IR 05000348/1988024
| ML20153B771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1988 |
| From: | Dance H, Miller W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153B738 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-88-24, 50-364-88-24, NUDOCS 8808310080 | |
| Download: ML20153B771 (8) | |
Text
,
~ ~~ ~ - ~~--- -'
,
.
UNITED S TATES
. pQ Etog*o
..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,f y
REGION li n
g'
j 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
- .
I c ATL ANTA, G EORGI A 30323
&
.....
Report Nos.: 50-348/88-24 6nd 50-364/88-24 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 36291 Docket Nos.:
50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility name:
Farley 1 and 2 Intpection Conducted: July 11 - August 10, 1988 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, Alabama inspector: _
h
'F
/9 W W. H. Miller, Resident Inspector Date ' Signed
{
Contributing Inspector:
W. H. Bradford, Senior Resident Inspector (July 11-14)
J. E. Tedrow, Resideni. Inspector, Crystal River
,
July 18-22)
~
Approved by:
b I / 'I
[
H. C. Dance, Section Chief
,Date Signed
~
SUMMARY
.
Scope:
This routine on-site inspection involved a review of monthly surveillance observation, monthly maintenance observation, operational safety verification, radiological protection program
~
physical security program, licensee event reports, erigineered safety system inspection, action on previous inspection findings, and onsite followup of events.
l Results: Within the areas inspected, the following violation was identified:
j Another example of inadequate procedure (ref. 364/88-20-03) used to l
calculate reactor coolant system inventory leakage - Paragraph 2.
l
!
0808310080 880819 ADOCK 050
{DR
- - - _ -____ _ _ _ _ - _ __ - ___ _ - _-_ -_-_ _
.
.
.
.
'
.
.
.
REPORT' DETAILS 1.
Licensee Employees Contacted D. N. Morey, General Plant Manager W. D. Shipman, Assistant General Plant Manager R. D. Hill, Assistant General Plant Manager J. K. Osterholtz, Operations Manager C. D. Nesbitt, Technical Manager R. G. Berryhill, Systems Performance and Planning Manager J. J. Thomas, Maintenance Manager L. W. Enfinger, Administrative Manager J. E. Odom, Operations Unit Supervisor B. W. Vanlandingham, Operations Unit Supervisor T. H. Esteve, Planning Supervisor J. B. Hudspeth, Document Control Supervisor L. K. Jones, Material Supervisor R. H. Marlow, Technical Supervisor L. M. Stinson, Plant Modification Manager Scott Fulmer, Supervisor, Safety Audit Engineering Review Other licensee employees contacted included, technicians, operations personnel, maintenance and I&C personnel, security force members, and office personnel.
2.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)
The inspector observed and reviewed technical specification (TS) required surveillance testing and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate procedures, test instrumentation was calibrated, limiting conditions for operation (LC0) were met, test results met acceptance criteria and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel, and personnel conducting the test were qualified.
Portions of the following test activities were observed or reviewed by the inspector:
0-STP-26.0B Control Room Train B Ventilation Operability Test 0-STP-54.1 Fire Protection Functional Test (Flow Tests / Fire Pumps 1, 2, & 3.)
2-STP-4.6 Charging Pump 2C Annual Inservice Test 1/2-STP-9.0 Reactor Coolant System Leakage Test 2-STP-11.9 RHR Pump 2A Monthly Operability Check 1-STP-16.9 Containment Spray Pump 2B Monthly Inservice Test
._.
-
-
y u.
~
-
.
'
.
.
.
1:JP-20.2 Penetration Room Filtration System Train B Monthly Operability Test 2-STP-23.2 Component Cooling Water Pump 2B Quarterly Inservice Test 1-STP-33.0A Solid State Protection System Train A Operability Test 1-STP-33.08 Solid State Protection System Train B Operability Test-1-STP-33.1A Safeguards Test Control Train A Functional-Test.
2-STP-63.0 Area Temperature Monitoring 2-STP-612 Reactor Coolant Pump Bus Reactor Trip Undervoltage Relay Trip - Pump 2C While observing surveillance test 0-STP-54.1 on the fire pumps, the inspector noted that the tachometers on the diesel driven fire pumps were not included in the plant's instrument calibration program.
Since the speed of the pump (i.e. revolutions per minute) is not an acceptance criteria to meet the TS, the failure to use a calibrated tachometer is not listed as a violation.
However, the inspector suggested that a portable calibrated tachometer be used on the future annual operability tests of the diesel driven fire pumps.
The first surveillance test on component cooling water pump 2B conducted on August 4,1988, was unsatisfactory due to excessive pump vibrations and high pump discharge pressure.
The discharge pressure gage was replaced with a recently calibrated gage and the vibration set points on the pump casting were reattached to the pump.
The pump was retested and results, which were evaluated by the systems performance group, indicated that pump vibration was in the alert range.
This pump is to be retested monthly with test results monitored to assure pump performance remains satisfactory.
