IR 05000348/1990004
| ML20055C398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1990 |
| From: | Crowley B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C397 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-90-04, 50-348-90-4, 50-364-90-04, 50-364-90-4, GL-88-14, NUDOCS 9003080390 | |
| Download: ML20055C398 (8) | |
Text
---
..
.
..
.
.
..
..
.,
.
[p rtog%
UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslCN
,
y*-
' ',
REGION 11
g 101 MARIETT A STREET,N.W.
- t ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323 j
..,..
Report Nos.: 50-348/90-04 and 50-364/90-04 Licensee:. Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Docket Nos.:
50-348 and 50-364 License Nos. NPT-2 and NPF-8 Facility Name:
Farley 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: January 29 - February 2, 1990 Inspectors:
/.
[
2 /h YO B.
. frbwl Date Si ned
-
h
, Chief P 3-0 9 o Approved by:
u J.
.Alake Date 31gned M e%alsandProcessesSection E gineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of followup of open items and review of activities relative to defects found in a Unit 1 steam generator tube.
Results No violat%ns or deviations were identified.
For open items reviewed, adequate corrective actions had been completed or initiated.
However, the inspection revealed that the licensee has a poor system for tracking NRC open items and assembling the necessary information for closecut. The Unit I steam generator tube defects were still being evaluated by the licensee and Westinghouse (W).
In addition, techniques fc. evaluating low voltage signals at support plates is being investigated, h
9003080390 900223
- ?;
ADOCK0500pp8 y
FDR i
i
-
,
-
..
REPORT DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
,
- S. Casey, Systems Performance Supervisor
T. Cherry, I&C Maintenance Supervisor L. Enfinger, Administrative Supervisor
',
H. Erbskorn, Sector Supervisor, Mechanical Maintenance
- R. Federico, Maintenance Staff Engineer H. Garland, Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor
'
J. Green, Foreman, Mechanical Maintenance D. Hartline, Performance Engineering Supervisor
!
R. Hill, Assistant General Manager, Plant Operations l
D. McKinney, Manager of Engineering and Licensing
B. Moore, Manger of Licensing l
- D. Morey, General Plant Manager S. Morris, Foreman, Mechanical Maintenance
- J. Thomas, Maintenance Manager
.
.
- L. Stinson, Assistant General Plant Manager, Plant Support J. Wheeler, Foreman, Electrical Maintenance i
J. Woodard, Vice President, Nuclear Generation
-
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
,
craftsmen, technicians, engineers, security force members, QA/QC
personnel, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- G. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector W. Miller, Resident Inspector
- Attended Exit interview t
Acronyms and Initialisms used in this report are listed in the last l
paragraph.
2.
MaintenanceProgramImplementation(62700)
The inspector observed portions of the following in-process Maintenance
,
work to evaluate the effectiveness of the licensee's maintenance
.;
activities:
'
a.
2A Service Water Pump MWR 206884 - 2A Service Water Pump, upper oil reservoir contaminated with water
.
k i
e
,
b j
,
~
l b.
2B Charging Pump i
MWR 206681 - Change-out leaking gasket in CCW piping to pump MWR 185310 - Lube oil tubing leak at inlet to reduction gear oil
!
cooler WA WOO 324017 - Routine pump PM i
c.
IA Service Air Compressor
i MWR 207918 - Replace low pressure piston rings
!
MWR 207732 - Change filter and clean strainer
!
l
'
For the above work activities, the inspector observed portions of work, interviewed maintenance personnel, reviewed in-process documentation, evaluated material control activities, evaluated vendor manual control and evaluated procedure compliance.
The following procedures and documents were reviewed:
,
l
- FNP-0-GMP-0.0, R0, Mechanical Maintenance Precautions and Limitations l
- FNP-0-GMP-9.0, R2, General Pump Inspection
,
- FNP-0-GMP-10.0, R2, General Piping Inspection
!
- FNP-0-GMP-19.0, R2, Inspection of Sump Pumps and Sumps l
l
- FNP-0-MP-27.2, R2, Service Air
'npressor Valve Maintenance
.
- Vendor Manual U-161592, R1, RL Horizontal Compressors, Instructions and Service Manual
- Vendor Manual U-161593, R0, Model RL 1358CB Horizontal Tandem Compressors All work observed was performed in accordance with applicable procedures
-
and manuals. Craft personnel worked in a professional manner and appeared
l to be well qualified for the tasks performed.
For the 2B charging pump L
PM, the inspector noted that the WA specified to " Prime the Gear Drive 011
Pulap", but did not specify the type oil to use. The maintenance mechanic
questioned operations relative to the correct type of oil to use and the correct oil was used (0perations performs most lube work on pumps). When l
questioned by the inspector relative to not specifying the type oil in the WA, maintenance agreed that the WA should specify the oil type or i
reference the Lubrication Manual and stated that the WA would be so revise.
i
.
<
.
-
I During work observations, a general tour was made of portions of the turbine and auxiliary buildings of both units.
In general, housekeeping was found to be good.
