IR 05000364/1980010
| ML19318B910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1980 |
| From: | Moon B, Upright C, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B905 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-364-80-10, NUDOCS 8006300278 | |
| Download: ML19318B910 (4) | |
Text
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
o g
r REGION 11
/[
o, 101 MARtETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100
'
%
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303o3
,
Report No. 50-364/80-10 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street
'
Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Facility Name:
Farley 2 Docket No. 50-364 License No. CPPR-86 Inspection at Farley site near D.othan, Alabama Inspectors:
//
///f/
H.' L. Vniten"er
-
Date Signed 6.:L,
?rh u s/a/ro B. T. Moon Date Signed g
Approved by:
[//
J
[80 C'. M.~Upri Ac g Section Chief, RONS Branch JTatepigned Inspection on April 28 - May 1, 1980 Areas Inspected j
This routine, announced inspection involved 59 inspector-hours on site in the areas of inspection of certain safety-related piping support and restraint systems at a primary system temperature of 547 degrees Fahrenheit; review of certain thermal expansion data; and evaluation of certain problems which
occurred during plant heatup.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
.
~.3,,,
-
.
.
^8006s00g~7g
.
.
'-
,
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
,
- G. Harriston, Plant Manager s
J. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- D. Mansfield, Startup Superintendent L.' Ward, Startup Supervisor K. Burr, Startup Supervisor Other Organizations Bechtel
- R. Rowley, Startup Engineer P. Dell Arciprete, Stress Engineer Daniel Construction M. Hickman, Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- W. Bradford, Senior Resident Inspector
.
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 1, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. These findings are discussed in the details of this report.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
e 5.
Thermal Expansion Test i
..
" -: ;,
.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's performance of piping' and support and restraint inspections and measurements made during the initial plant heatup. The inspectors independently witnessed portions _of several systems at the hot condition (547 degrees Fahrenheit) to verify that the require-ments of Regulatory Guide 1.68, Section 14.1 of the FSAR and test procedure 100-5-004, Hot Functional Piping Thermal Expansion and Restraint Test, were me. _ _.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
w
,
~
i-2-
,
Pertinent aspects of the inspection are discussed below.
a.
Procedure The inspectors confirmed that an approved test procedure (100-5-04)
was in use and maintained at the test control station. Procedure changes, sign off of procedural steps and the test log were reviewed.
No problems were identified in this review.
b.
Data Review The inspectors observed that the licensee was recording the cold and hot positions for spring hangers, mechanical restraints and hydraulic restraints as required by the test procedure and had no questions in this area. Piping movement was measured by remote instrumentation which was recorded and plotted for each 50 degree temperature increment.
The inspectors reviewed a sample of these plots and noted that some systems exceeded the predicted values which were based on a linear expansion from ambient to hot condition.
The licensee stated that the plots were used as a tool to identify problem areas which were then visually inspected for interferences and evaluated for an overstress condition by the stress engineer. During review of a portion of the data, the inspectors identified two plots related to expansion of the auxiliary feedwater system which had decimal errors (i.e., a value of 0.03 was plotted as 0.3).
The licensee agreed that prior to the final approval of the thermal expansion test results the data plots will be reviewed, corrected, and evaluated by a stress engineer to assure that no movement detrimental to the piping systems occurred during system heatup. This item is identified for inspector followup as (364/80-10-01).
c.
System Discrepancies The inspectors reviewed the licensee's methods of identifying and tracking system discrepancies as follows:
(1) System Punch Lists These lists contain system discrepancies identified during a walkdown of the systems by stress engineers to compare the as built system with design drawings.
Problems identified are issued to appropriate groups for resolution.
(2) Pipe Stress Verification P/oblem Sheets
,
This log contains problems identified during system heatup and indicates short term resolutions to allow continued systems heatup.
'
34*
(3) Procedure 100-5-004 The remarks column identifies those supports and restraints which have been adjusted and must be reinspected on a subsequent heatu.
.
'
'
-3-
,
(4). Field Change Requests Field Change Request (FCR) is a form issued to obtain corrective action on identified problems which involve construction action.
The FCR requires engineering review prior to issuance of a work request.
d.
Review of Corrective Action The inspectors selected samples of the above methods to verify that sppropriate corrective action had been implemented as follows:
(1) Punch List of 4/2/80, items 3 and 4 (2) Problem Sheets 020, 049, 050, 061 and 062 (3) Field Change Request Nos. 2M-4159 and 2M-4160 The licensee appears to be implementing the tracking systems and, with two exceptions, the inspectors had no further questions in this area.
The inspectors concerns related to punch list items 3 and 4 which identified missing hangers on the auxiliary feedwater header to steam generator B and recirculation line to the condensate tank. Prior to installation of the hangers on 4/22/80, the auxiliary feedwater system had been in use to feed the steam generators.
Since the correct hangers are now installed, this system would not be identified under the licensee's 79-14 review program for evaluation of possible detri-mental effects to system piping.
In that this appears to be a weakness in the licensee's review program, this matter has been referred to the resident inspector for further evaluation and is identified for followup inspection as (364/80-10-02).
6.
Vibration The licensee stated that no signficant vibration had been identified at plateaus up to 547 degrees Fahrenheit. Also, testing at 547 degrees had i
been completed for charging pump, atmospheric steam dump, and auxiliary feedwater pump recirculation cycling tests without evidence of problems.
The inspectors witnessed the vibration test on the bypass steam dump system j
when valve V 501 A was cycled. There were no apparent vibrations. Also, recordings for the atmospheric relief valves B&C discharge indicated no
'
significant vibrations. Vibration of the primary system with cycling of reactor coolant pumps was not completed at this time. This data will be
'
reviewed under the routine inspection program.
i
.
%;s_.
,
e" $
s a