IR 05000348/1990028
| ML20058B149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1990 |
| From: | Cantrell F, Maxwell G, Morgan M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058B144 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-90-28, 50-364-90-28, NUDOCS 9010290417 | |
| Download: ML20058B149 (9) | |
Text
,
.
.
, [A C8 cog %
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON UNITED ST ATE S
["
.
REGION il
101 unnstsiA sintri N.w.
,
a AT L ANT A, G EORGI A 30323
%,...../
Report Nos.: 50-348/90-28 and 50-364/90-28 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 Inspection Conducted: September 11 through October 12, 1990 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, Alabama inspectors:
_
't+4 2
/ddf!98 G.~F. Maxwell, Senipr ResiQent Inspector Date Signed E&tYY h MkY9 0 M.'J. Morgan, Resident Inspec, tor D6te Signed Approved by:
(k M//f[9d
'
F.
S'. Cantrell, Sectfop' Chief Division of D6te Signed Reactor Projects SUMMARY Scope:
This routine onsite inspection involved a review of operational safety verification, monthly surveillance observation, monthly maintenance observation, information meeting with local officials, evaluation of licensee self accessment capability, and action on previous inspection findings.
Results:
Both units operated at approximately 100 percent reactor power _throughout the reporting period.
A routine refueling ou99e has been scheduled for Unit 2 beginning - on October 13 and ending on December 11.
During the week of-September 17 information meetings were conducted between the NRC and local officials (paragraph 5.0).
The site conducted an annual fire drill on September'12 (paragraph 2.b.(2)).
The resident inspectors expressed a concern to plant management about shift supervisors being required to work prolonged 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts in order to support routine vacation schedules or other routine interruptions (paragraph 2.b.(3)).
The plant maintenance staff conducted infrared thermal inspections as a pilot program being). tested by the new support group (paragraph 4.0 Violation or maintenance - engineering deviations were not identified.
9010290417 901016 PDR ADOCK 05000348 Q
_
,
!
.'
..
,
-
,
.
.
f REPORT DETAILS
.
'
1.
Licensee Employees Contacted R. G. Berryhill, Systems Performance and Planning Manager R. M. Coleman, Modification Manager L. W. Enfinger, Administrative Manager
.
l S. Fulmer, Supervisor Safety Audit and Engineering Review R. D. Hill, Assistant General Manager - Plant Operations l
D. N. Morey,. General Manager - Farley Nuclear Plant C. D. Nesbitt, Technical Manager
J. K. Osterholtz, Operations Manager L. M. Stinson, Assistant General Manager - Plant Support J. J. Thomas, Maintenance Manager
,
.. S. Williams, Training Manager
'
Other licensee employees contacted included, technicians, operations personnel, maintenance and I&C personnel, security force members, and office personnel.
l Acronyms and abbreviations used throughout this report are listed in the l
last paragraph.
Other Inspections:
l September 17-21, Report 50-348,364/90-27, Routine pre-outage l-
-
l radiation health-physics inspection.
September 17-20 NRR licensing project manager for Farley plant L
-
L visited the site to meet local government officials and tour I
local public emergency response facilities.
2.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
-
a.
Plant Tours The. inspectors conducted routine plant tours during this inspection period to verify that the licensee's. requirements and commitments were being implemented.
These tours were performed to verify that:
systems, valves, and breakers required for safe plant operations were in their correct position; fire protection equipment, spare equipment and materials were being maintained and stored properly; plant-
.
operators were aware of the current plant status; plant operations personnel were documenting the status of out-of-service equipment; i
there were no undocumented cases of unusual fluid leaks, piping
.
vibration, abnormal hanger or seismic restraint movements; all reviewed equipment requiring calibration was current; and in general, housekeeping was satisfactory.
~.
.
e e
.
.
Tours of the plant included review of site documentation and interviews with plant personnel. The inspectors reviewed the control room operators' logs, tag out logs, chemistry and health physics logs, and control boards and panels.
During these tours the inspectors noted that the operators appeared to be alert, aware of changing plant conditions and manipulated plant controls properly.
The inspectors evaluated operations shift turnovers and attended shif t briefings.
They observed that the briefings and turnover provided sufficient detail for the next shift crew and verified that the staffing met the TS requirements.
Site security was evaluated by observing personnel in the protected and vital areas to ensure that these persons had the proper authorization to be in the respective areas.
The inspectors also verified that vital area portals were kept locked and alarmed.
The security personnel appeared to be alert and attentive to their duties, and those officers performing personnel and vehicular searches were thorough and systematic.
Responses to security alarm conditions appeared to be prompt and adequate.
