IR 05000348/1987022

Insp Repts 50-348/87-22 & 50-364/87-22 on 870817-21.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Complex Surveillance,Mod Testing & Review of Status of Items on Outstanding Items List

ML20235B849
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	09/14/1987
From:	Jape F, Szczepaniec A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235B835	List: IR 05000348/1987022 ML20235B834
References
50-348-87-22, 50-364-87-22, NUDOCS 8709240252
Download: ML20235B849 (6)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:l UNITED STATES p#pn MEog4; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON ' [" REGION ll p y j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

• '

'* ATLANTA. GEOL'GtA 30323 ) %,*****,o Report Nos.: 50-348/87-22 and 50-364/87-22 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Docket Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility Name: Farley Inspection Co !ucted: August 17-21, 1987 Inspector: nNm . ,a a 9-//-77 A. J. Czczepaniet ' ' Date Signed Approved by: I//Y/[[ F. Jape, Section' ChieV Date Signed ' l Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of complex surveillance, modification testing, and review of the status of items on the outstanding items list.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

8709240252 870918 PDR ADOCK 05000348

PDR .. --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ -_

. _ _. . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - ' l.

• I REPORT DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• C, D. Nesbitt, Technical Manager
• R. G. Berryhill, Systems Performance and Planning Manager
• L. A. Ward, Maintenance Manager B. Moore, Operations Supervisor R. H. Marlow, Technical Supervisor
• L. M. Stinson, Plant Modification Manager Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, and office personnel.

NRC Resident Inspectort W. Bradford, Senior Resident Inspector W. Miller, Resident inspector

• Attended exit interview 2.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 21, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.

The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.

No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The following new items were identified during this inspection: Inspector Followup Items 50-348/87-22-01 and 50-364/87-22-01, Review of Modifications to Wall Numbers 1-CBW-34, 1-CBW-62, and 2-CBW-34, see paragraph 7c.

The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.

3.

Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters ,a.

(Closed) UNR 50-343/80-26-01, Containment Tendon Surveillance Prog-ram. Due to problems encountered during the second (three-year) surveillance inspection of the Unit I containment building post-tensioning system, the licensee repeated the second surveillance inspection in the summer of 1981.

Prior to this re-inspection the licensee revised procedure number FNP-1-STP-609.0, Containment Tendon Surveillance Test, and changed their method of performing the surveil-lance by using their own forces and equipment to conduct the inspec-tion instead of relying on an outside contractor to perform the surveillance. During an inspection conducted June 29 - July 2, 1981, a Region II inspector examined the current revision (Revision 6) of _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

- _ - -- _ - - - _ _ __ - __. - _ _ _ __ ' . i

- procedure FNP-1-STP-609.0 and observed performance of portions of the tendon resurveillance-inspection.

The results of this inspection are documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-348/81-13.

The Region II inspector also examined the results of this tendon surveillance inspection which were submitted to the NRC in a report titled "Resurve111ance Report on Three-Year Surveillance Tendons" dated June, 1982 and the current revision (Revision 11) of FNP-1-STP-609.0.

Unresolved item 348/80-26-01 is closed.

l b.

(0 pen) Deviation 50-348,50-364/86-18-01, Failure to comply with FSAR and response to IEB 81-03 commitments concerning service water system-chlorination.

Efforts are being taken by the licensee, who is still undertaking. experimental programs to determine the best course of action.

Full compliance date is November 7,1987; this item is left open.

4.. Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not discussed during this inspection.

5.

Complex Surveillance (61701) Although neither unit at the facility was undergoing an outage, the utility did perform one of its diesel generator surveillance as required by Technical Specification.

The procedure performed by the utility was '

Surveillance Test Procedure FNP-0-STP-80.7, Diesel Generator IC 24 Hour Load Test.

The inspector reviewed the procedure and observed portions of the test.

The test. procedure was a properly approved procedure and the requirements were consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory ' Guide,. licensee commitments and administrative controls.

Test pre-requisites were completed and special equipment was calibrated and in service. Data was properly recorded by personnel and current revisions of the test procedure were used.

The surveillance was accomplished within 'the time intervals required by the Technical Specifications.

Qualified individuals performed the test and test data was reviewed by the inspector and was satisfactory.

No violations or deviations were identified.

6.

Modification Testing (72701) Three recent modifications were reviewed by the inspector.

These were PCN 87-1-4258, Seal Welding Body to Bonnet on Valve Q1813V005C, PCN 84-1-2914, Service Water Isolation Valves and PCN 86-1-3763, Charging Pumps Cooling Water from CCW Modification.

The work packages for each modification were reviewed by the inspector.

The first two modifications were changes made to existing systems and components.

The testing, as appropriate, was within the capabilities of the utility organization onsite.

The design, work and testing were done within the process developed by the utility to do such work and the methods appeared to be satisfactory, l . _ _ - _. _____ ____ - - - -

. _ _ _ - ..

-The third modification consisted of changing the cooling water for the charging. pumps from the service water system to the component cooling water system. This change was a more significant change due to the poten-tial effect on existing component cooling water flowrates, and is one of the long tenn actions referred to in paragraph 7a. Also, outside organiza-tions were utilized in the design, testing and acceptance of the modifica-tion.

The modification process was reviewed by the inspector and it appeared that the design approval, work and testing were all satisfactory.

It was noted that the initial testing and acceptance criteria used to determine the acceptability of the modification needed to be revised.

The test-procedure was modified to change the method used to determine flowrates. New data was obtained, and then analyzed by Bechtel, Westing-house, and the licensee and determined to be acceptable. Therefore, even though' suitable test acceptance criteria was not initially developed for evaluation following the modification, appropriate data was obtained and subsequently analyzed and approved.