On July 20, 1988 during a review of completed test data sheets for procedure 2-STP-9.0, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Leakage Test, the inspectors noted that the test data on several procedures indicated a negative value for leakage.
This appeared to indicate that the system was gaining volume in lieu of leaking as is normally anticipated.
However, these readings can probably be attributed to the way the tests were conducted. The flow from the charging system through a leaking valve in the boron injection tank (BIT) bypass line to the BIT surge tank was calculated by recording the level change in the BIT surge tank as indicated by the percent level instrumentation on the surge tank. The procedure required that the time duration for increasing the tank level by 20% be used to calculate the gpm flow into the surge tank.
A time span of at least one hour is normally used to conduct the leak rate tests to assure accuracy.
However, a time span of only approximately 10 minutes is normally required to raise the surge tank level 20%.
This short time frame plus the small size surge tank, and level gages with small graduations reduces the operator's capability to accurately read the correct tank level.
Furthermore, the procedure classified this leakage as unidentified leakage which did not
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
e
.
'
.
.
3-
,
,
.,
appear to conform to the TS definition of unidentified leakage.
The TS definition of identified leakage is that leakage which in captured in a collection tank.
The procedure.in use to determine the' amount of identified and unidentified leakage from the Unit 2 RCS appeared to be deficient as noted above.
This concern was identified to the licensee as another exampls of violation 348, 364/88-20-03 and the licensee agreed to address thic concern in the-response to this violation.
To verify that the leakage met the TS requirements, the licensee promptly conducted another leak rate test without flow to the BIT surge tank. This test indicated a total leakage of 0.23 gpm (0.03 gpm identified and 0.20 gpm unidentified) which met the requirements of the TS. The licensee requested guidance on this test procedure from Westinghouse and received an evaluatica on July 29.
This response is being' evaluated to determine the appropriate solution to the problem.
However, in the interim the licensee has revised the procedure to require a 50% tank level increase in the surge tank in lieu'of 20% and to repeat the test if the unidentified leakage is more negative thain - 0.2 gpm. The licensee's final solution to this concern will be reviewed during a subsequcnt inspection.
3.
MonthlyMaintenanceObservation(62703)
Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and camponents were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, regulatory guides, industry codes and standards, and were in conformance with TS.
Items considered during the review included: verification that limiting conditions for operations were met while components or systems were removed from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work; approved procedures were used; completed work was inspected as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality control records were maintained; activities were accomp-lished by qualified personnel; parts and materials were properly certified; and, radiological and fire prevention controls were implemented.
Work requests were also reviewed to determine the status of outstanding jobs to assure that priority was assigned to safety-related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:
Diesel Generator 1C - 18 Month Maintenance Inspection 0-MP-12.2 Diesel Air Intake and Exhaust Valve Inspection 0-MP-13.1 Colt Model 38 TD 1/8 - Inspection 0-MP-13.9 Colt Model 38 TD 1/8 - Water Test Procedure 0-GMP-7.0 Polarization Insulation Resistance Test 0-lMP-415.1 Pressure Indicating Calibration
-
-
- -
]
.
-
s
,
.
.
.
Diesel Generator 2C - 18 Month Maintenance Inspection 0-MP-12.2 Diesel Air' Intake and Exhaust Valve Inspection 0-MP-13.1 Colt Model 38 TD 1/8 - Inspection 0-MP-13.9 Colt Model 38 TD 1/8 - Water Test Procedure 0-MP-28.109 4/16 KV Circuit Breaker Maintenance (Breaker'DJ-06)
Diesel Generator 1B - Quarterly Maintenance 0-MP-12.3 Diesel Air Start System Quarterly Inspection 0-MP-14.6 Model PC-2V Diesel Engine Quarterly Inspection ETP-4202 Tendon Grease Inspection (Unit 2 - Tendon H-19AB)
MWR 170288 Disassembly.and'Relube Fire Protection M0V N2Y43V28-A MWR 171727 Inspect Pole Shaft Weld and Cam Alignment on Breaker EA-10 MWR 18204 Repair / Replace Leaking 011 Relief Valve on Fuel Line to Diesel Generator 1C MWR 136592 Repair Fire Protection Valve NSY43V017 No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
The inspector observed contrul room operations, reviewed applicable logs and conducted discussions with control room operators during the report period. Also, the operaLility of selected emergency systems was verified, tagout records were reviewed and proper return to service of affected components was verified. Tours of the auxiliary building, diesel building, turbine building and service water structure were conducted to ob;9rve plant equipment conditions, including fluid leaks and excessive vibrations and general housekeeping efforts.
The inspector verified compliance with selected limiting condition for operation (LCO) and results of selected surveillance tests. The verifications were accomplished by direct observa-tion of monitoring instrumentation, valve positions, switch positions, accessible hydraulic snubbers, and review of completed logs, records, and chemistry results.
The licensee's compliance with LC0 action statements was reviewed as events occurred.
,
'
The inspector routinely attended meetings with certain licensee management and observed various shift turnovers between shift supervisor, shift foremen and licensed operators.