Selected activities of the licensee's radiological protection program were reviewed by the inspectors to verify conformance with plant procedures and NRC regulatory requirements.
The areas reviewed included: operation and management of the plant's health physics staff "ALARA" implementation, radiation work pennits 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.
b.
Plant Events and Observations l
(1).MinorRadioactiveGaseousReleaseCausingDeclarationofUnusual Event - Unit 1 At about 4:51 a.m. on September 28 the site declared a Notice of I
. Unusual Event, (NOVE).
The event was declared as a result of radiological gaseous release through the unit vent stack.
The source of the noble gas was attributed to venting the 1A CVCS letdown mixed bed demineralizer.
The venting operations were promptly secured when the plant radiological monitors alanred.
There were no personnel contaminations or measurable intakes of radioactive material for the plant personnel involved in the event.
The plant staff made-the notifications required by procedure EIP-26, Off-site Notification.
After the venting was discontinued the activity.of the noble gases declined. At about 6:10 a.m. the plant secured from.the NOVE status.
Plant incident report 1-90-286 was drafted by the licensee to assure that the conditions and equipment involved in the event is l-evaluated and reported as require y
.
-
,.
..
'
Region 11 health-physics personnel will evaluate this event further during subsequent inspections.
(2) Annual Emergency Fire Drill On September 12, the inspectors observed a scheduled annual fire drill. Those points evaluated during the drill included:
(a) Effectiveness of the site organization in combating a fire of large magnitude.
(b) Comunications and action support with off-site agencies.
(c) Effectivenessofapplicableemergencyprocedures(EPIs).
(d) Testing adequacy of fire emergency related equipment.
The drill simulated a fire in a Unit 1 main power transformer resulting in an explosion.
The transformer fire involved adjacent buildings. The fire caused a Unit 1 turbine trip and a reactor trip.
The fire brigade was alerted and promptly responded.
The fire department arrived to assist the fire brigade in extinguishing the fire.
The drill started at approximately 8:00 a.m. and continued for about one hour.
The drill was evaluated by drill monitors and
,
the results of the evaluation was documented, and recommendations were made for areas which may be improved.
(3) Working Hours of Shift Supervisors The inspectors reviewed the shift schedule for the Unit 1 Shift Supervisors.
The schedule showed that certain supervisors were required to be on shift 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per day for six consecutive days; this schedule was-for' the weeks of October 1 and October 8.-
The inspectors discussed this condition.with the -
plant management and expressed the following concern.
L The technical specifications. Section.6.2.2.f. addresses employees working overtime due to "unforemen problems" or due to " extended' periods of shutdown".
While the technical specification allows management scheduling of overtime for up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> for. unforescen problems, in discussion with one shift supervisor such justification was not apparent.
A supervisor told the inspectors that he was currently working a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> schedule for a prolonged period on a routine basis due
.to another employees being off.
The inspectors reviewed the overtime worked to-date for several of the unit shift supervisors and noted that most of them have worked less than 120. hours overtime total for the year.
However, for two weeks, l
.l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
..
.
.
o preceding the upcoming Unit 2 outage, it appears that placing these supervisors on the above 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts for several day could be viewed as abuse of the overtime policy. The inspectors
'
discussed this concern with plant management. Subsequently, the 5Hft schedule has been revised to substantially reduce the number of hours this employee was required to work.
The inspectors were advised by the licensee that plans are currently being made to reassess temporary assignment of additional personnel to the shifts in order to support future
'
vacation schedules, meeting assignments or other " routine interruptions" to the normal shif t schedule.
No violations or deviations were identifiedt however, the NRC is concerned about the amount and distribution of overtime scheduled during refueling outage, and will continue to tronitor this program.
3.
MonthlySurveillanceObservation(61726)
The inspectors witnessed maintenance surveillance test activities on safety-related systems and components to verify that these activities were performed in accordance with TS and licensee requirements.
These observations included witnessing selected portions of each surveillance, review of the surveillance procedures to ensure that administrative controls and tagging procedures were in force, determining that approval was obtained prior to conducting the surveillance test, and. that individuals conducting the test were qualified in accordance with b
plant-approved procedures.
Other observations included ascertaining that test instrumentation used was calibrated, data collected was within the
,,
specified requirements of TS, any identified discrepancies were properly noted, and the systems were correctly returned to service. The following specific activities were observed:
0-STP-80.1 Diesel Generator 1-2A Operah'ity Test.
1-STP-1.0 Operators Daily and Shift. e.111ance Requirements for Modes 1. 2, 3, 4.