The inspector reviewed the licensec's control of maintenance Backlog.
There is no formal procedure for control of backlog. However, the backlog i
appears to be adequately controlled using " Maintenance Department Performance Indicators", which are issued weekly.
Backlog goals are set i
and monitored by management on a weekly basis.
Plant backlog goals for MWRs greater than 90 days old are generally being met. 'However, the number of MWRs greater than one year old has been increasing and in recent i
months is significantly above plant goals. Plant management was aware of i
this and working to reduce the number of MWRs greater than 'one year old.
- i No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Review of Unit 1 Steam Generator (SG) Tube Cracking Problem During the Unit 11989 outage, the licensee pulled two tubes, (R20-C26)
,
and R21-C48), from SG "C" to evaluate Eddy Current Test (ET) indications near the tube sheet.
Although no indications were identified by ET of tube R20-C26 at the support plate, the licensee removed the tube from just below the second support plate to have the first support plate region to examine.
Subsequent metallographic examination by W revealed cracks at the first support plate crevice region where' ET examination did not identify any indications.
The cracks were short tight. OD initiated.
l axial intergranular stress corrosion cracks with a maximum depth of 62
'
percent thru wall.
During the current inspection, the inspector reviewed this' issue with site and corporate licensee personnel.
The following summarizes inspector activities, licensee actions and the status of work in process to resolve this issue.
W the primary ET vendor, has re-reviewed the ET data and identified
-
Ve,ry slight denting at the first support plate.
A very low voltage
,
signal wn identified which could possibly be interpreted as a flaw, but the.ot'. age was too small to put any reliable estimate on it.
The combution of the dent signal, the support plate signal, the deposit signal, and the tightness of the cracks make' detection of the defects very difficult.
At the conclusion of the inspection, ~W was evaluating techniques for detection and sizing of defects exhiblting low voltage signals at the support pl6te region.
The licensee had two other ET vendors and EPRI review the ET data for
-
tube R20-C26.
No indications were confirmed at the support plate by these reviews.
.
-. m
D
.
-
Previous ET data (1984,1985,1986, and 1988) for tube R20-C26 had
-
been re-reviewed by licensee vendors and no defects were detected at the support plate area in question.
Chemical analysis was being performed on the tubes, but results were
-
not complete.
Other Unit 1 ET data was being reviewed to determine time of
-
initiation and growth rates for detectable stress corrosion cracks.
The inspector reviewed portions of the following _ reports for ET
-
testing of Unit 1 SG tubes during the last outage:
W Report - S/G Primary Services Field Services Report for Dctober89 Outage (Unit 1)
CONAM NUCLEAR INC. Report - Eddy Current Data Review - October 1989 W is the primary ET vendor and CONAM provides independent review services.
Review of the CONAM report indicated the following number of support plate indications designated as DSI (Distorted Support Plate Indications).
SG A - 55 SG B - 42 SG C - 56 The licensee indicated that the Rotating Pancake Coil (RPC) is used to determine disposition of DSI indications.
The inspector learned that the licensee had also pulled two tubes
-
from Unit 2 SG C during the last outage (April 1989).
These tubes were pulled to investigate support plate residual signals.
A preliminary W Report dated August 11, 1989, was available for review.
This report revealed that OD initiated axial intergranular stress corrosion cracking was found on tube R16-C50. The difference between cracks in this tube and the Unit 1 tube was that the cracking was muchshallower(22percentoftubewall).
4.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
a.
(Closed)IFI 348/88-14-03, Second Interval Hydrostatic Test Scheduling o
1 l
m
.
.
.
,
,
See NRC Report Nos. 50-348,364/89-21 for details of a previous inspection of this item.
This item concerned tests in the second interval plan which were not scheduled in-accordance with Table IWC-2500-1, Note 5, of the 1983 Edition of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
By letter dated August 3, 1989, NRR requested additional technical justification for deviation from code requirements. The licensee provided the additional justification, as Relief Request (RR) RR-46, in their letter dated October 5,1989.
Inspections were rescheduled to insure that the elapsed time between examinations will not exceed 10 years.
NRR decision on this relief request will complete action on this item, b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 348,364/88-17-01, Technical Justification for Relief From Hydrostatic Testing of Class 3 Piping Systems During Second Interval ISI See NRC Report Nos. 50-348,364/89-21 for details of a previous inspection of this item.
This Item questioned the technical justification for not hydrostatic' testing the majority of ASME Class 3 systems.
Relief request RR-33 had been forwarded to NRR requesting relief based on hydrostatic testing being impractical since these systems operate continuously during all modes of.
operation. The inspector questioned this justification since most of the systems are not required, by Technical Specification, to be
operable in all modes, are designed with more than one train and have sections which can be valved out to accommodate hydrostatic testing.
In response to relief request RR-33, by letter dated August 3,
1989, NRR requested detailed justification demonstrating impracticality of hydrostatic testing the systeres in question.
The licensee revised the scope of Class 3 systems to be. hydrostatic
,
tested and provided justification to NRR by letter dated December 7,
'
1989.