These meeting and discussions provided a daily status of plant operations, maintenance, and testing activities in progress, as well as discussions of significant problems.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
5.
Radiological Protection Program (71709)
Selected act!vities of the licensee's Radiological Protection. Program were reviewed by the inspector to verify conformance with plant procedures and NRC regulatory requirement.
The areas reviewed included:
organization and management of the plant's health physics staff, "ALARA" implementation, Radiation Work Permits (RWP's) for compliance to plant procedures, personnel exposure records, observation of work and personnel in radiation
_ areas to verify compliance to radiation protection procedures, and control of radioactive materials.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Physical Security Program (71881)
Licensee's compliance to the approved security plan was reviewed by.the inspectors.
The inspector verified by observation and interviews with security force members that measures taken to assure the physical protection of the facility met current requirements.
Areas inspected-included:
organization of-the security force, establishment and maintenance of gates, doors, and isolation zones, access control, and badging procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Licensee Event Reports (9270C)
The following Licensee Event Reports (LER) was reviewed for potential generic problems to determine trends, to determine whether information included in the report meets the NRC reporting requirements and to consider whether the corrective action discussed in the report appears appropriate.
The licensee action was reviewed to verify that the event has been reviewed and evaluated by the licensee as required by the technical specifications; that corrective action was taken by the licensee; and that safety limits, limiting safety setting and LCOs were not exceeded. The inspector examined the incident report, logs and records, and interviewed selected personnel.
The following reports are considered closed:
Unit 1 LER-88-10 Control Room Pressurization Unable To Maintain Required Pressure Due To Open Penetration.
LER-88-17 Technical Specification Action Statement Requirement Not Met For An Inoperative Fire Hose Station.
No violations or deviations were identified.
-
-
- -
-
_ _ _ _
,
.-
..
6
.
.
8.
Engineered Safety Systems Inspections (71710)
The inspector performed various system inspections during the inspection-period.
Overall plant conditions were assessed with particular attention to equipment condition, radiological controls, security, safety, adherence to technical specification requirements, systems valve alignment, and locked valve verification.
Major components were checked for leakage and any general conditions that would degrade performance or prevent fulfillment of functional requirements. The inspector verified that approved procedures and up-to-date drawings were used.
The systems were assessed to be operable in accordance with technical specifications, appropriate drawings, procedures, and the Final Safety Analysis Report.
.
Portions of the following systems were observed for proper operations, valve alignment and valve verification.
Auxiliary Feedwater Systems Chemical Volume Control Systems Service Water Systems Boric Acid Transfer Systems Containment Spray System Including Chemical Additive System Residual Heat Removal System The inspector performed a system inspection of diesel generators 18 and 10. This inspection included the engine starting air system, engine jacket cooling water system, service water system alignment in the diesel generator building, diesel generator building fire protection and detection system, and diesel generator building ventilation system.
Items inspected included: confirmation that licensee's system line up procedures matched plant drawings; surveillance procedures included the surveillance require-ments of the Technical specifications; system valves and electrical breakers were in correct alignment or position; instrumentation was inservice and calibration was current; hangers and supports were aligned and in service; equipment was properly labeled; general housekeeping and cleanliness were properly maintained; and fire protection and detec-tion systems were operational.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92702)
(Closed) Part 21 348,364/87-01, Fairbanks Morse Diesel Generator Indicator
,
Valve Plug Thread Deterioration.
The licensee evaluated this item and found that it was not applicable to Farley.
The diesels at Farley have j
permanently installed valves in lieu of plugs.
'
i
. -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
.
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
__
..
(.
'
.
-
.
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 348,364/86-19-01, Environmental Qualification of Limitorque Motor Operated Valves.
This item is addressed in Report 348, 364/87-30 and is therefore closed.
10. On-site Followup of Events (93702) - Inoperative Emergency Notification Systems During this report period the off-site emergency notification systems were out of service on three occasions. On the evening of July 15 the transformer for the sirens at Gordon and Ashford was hit by lighting and the sirens were inoperative until repairs were completed ors July 16. On July 20 the tone alert radio emergency off-site notification system for residents in close proxcimity to the plant was out of service from 11:48 a.m. until 3:55 p.m.
The system was inoperative due to a nonfunctional repeater panel at the Houston County (Alabama) Emergency Management Agency.
On August, during a routine test of the tone alert radio system, the system was found to be inoperable at 1:15 p.m. due to a nonfunctional transmitter.
A backup transmitter was promptly installed and system was returned to service at 2:25 p.m.
An investigation is being made to determine the cause of this failure.
The systems were promptly repaired when found to be inoperative and appropriate NRC and local governmental agency notifications were provided.
The inspection had no further questions on these events.
11. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management interviews throughout the report period and on August 11, 1988, with the plant manager and selected members of his staff. The inspection findings were discussed in detail.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings and did not identify as proprietary any material reviewed by the inspection during this inspection.
The licensee was informed that the items discussed in paragraph 7 and 9 were closed. A second example of a violation issued in IR 88-20 involving an inadequate procedure used for calculating RCS leadkage was identified.
l