1-STP-22.5 Auxiliary Feedwater System Flow Path Verificativn.
,
2-STP-905.4 Auxiliary Building Battery Quarterly Verification.
'l-STP-33.0A Solid State Protection System Train A Operability Test.
No violations or deviations were identified.
The results of the inspections in this area indicate that the program was effective with
'-
respect to meeting the safety objectives.
'
.
n
-
-.
-
.,. -
'
!
Y t
l
'
4.
Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)
The inspectors reviewed maintenance activities to verify the following:
-
maintenance personnel were obtaining the appropriate tag out and clearance approvals prior to commencing work activities; correct documentation was available for all requested parts and material prior to use; procedures were available for all requested parts and material prior to use; procedures were available and adequate for the work being ;ondeted; t
maintenance personnel performing work activities were que 41fied to accomplish these tasks; activities reviewed were not violiting any e
limiting conditions for operation during specific evo'utions; post-maintenance testing activities were completed; eM squipment was i
properly returned to service after the completion ci work activities.
Activities reviewed included:
T MWR 203544A Inspect and repair the power operator for lube oil
-
temperature regulating valve - emergency diesel generator
>
1-2A.
"
MWR 213000 Unit 1, replace shaf t for CCW pump 1B.
HWR-229841 Unit 1, "B" main feedwater, handwheel for flow control valve N1N21V909B does not operate the valve properly.
_
WA-W00337247 Unit 2, conduct routine process inspections on the electrical power supply circuit breaker for the pressurizer variable heaters - 2C.
'
-
WA-90390:
Unit 1, conduct base line infrared inspection of I
electrical cubicles and load centers.
The infrared thermd inspections authorized by WA-90390 were conducted a:
-part of a pilot program being tested by the new maintenance engineering.
support group.
The information which was gathered during the inspections i
y is being evaluated and the merits of purchasing similar infrared equipment'
for the plant maintenance staff are being considered.
The resident i
-
inspectors observed the application of the infrared test equipment'when it
!
-
was being used in Unit I turbine building )on the 1A turbine EH pump motor,
-
i on-600 voit switch gear 1Q (N1R16B503-N, and the Unit 1 auxiliary
-
building on 600 load centers 1-D (Q1R16B006-A) and 1-A (01R16B002-A). The
!
inspectors were informed by the site maintenance supervision that infrared inspection is just one of the several techniques which are being-
,
,,
considered as a part of the reliability improvement program for plant equipment. _ The' use of infrared thermal inspection for plant equipment is an indicator that the plant maintenance program is being upgraded by the-
new maintenance engineering support group.
!
'No violations or deviations - were identified.
The results of the l
-
inspections in this-area indicate that the program was effective with
=
{'
respect to meeting the safety objectives.
,
I i
i
.
.
,.
,
!
5.
Information Meeting With Local Officials (94600)
'
During the week of September 17 the senior resident inspector and the NRR licensing project manager conducted information meetings with the local i
public officials for the area surrounding the Farley Nuclear Plant.
'
During the meetings, emphasis was placed on NRC responsibilities and the plant status.
Information was exchanged about recent emergency preparedness training.and the emergency exercise scheduled for October 24, 1990.
The NRC representatives also toured the emergency response facilities located in Early County, Georgia and Houston County, Alabama.
6.
Evaluation of Licensee Self-Assessment Capability - PORC Meeting (40500)
,
On October 11, the inspectors attended the regularly scheduled quarterly meeting. of the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC).
The PORC's function is to advise the General Manager - Nuclear Plant on all matters related to nuclear safety. The TS requires the PORC to meet at least once per month; however, the PORC normally meets at least once per week.
!
At this meeting, a TS quorum consisting of the Chairman (General Manager -
Nuclear Plant), seven members and several other plant employees were j
present.
A total of four design changes / modifications, one TS change and
seven procedure revisions were reviewed.
The items were approved except i
for the TS change and four EIP procedure changes which were tabled until the next PORC meeting.
Prior -to the meeting each member was provided with an agenda and information on each item to be discussed.
The members appeared to be i
knowledgeable on each item discussed.
The meeting was conducted -in a professional manner.
- No violations or deviations were identified.
-7.
ActiononPreviousInspectionsFindings(92701andTI2515/65)
(0 pen)
Violation 348,364/90-12-01, Inadequate Emergency Lighting : System
!
Operability Test.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's evaluation of
~
-
,
this-item, APC0 letter to RII dated June 26, 1990.
