IR 05000364/1980006
| ML19312E636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1980 |
| From: | Chase J, Upright C, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312E633 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-364-80-06, 50-364-80-6, NUDOCS 8006050434 | |
| Download: ML19312E636 (5) | |
Text
o cer i
/
'o*t, UNITED STATES O a!'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
>
-
aeoio~ a I
o,
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303
,
Report No. 50-364/80-06 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name: Farley 2 Docket No. 50-364
'
License No. CPPR-86 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, AL Inspectors:
//
[m}
M 7:T h
H.' L. Whitener Date Signed
_
Y'Y b
D f W. Chase
'~
>
o
%tefgned Approved by: MN
.O T/
42,
C. M. Upright, ing p tion Chief, RONS Branch DageSgned SUMMARY Inspection on April 8-11, 1980 i
Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 48 inspector-hours on site in the areas of program and procedure review for the thermal expansion and vibration testing of safety-related piping systems to be performed in conjunction with hot functional testing; and, inspection of a sample of installed piping supports and restraints.
Results
!
i Of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
!
-
..
.
8006050NY l
Q
..
.
..
.-
......
.
.
.
-
V DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees G. Harriston, Plant Manager
- J. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- D. Mansfield, Startup Superintendent L. Ward, Startup Supervisor
- K. Burr, Startup Supervisor
- N. Kaup, Project Engineer, Construction Other Organizations Bechtel
,
- V. M. Duruvasula, Stress Engineer
- R. L. Rowley, Startup Engineer Westinghouse K. A. Kloes, Engineer L. R. Losebrink, Engineer W. E. Moore, Engineer Daniel Construction M. O. Hickman, Engineer NRC Resident Inspector W. Bradford, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 11, 1980 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The licensee made certain commitments at this meeting which are identified in the details of this report.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected f
- - -
- -,,
-n--
r,,-, - --
-, - - -
-
n,-
,
-,~e,
-
-n
-,,
.
-e
- -,-
-
.
--.
--
.
-
...
...
...
--
.
.
m
-2-4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Thermal Expansion and Vibration Testing of Safety-Related Piping Systems a.
General The inspector reviewed test procedures for monitoring pipe support and restraint systems during thermal expansion and vibration testing of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary and safety-related piping
~ systems. These tests are to be conducted during the initial plant heat up.
The licensee's program appears to meet the requirements of j
Regulatory Guide 1.68 and the applicable portions of Section 3.9 and
-
14.1 of the FSAR.
Pertinent aspects of this review are discussed below.
b.
Procedure Review Proper approvals and technical adequacy of procedures were reviewed for the following:
(1)
100-5-004 dated 2/22/80, Hot Functional Piping Thermal Expansion
- '
and Restraint Test (2)
100-5-005 dated 3/6/80, Not Functional Dynamic Test
'
(3)
100-5-008 dated 2/22/80, Reactor Coolant Loop and Pressurizer Surge Line Vibration Surveillance Test (4)
100-5-009 dated 2/18/80, Reactor Coolant Loop Thermal Expansion Test
,
(5)
100-5-011 dated 3/6/80, Pressurizer Relief System Piping Vibration Surveillance Test c.
Test Program Elements
During review of the above procedures the inspector noted that the following items were included in the licensee's program:
(1) Examination of piping support and restraint systems at various temperature plateaus from ambient to operating temperature.
(2) Examination of pipe support and restraint systems during hot
functional transient testing (i.e., pump and valve operation).
_
(3) Pretest inspection and recording of support and restraint settings.
,., -. -,,., -, _ -.
, _...,.
.,
-..,,
_, - -,
, - - -. - - -, -
-
-,...
, - - - -..
-.,-..
--,n-.,.
-
_ __
. _ -
.. - - - - - - - -
.
h
%
-3-(4) Recording of support and restraint settings at various temperature plateaus.
(5) Established criteria for system performance.
(6) Evaluation of system performance during heat up by qualified personnel.
d.
Licensee Commitments The inspector concluded that the licensee has developed a test program which is consistant with regulatory requirements; however, certain minor problems were indentified during procedure review and discussed with licensee and appropriate contractor personnel. At the exit interview the licensee made commitments to resolve these problems and to clarify the intent of certain statements in the test procedures.
These commitments are as follows:
(1) The pressurizer surge line will be included in the thermal expansion test procedure.
(2) All areas which are shimmed at hot condition will be reinspected at the next heatup.
(3) Any snubbers found to be fully extended or fully retracted will be identified to appropriate personnel for correction of the operating stroke.
(4) System vibration observations performed in an informal manner by assigned system engineers will be formally documented and retained as part of the plant records.
l (5)
If during heatup the reactor coolant loop exceeds the thermal l
expansion predicted values, an evaluation will be performed by appropriate design and analysis groups.
The above items are identified for future inspection as item (364/80-06-01).
6.
Pipe Support And Restraint Inspection A sample of support and restraint installations were inspected in the following systems:
a.
Low Head Safety Injection b.
Resident Heat Removal
!
.
c.
~
-
d.
Auxiliary Steam e.
'
!
I
-
- -
_
-
-.
--
_ _
,
- -.,
- - - -. -
.
_
-4-
'
f.
Steam Generator Blowdown The inspectors found that spring hangers were marked for hot and cold condition and were indicating the cold position.
One apparent problem which was observed related to constant load spring hangers in the pressurizer cubicle. These hangers were missing spacers at the top support point and were supported by threaded bolts. As a result the spring enclosure could rotate at the support point and, in one case, the hanger support tab had worn through the threads of the supporting bolt.
A licensee representative stated that this problem had been identified on the deficiency list. At the exit interview the licensee agreed to inspect for this condition throughout the plant and to review the design adequacy of the supporting system prior to issuance of an operating license. This item is identified for further inspection as item (364/80-06-02).
A common condition related to hydraulic shock restraints was observed during the inspection. A large number of hydraulic snubbers indicated signs of fluid leakage in some degree. At the exit interview the licensee stated that a program of inspection, testing and repair of hydraulic snubbers will be implemented for Unit 2 and will be completed prior to the issuance of an operating license. This matter is identified for future inspection as item (364/80-06-03).
Problems observed and which appeared to be isolated conditions are as follows:
Mechanical snubber SS 12369 was in contact with pressurizer insulation.
a.
b.
Mechanical snubber RCR-95 appears to be fully retracted.
c.
Mechanical sofober SS 12942 appears to lack adequate threading on one base plate colt.
l l
d.
Hydrau*.ic snubber SIR-221 appears to be fully retracted and may be l
under load.
l l
The licencee stated that these items will be inspected and corrected, as necessary, prior to the issuance of an operating If cense. This matter is l
identified for future inspection as (364/80-06-04).
!
- ,.
L
..
,
_
___ _._._.
,
--