -
'
Operations Group).
During inspector observation of Unit 1 control board instrumentation on i
May 20, 1981, the inspector found one channel of the core subcooling monitor out of service.
The control room operator and shift supervisor had not notcd this condition.
Subsequent investigation revealed that the channel had been out of service for modification since May 16, 1981.
This information had not been passed on to succeeding shift personnel by shift turnover logs or log book entries.
On June 5, 1981, after a reactor trip on Unit No. 2, the digital rod positf on indicator system showed control rod J-7 to not be in the fully inserted position as required. The operator action was in accordance with approved emergency operating procedures. The control room operator was not i
l aware that ore digital rod position indicator system had been diagnosed on June 3,1981, as not responding correctly. Corrective maintenance had not yet been performed and the inoperative status had not been passed on to succeeding shifts by shift turn over logs or by operator log book entry.
Proper knowledge of this condition would have allowed the operator to more readily respond to the other plant conditions following the reactor trip.
The above are examples of. failure to follow procedures by not turning over significant equipment deficiencies to succeeding shifts and of not being i
aware of control board parameters as required by Administrative Procedure No.16
" Conduct of Operation - Operations Group". This is an apparent l
violation of section 6.8 of the Technical Specification.
(50-348/81-11-01 and 50-364/81-14-01).
'
6.
Monthly Maintenance Observation l
Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and components were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with
.
-, - -
ve.-
-
. - -
c
-
,-.
-
,
r
, - - -
_
- - _ -
__.
.
- -
-.
-.
'
.
.
,
.
,
J
'
approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes or standards and in conformance with technical specifications.
!
The following items were considered during this review:
the limiting conditions for operation were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as i
applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality control records were maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified oersonnel; parts and materials used were properly certified; radiological controls were implemented; and, fire prevention controls were implemented.
i Work requests were reviewed to determine the status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority is assiged to safety-related equipment maintenance whict may affect system performance.
The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
!
1.
Repair of 1-C and 2-C diesel thrust bearing
2.
Repair of 1-C diesel jacket cooling water l
l 3.
Repair of Unit 2 main feed water regulating valve.
l Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Monthly Surveillance Observation
,
The inspector obsarved technical specifications required surveillance l
testing and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate
!
procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of the affected components were accomplished, that test results met acceptance criteria requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel.
The inspector witnessed / reviewed portions of the following test activities:
FNP-1-STP-28.1-1-C & 2C Diesel Generator Operability Test FNP-1-STP-1.0 - Operability Daily and Shift Surveillance Performance Requirement FNP-1-STF-9.0 - RCS Leakage Test FNP-1-STP-27.1 - AC Source Verification FNP-1-STP-22.11 - Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feed Pump Inservice Inspection
-
FNP-1-STP-109 - Power Range Neutron Flux Calibration Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
,
l
!
'
_
,-.
.
..
..
.- -
- -..
.-.
-
__
_
.
_
_.
_,
_
!
.
.
..
-
j
8.
Unit No. 2 Licensing Condition
The inspectors verified by direct observation and reviewed records that the Licensing Conditions which were required to be corapleted prior to exceeding 5% power had bean completed. The following is a tabulation:
1.
License Condition C.9.a The augmented low power tests had been sat.Lfactorily completed, reviewed and the report sent to NRR on May 18, 1981; 2.
License Condition C.10 The post accident sampling system was fully operational (Task Action Item II.B.3);
'
3.
License Condition C.11
!
The training for mitigating core damage was completed (Task Action Item II.B.4);
4.
License Condition C.12.a The tests-to demonstrate manual operation of an atmospheric steam dump valve were completed; i
E.
License Condition C.13
,
The reset circuits for the containment air mixing fans, containment purge isolation valves, and auxiliary feedwater pump discharge valves
i had been modified and tested and applicable procedures were changed;
6.
License Condition C.21.F(a)
The capability for continuous sampling of plant gas effluents was l
installed and operational. (Task Action Item II.F.1)
.
9.
Unit 2 Startup Testing The inspectors reviewed the licensee's analysis of the low power physics test program for the test results that did not meet the Westinghouse design criteria. The deviations between measured values and review criteria was
determined to be within fuel manufacturing tolerance and therefore no retesting was necessary:
The inspectors had no further questions on the results which included the measured boron concentration value for maintaining a critical condition with all rods out, with Control Bank D inserted, with Control Banks 0 and C inserted and with all Control Banks inserted.
The inspector witnessed portions of the augmented low power tests on all shif ts and fully reviewed the results of all tests. The, inspector found the l
l l
!.
.- --
..
_ - - _ _ _,
_ - _ -
- _ - _ _.. _,., -.
.
. - -. -.,
.
...
.--.-_,_,
_.. -.
_.
-
._.
_
.. _ _ _
.
.
.
,
i i
program to be successfully completed with all licensed personnel having
observed testing.