In light of the type modification that was made, this seems satisfactory.

It was also observed that throughout the modification process numerous utility reviews and evaluations were made to insure the correctness and acceptance of the modification.

It appeared that all test procedures and changes made thereto were reviewed and approved in accordance with Techni-cal Specification and administrative procedures.

Testing was performed in accordance with utility procedures that included hydrostatic testing, relief valves setting and flow rate determination.

. Specifically, Farley Nuclear Plant Modifications Procedure FNP-1-PMP-1066, Revision 1, was reviewed for adequacy. The procedure contained as approp-riate, scope and objectives, references, test equipment, including calibra-j tion checks, prerequisites, system lineups and procedural steps and

check-off list.

The identical modification has not yet been made in Unit 2, but is

scheduled for the next outage.

Of the items inspected, no violations or i f deviations were identified.

! 7.

Outstanding Item List Status Update a.

(0 pen)IFI 50-348, 364/86-18-02, Review Status of Actions Implemented by Licensee to Address Service Water Fouling Problems.

The licensee has taken numerous short term and long term actions to deal with the Service Water fouling problem. Design changes have been made to Unit 1 and are scheduled for Unit 2.

However, some programs are either still undergoing review or are currently being applied on t a trial basis, and not yet finalized; therefore, this item will } remain open.

, b.

(0 pen) Temporary Instruction (TI) 2500/16, Inspection to Determine if a Potential Seismic Interaction Exits Between Movable Incore Flux

\\ l ___-_________-__- _ _ _ A

- - _ _ - _ t

] - .

Mapping System and Seal Table at Westinghouse Designed Facilities or Facilities Similar.

Analysis by Bechtel indicated that the existing welds are. adequate; however, four bolts on the cart should be replaced.

Two of these bolts have been replaced in Unit 1, but the remaining two are welded in place.

The licensee has taken these bolts under study.

Unit 2 bolt replacement is scheduled for the next outage. This item is left open, c.

(Closed) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design The licensee responded to IE Bulletin 80-11 in letters to NRC dated July 7, 1980, October 22, 1980 and January 15, 1981. In the January 15,. 1981 letter, the licensee provided details regarding deficiencies found in construction of masonry block walls, their plans for repairing the walls, and the design re-evaluation criteria used to analyze the walls.

The licensee reported the masonry wall construction deficiencies to NRC as LER 80-076 for Unit 1 on December 18, 1980 and LER 80-003 for Unit 2 on December 9, 1980. The repairs to the masonry wall to correct the deficiencies reported in the LERs were inspected by a Region II inspector during inspections conducted February 24-27, 1981, and June 29 - July 2, 1981.

(See NRC Inspector Report numbers 50-348/81-04, 50-364/81-05, 50-348/81-13, and 50-364/81-17).

The LERs were closed out in Report numbers 50-348/81-13 and 50-364/81-17.

In letters dated May 12, 1981, April 22, 1982, November 19, 1982, and March 5,1984 to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), the licensee responded to requests for additional information con-cern'ng masonry wall design.

Final acceptance of the licensee's criteria used for design analysis of the Farley Unit 1 masonry walls is documented in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) titled Masonry Wall Design, IE Bulletin 80-11, Farley Unit 1, which was transmitted to the licensee in an NRC letter dated October 24, 1984, Subject: Completion of Review - Masonry Wall Design, IE Bulletin 80-11, Farley Unit 1.

Final acceptance of the licensee's criteria used for design analysis of the Farley Unit 2 masonry walls is documented in an SER titled Masonry Wall Design, IE Bulletin 80-11, Farley Unit 2, which was transmitted to the licensee in an NRC letter dated March 1, 1983, Subject: Completion of Review of Masonry Wall Design (IEB 80-11) Farley Unit 2.

As a result of the NRC review of Unit 2 masonry walls, Licensee Condition 2.c.(16) was issued to require modification of Unit 2 wall number 2 CBW-34.

This wall had originally been l analyzed using the energy balance technique, a method which was not ' accepted by the NRC final design criteria.

The licensee condition and Amendment 21 to the Unit 2 license established schedule for modi-fication of wall 2 CBW-34 to comply with NRC final design criteria for masonry walls.

The October 24, 1984 NRC letter for Unit 1 masonry L_______-_-_-____-_______

- _ - _ - _ _ _ - .- . ' '

wall requested that the licensee address the need.for modifications .to' Unit 1 wall number 1 CWB-34 which is identical to Unit 2 wall '2 CBW-34.- In a letter dated November 28, 1984, to NRR, the licensee committed to modify wall 1 CBW-34 and one additional wall (number l' CBW-62) which did not' meet' the revised NRC seismic design criteria.

These modifications.were - to be completed by the end 'of the seventh refueling' outage which began in Fall 1986. With the exception of the modifications to wall number 1 CBW-34, l' CBW-62, and 2 CBW-34, inspection of the licensee's actions-to complete IEB 80-11 require-ments were completed in inspections documented in NRC Inspection Report numbers 50-348/80-26, 50-364/80-37, 50-348/81-04 and 50-364/81-05.

IE Bulletin 80-11 is closed.

The modifications to wall numbers 1 CBW-34,1 CBW-62, and 2 CBW-34 will be inspected in. a future inspection.

This is identified as Inspector Followup Item 50-348/87-22-01 and 50-364/87-22-01, Review of Modifications to Wall ~ Numbers.1-CBW-34, 1-CBW-62, and 2-CBW-34.

Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

' , ' ww v n a . , i t

m.

l E . _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -. _ _ _____ _____

-. ._ _ . _. _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _. ._ _- . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . I , c.

, .o.

, A f e i

! l l ,. SI b y y 7 gjg

.S0-Dygga ' }}