The inspectors noted
actions taken by the licensee to resolve the violation and they found that j
a procedure' has been written to address the monthly preventative
!
maintenance recommendations identified by the manufacturer of the 8-hour
Appendix "R" emergency lighting battery packs. The inspectors also noted'
'
p that procedures have been written.to provide guidance for conducting the
. quarterly and. yearly battery load testing.
These procedures (1-FSP-47, Annual Maintenance of Emergency Lighting and ' l-FSP-48, Quarterly Maintenance of Emergency ' Lighting) have not yet been implemented by the maintenance ' staf f.
The inspectors observed the implementation,of the monthly maintenance procedure (1-FSP-45).
This item remains open pending implementation of the procedures which load
. tests the Appendix "R" batteries (1-FSP-47 and-1 FSP-48).
l
,
c 1 L
,
'
,.
.
.
i
(Closed) TI 2515/65 TMI Item II.K.3.25.B. Power on pump seals. This item is closed, based on letter NRR to APC0 dated July 21, 1982, in response to APC0 letter to NRR.
(Closed) TI 2515/65 TM1 Item II.K.3.5.B. Auto trip of RCPS/ Modifications.
This item is closed, based on NRR letter to APC0 dated July 22, 1988, in
response-to APC0 letter.
The action taken by the licensee was verified by Rll during an Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP) team inspection in April,'1990.
E0P-1, Revision 16 addressed the concern identified by the TM1 item.
"
8.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management l
interviews throughout the report period, and on October 12, 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 ider.tify as proprietary any material reviewed by the
~
. inspectors during this inspection.
Licensee was informed that the items discussed in paragraph 7 were closed, l
l 9.
Acronyms and Abbreviations j
!
-
Abnormal Operating Procedure A0P
-
Administrative Procedure AP
-
L APC0 -
Alabama Power Company
)
Code of Federal Regulations CFR
-
CVCS -
Chemical and Volume Control System Component Cooling Water CCW.-
ECP. -
Emergency Contingency Procedure
[
Emergency Plant implementing Procedure EIP
-
Environmental Qualifications EQ
-
'
Engineered Safety Features
-
Engineering Work-Request EWR
-
Fahrenheit i
F-
-
Gallons Per Minute
!
GPM
-
ISI Inservice Inspection
-
'IST -
Inservice Test Limiting Condition for Operation
.l LCO
-
Motor-Operated Valve
'MOV
-
,
M0 VATS - Motor-0perated Valve Actuation Testing
.j L
.MWR -
Maintenance Work Request
Nonconformance Report
.
!
-
Nuclear: Regulatory Commission
.!
NRC
'
-
NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NRR
-
,
PMD. -
Plant Modifications Department RCP Radiation Control and Protection Procedure i
-
t
,
.
,
.s_
m
..
.~
.. __
_
_
. _. _
,
,
,
e.. stj l
- .
n y
V
- ., i c -
'
+
. -
,
t
,
W a
,
.
)
/.; -
-
~s,
.
.
t
.
.
.
.,
i-Reactor Coolant. System l--
'
'RCS:
-
a $
RHR; -'
!
"
Safety injection -
..
SI=
-
,
-SAER: c Safety: Audit and Engineering Review j:
-SSPS -
Solid _ State Protection-System =
.# '
SPDS'-
' Safety Perameter Display System T
-
'SW
-
-Service Water
_
-
Surveillance Test Procedure
'
i
. Technical Specification
- TS
--
- i TSC
-
,
.,p
.WA-
- Work' Authorization
,1
-
f a
<
i
>
i
.
<
-
I}
.
. :
- t i
i
j.
'
c..
,
t i
.
-
I
..
^k
_
.! k
'
.
.
'
{
~
ii
,
.
p
.
-Ni
-
.
'
n.
,.,.,
..
>
.a
' :)
i
>1'
t g
,.,
i y
-
y,:
.
.,
,
- =
'
- i-
,
1..
-
h
,
,
l '
- >(pw
., )--;. 2 i
+
-
y.
.
,.
p
.
-N
, y' m_
_i>-
<
.-c'o
.,
C*
yr
s g sv
,
>
>
c
.
-t
,
'
4-f 3e 4,-
-"
,t
,-
- s
- n:
.
,
i
.,
'
.
'c (
t i
,,fI
mi"'
.-
,
y
.,
'
'i
$'
- g
'g
'_j
..
,
\\)Y
'
,'
gy
,
,
,
w e.p 4 6.1 i
i
<
c
,
s j
-
} -
'
'Y
)
'
th..- t : _
f?U t?_.
@K-
',4 j
<
cm
.
, -
,
i._
[
.I f E
,
t
- ;g.
r 4;
..
...
?~
_
Ei -.
..e_
_ _. -
_
_