The inspectors witnessed portions of the following power escalation testing on all shifts and fully reviewed the test results and evaluations of all i
testing date.
The performance of each test was evaluated against the requirements of ANSI N 13.7-1972, Section 6.0,
" Test and Inspection l
Procedures," ANSI N 45.2-1971, Section 12, " Test Control", FSAR Chapter 14,
" Initial Tests and Operations", and Regulatory Guide 1.6,1.9 and 1.41.
j Testing was satisfactory except as noted:
i I
a.
100-7-006 Feedwater Thermal Expansion b.
500-7-050 Radiation Survey c.
500-7-301 Recording Setpoint Data d.
063-7-704 Automatic Steam Generator Level Tests e.
045-7-542 Feedwater Pump Speed Control Test f.
056-7-703 Automatic Reactor Centrol g.
ETP-44 Preliminary Incore-Excore Calibration
.
h.
500-7-542 Chemical-Radioactivity Chemical Analysis
!
'
i.
500-7-523 Load Swing Test at 35% Turbine Power
.
100-7-006 Main Steam Dynamic Response to 50% Trip I
k.
500-7-529 Power Range Negative Rate Trip at 50%
l This test did not meet the Westinghouse criteria for 3 or 4. channels and will require the Unit to be operated under the same interim criteria as Unit 1.
1.
500-7-538 Loss of Offsite Power at 10%
m.
500-7-539 Shutdowr Crom Outside Control Room 10.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspectors routinely attended meetings with certain licensee tranagement and various shift turnovers between shift supervisors, shift foremen and licensed operators during the reporting period.
These meetings and discussions provided a daily status of plant operating and testing I
activities in progress as well as discussion of significant problems or l
incidents.
l
.
c
--
~.. - -
m,.
.,
-,,,,,.-.,-r an..,,.,., - -, -. - -,,,.,
,
,..,,,
,,.,e,,. -, -,. _
-
.
_
_ _ _ _
-
_
,
,
,
.
..
-
9 11.
Review of Plant Operations During the report period the inspectors reviewed the following activities:
a.
Procurement The inspector reviewed procurement and storage activities to ascertain whether the purchase of components, materials and supplies used for safety-related functions, is in conformance with the licensee's approved QA program and implementing procedures; nonconforming items are segregated and marked accordingly; applicable preventative maintenance is performed; housekeeping and environmental requirements are met; and, limited shelf-life items are controlled.
b.
Review and Audits The inspectors verified that the Plant Safety Review Committee (PORC)
meeetings, membership, review process, frequency and qualifications met the requirements of the technical specifications.
The inspectors confirmed that meeting minutes reflected decisions and corrective actions.
The inspector reviewed certain audits performed by the licensee Safety Audit and Engineering Review group.
c.
Training The inspector attended 2 of the licensee's operator requalification lecture series and verified that lesson plan objectives were met and that training was in accordance with the approved operator requalifi-cation program schedule and objectives.
The inspector verified by direct questions of one new, one existing,
'
and one temporary employee that administrative controls and procedures, radiological health and safety, industrial safety, controlled access and security procedures, emergency plan, and quality assurance training were provided as required by the licensee's technical specifications; verified by direct questioning of one craftsmen and one technician that on-the-job training, formal technical training commensurate with job classification, and fire fighting training were provided.
d.
Environmental Protection i
The inspector verified the installation and operability of certain environmental monitoring stations and associated equipments.
e.
Licensee Action Concerning Identified Problems The inspector reviewed corrective actions taken by the licensee pertaining to recurring failures and resolution of ident1fied discrepancies involving safety-related components.,
l l
- -..
-
, - -
- _. - -
_-.
_.,
_
.-
, -, - - -
- -- - _ _. - - -,
,
- -. -
,
..
_ _ _.
__ _
--
_. _. _ -
__
.
_ -------_-_ _ _- _ _
'
.,.
.
,
e,
-
,
',
J Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviaticris were identified.
l 12.
Plant Trips J
j After the following plant trips, the inspector ascertained the status of the
-
reactor and safety systems and by observation of control indicators and discussions with licensee personnel concerning plant parameters, emergency
,
!
system status and reactor coolant chemistry.
Proper reporting and i
corrective actions taken by the licensee were verified.
All systems responded as expected following the trips.
'
.
8:45 a.m./May 14 Unit 2 trip due to 5% power range setpoint on
!
intermediate range too low 8:17 p.m./May 21 Unit 1 trip due to bumped electrical panel which secured power to the oil pumps supplying the main feed
pumps.
5:05 a.m./ June 5 Unit 2 trip due to grounded test lead on main
feed pump speed control
!
i
!
I i
i
~
l i
.
,
,.m-----
,
-,
m
,-
~
a,,n,-,c...
,--,-.--, - - -.,... -,,,
,
- - - -
.-~