NRR disposition of additional information relative to RR-33 will resolve this issue, c.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 348,364/89-10-02, Vendor Drawing / Manual Control l
l This item questioned the licensee's vendor drawing / manual' control
'
program based on " disaster" seals shown on the TDAFP vendor drawing not being installed. Based on investigation at the time the item was identified, the seals had been deleted prior to plant operations.
The vendor drawing still' showed the seals.
Subsequent to identification of the item, further investigation by the licensee revealed that the seals had been made optional by the vendor and removed prior to pump installation.
This process was covered by correspondence (letters), between the licensee and pump vendor..in 1975, prior to pump installation.
Therefore, no plant design'
document was needed or required.
For reasons unknown, the vendor drawing was never changed to show the seals had been deleted. This condition is a unique situation that should not happen under the L
l l
l
_
i
.
,
i
.
'
i J
vendor drawing / manual control program that has been in effect since l
beginning of plant operations. The program has been improved through a
the years and is covered by procedure FNP-0-AP-4, Control of Plant
!
Documents and Records. The drawing for the TDAFP has been changed.
d.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 348,364/89-10-03, Adequacy of Action
)
to Protect End-Use Devices From Poor Quality Instrument Air
See NRC Report Nos. 50-348,364/89-19 and 89-25 for details of-previous inspections of this item.
This item questioned the
!
licensee's response to GL 88-14, specifically the testing planned
(number of items to be tested and verification of fail-safe position)
'
and protection of.end use devices.
The licensee's u> dated response i
to the GL is dated June 5,1989. A comprehensive list of all safety-related pneumatic equipment has been developed and a review performed to verify the loss of air position.
Equipment on the list not routinely verified to fail to the design loss of air position, by
,
stroke testing, during routine testing, has been designated for j
,
'
testing by the end of the Unit 2 refueling outage scheduled for J
September 1990. This consists of 14 valves for Unit 1, 14 valves for
!
Unit 2, and 2 shared valves.
The Unit 1 valves were tested during the October 1989 outage and the' Unit 2 and common valves will' be
tested during the September 1990 outage.
Where safety-related end use devices are not protected by filters, appropriate filters will be installed by the spring 1991 outage for Unit I and the fall 1990 outage for Unit 2.
Approximately 40 additional protection devices are required for each unit.
PCNs 90-1-6401 (Unit 1) and 90-2-6402
(Unit 2) have been initiated for this purpose.
Completion actions specified'in licensee response should resolve all concerns raised by
'
this item.
e.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 348,364/89-10-04, Lack of Operability Requirements for Emergency Air Compressors
,
see NRC Report Nos. 50-348,364/89-21 and 89-25 for details of q
previous inspection of this item.
This item questions the
,
operability and reliability of Emergency Air Compressors based on the
-
maintenance history prior to 1989.
The reliability appears to have improved significantly since 1988.
A review of the maintenance and surveillance history since the be surveillance failure (March 1989) ginning of 1989 shows only one
'
for one compressor. (IA).
This failure was an instrumentation problem and not a problem with the compressor itself. The compressor could still have-performed its i
function.
In reviewing the maintenance history, it was noted that j
most corrective MWRs have been instrumentation problems and not
problems with the compressors.
f.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 348,364/89-10-05, ASME Section XI l
Procedure Interface
j
,i
-.
.
.
.
.. -.
-
- J.
>--..
.
,
,
\\
s~
,
,
See NRC Report Hos. 50-348,364/89-21 and 89-25 for details of -
,
previous inspections of this item.
This; item concerned a need to clarify procedures to insure that ASME post maintenance testing
>
requirements are met. As indicated in the above two referenced NRC reports, all procedures had been revised except AP-52.
During the
.
?
current inspection, a change. to procedure AP-52 was initiated' to resolve remaining questionc. Issue of the proposed change will
'
provide the proper procedure interface.
Inspection of the above items for closecut revealed that the licensee's system, for tracking and providing information for closeout of NRC open
items, needs to be improved.
There is no system for collecting
information supporting closecut of an item.
Therefore, information needed
,
for closeout is-gathered " piece meal" during the inspection.
This makes review of open items difficult and time consuming for both the inspector and licensee personnel. The licensee acknowledged that their system could be improved to make closeout information more readily available.
,
5.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and results were summarized on February 2,1989, i
with those' persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting-i comments were not received from the licensee.
,
6.
Acronyms and Initialisms
'
ASME - American Society for Mechanical Engineers
+
- Component Cooling Water L
DSI
- Distorted Support Plate Indications EPRI - Electric Power Research Institute ET
- Eddy Current Test GL
- NRC Generic Letter ISI
- Inservice Inspection
>
MWR
- Maintenance Work Request
.
- Nuclear Reactor Regulation
'
- Outside Diameter PCN
- Plant Change Notice
- Preventive Maintenance RR
- Relief Request i
RPC
- Rotating Pancake Coil SG
.
TDAFP - Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump
'
W
.
.
- - -
.