ML20215B404
| ML20215B404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1987 |
| From: | Bradford W, Dance H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215B306 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-87-10, 50-364-87-10, NUDOCS 8706170316 | |
| Download: ML20215B404 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000348/1987010
Text
.
.
pnOtop
UfdlVED STAVES
NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
'
REGION 11
g
,j
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
'g
ATL ANTA, GEORGI A 30323
'+4.....
. Report Nos.: 50-348/87-10 and 50-364/87-10
Licensee: Alabama Power Company
600 North 18th Street-
Birmingham, AL 35291
Docket Nos.:
50-348 and 50-364
License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8-
Facility'Name: Farley "l' and 2
Inspection Conducted: April 11 - May 18, 1987
Inspection at3Farley' site near Do han, Alabama
Inspectors:
(
1d 4 b+
b3 (7~
W 'H.
adfofd
t
'Da e Signed
'
Approved by:
b
h
[p J I7
H.' C. Dance, Section Chief
Dat6 Signed
Division of Reactor Projects
SUMMARY
Scope: This routine, onsite inspection entailed: monthly surveillance observa-
tion, monthly maintenance. observation, operational safety verification,-
licensee event reports,. followup of plant events, and service water modifica-
tion.
Results:
One violation was identified which involved failure to follow
approveo orocedures (Paragraph 7),
e706170316$$60
48
ADOCK
G
.
.
-l
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Licensee Employees Contacted:
J. D. Woodard, General Plant Manager
D. N. Morey, Assistant General Plant Manager
k'. D. Shipman, Assistant General Plant. Manager
R. D. Hill, Operations Manager
C. D. Nesbitt, Technical Manager
R. G. Berryhill, Systems Performance and Planning Manager
L. A. Ward, Maintenance Manager
L. W. Enfinger, Administrative Manager
B. Moore, Operations Supervisor
J. E. Odom,. Operations Unit Supervisor.
- l
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
J. K. Osterholtz, 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.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management
interviews throughout the report period and on May 18, 1986, with the
general plant manager and selected members of his staff. The inspection
findings were discussed in detail. The licensee.did not identify as
proprietary any material reviewed by the inspector during 'this inspection.-
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702)
This was not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information 'is required to
determine whether they are acceptable or may involve . violations- or
deviations. One unresolved item is identified in paragraph 10.
5.
Monthly Surveillance Observation.(61726)
The inspectors observed and reviewed Technical Specification required -
surveillance testing and verified that testing was. performed in' accordance
with adequate procedures; that test instrumentation was calibrated; that-
limiting conditions were met; that test results met acceptance criteria
and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the
test; that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly
reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel; and that
personnel conducting the tests were qualified. The inspector witnessed /
reviewed' portions of the following test activities:
t
'
.
.
2
STP - 70,0 - Containment Sump Surveillance
.
..
STP - 33.0A - Solid State Protection System Train "A" Operability Test
STP - 20.0
"A" Train Penetration Room Filtration System
-
STP - 43.1
Spent Fuel Pool Ventilation Isolation Test
-
STP - 71.0 - Main Control Room Remote Valve Verification
Service Water System Flow Path Verification
STP - 24.5
-
STP - 80.16 - Degraded Grid Voltage.and Loss of Voltage Protection
Relays Operability Test - Modes 1,2,3,4
STP - 10.0
. ECCS Subsystem Flow Path Verification Test
STP - 33.1A - Safeguards Test Cabinet. Train "A" Functional Test
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
MonthlyMaintenanceObservation(62703)
Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and components
were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance.
with approved procedures, regulatory guides, industry codes and :tandards,
and were in conformance with Technical Specifications.
The folloving items were considered during the review:
limiting condi-
tions for operations were met while components or systems were removed
from service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating : the work;
activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected
as applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior
i
to returning components or systems to service; quality control records
l
were maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified personnel;
l
parts and materials were properly certified; radiological controls were
)
implemented; and fire prevention controls were implemented. Work requests-
were 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:
2C charging pump gear oil cooler cleaning
2A charging pump PM's
2A BAT LT-106
2B Diesel Generator air compressor
Floor drain tank filter replacement
,
Diesel engine fire pump
i
2B charging pump room cooler
2B diesel generator #10 cyli>>tr injector
i4c violations or deviations w:re identified.
7.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
The inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed. applicable logs
and conducted discussions with control room operators during the report
period.
The inspectors verified the 'perability of selected emergency
systems, reviewed tagout records, and verified proper return to service of
affected components.
Tours of the auxilict, building, diesel building,
turtine building and service water structure were conducted' to observe
?
1
!
_
.
3
plant equipment conditions, including fluid leaks and excessive vibra-
tions. The inspector verified compliance with selected Limiting Conditions
for Operations (LCO) and results of selected.surve'ilance tests.
The
l
verifications were accomplished by direct observa son of monitoring
]
instrumentation, valve positions, switch positions, accessible hydraulic
'
snubbers, and review of completed logs, records, and chemistry results.
j
The licensee's compliance with LC0 action statements were reviewed as
events occurred.
The inspectors routinely attended meetings with certain licensee manage-
ment and observed various shift turnovers between shift supervisor, shift
foremen and licensed operators. These meetings and discussions provided a
daily status of plant operations, maintenance, and testing activities in
progress, as well as discussions of significant problems.
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 the organiza-
tion of the security force; the establishment and maintenance of gates,
doors, and isolation zones; that access control and badging were proper;
and procedures were followed.
On April 27, 1987 at approximately 7:30 a.m., the operator at-the-controls
(0ATC) reactor operator position on Unit 1 control board was left
unattended for approximately 20 seconds.
Even though the position was not
properly attended by the plant operator the shift supervisor, whose desk
is within the designated 0ATC boundries, took over the 0ATC operator
functions when it was noted that he was not within his designate area.
This event was caused by a breakdown in communications. The 0ATC operator
needed to replace a chart recorder with new chart paper. The chart paper
storage is behind the emergency power panel but still inside the main
test procedure (STP) at the balance-of-plant (80P) perform a surveillance
control room,
The unit operator was preparing to
control board which is
behind the main control board.
The 0ATC told the unit operator he would
be right back.
Apparently the unit operator did not hear this.
Both
operators turned away from each other and proceeded out of the 0ATC area.
The 0ATC violated section 3.1.13.5 of Administrative Procedure 16 " Conduct
of Operations, Operations Group" which require that the 0ATC shall under
no circumstances leave the at-the-controls area without obtaining a
qualified relief operator.
The shift supervisor was pressed into service
as the 0ATC operator without proper notification and briefing as required
by plant procedures.
This is a violation 50-348/87-10-01.
The license'e
initiated immediate corrective action which required that all plant
operators read the applicable sections of AP 16.
The duties of the
control room operators have been redefined as well as the boundaries of
the 0ATC operator.
Training was held for all licensed shift personnel and
was documented by training attendance sheets.
No other violations or deviations were identified.
L
l
,
.
l
4
+
8.
Licensee Event Reports
The following Licensee Event Reports (LERs) were reviewed for potential
generic problems to determine trends, to determine whether information
included in the report meets the NRC reporting requirements and to
s
consider whether the corrective action discussed in the report appears
1
appropriate.
Licensee action, with respect to selected reports, were
J
reviewed to verify that the event had been reviewed and evaluated by the
licensee as required by the Technical Specification; that corrective
!
action was taken by the licensee; and that safety limits, limiting safety
j
setting and LCOs were not exceeded.
The inspector examined selected
i
incident reports, logs and records, and interviewed selected personnel,
j
The following reports are considered closed:
i
Unit 1 LERs
LER 87-06 -
Personnel error results in missed fire watch.
This
l
licemee identified violation meets the requirements of
'
I
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section V and therefore, this
!
violation is not cited.
l
Reactor trip due to source range detector failing high
LER 87-07
-
No violations or deviations wert identified.
9.
Follow up of Plant Events (93702)
On May 14,1986 at 10:45 a.m. Unit 1 tripped from 100% power from steam
l
flow greater than feed flow coincident with low steam generator level in
!
I
10 steam generator.
The engineered safeguards systems were not
I
challenged.
The i, rip occurred as a result of operator error.
The
operator was running two diesel generators. While preparing to remove one
l
of the diesel generators from service he inadvertently opened the wrong
electrical breaker. The breaker which was opened fed 4160V buss 1H. This
buss did not auto fast transfer to its alternate feeder. This denergized
Reactor Coolant Pump 1C as well as motor control centers (MCC). The MCC's
which supply power to the hydraulic oil pumps on 1A and IB steam generator
turbine feed pumps lost power which caused the main feed pump turbines to
trip.
The licensee is investigating the auto fast transfer on 1H buss.
The inspector had no further questions.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Service Water Modification to 1B RHR Room Cooler.
The licensee completed the change out of two-inch and under carbon steel
pipi'1g to stainless steel piping on the service water cooling to 1B RHR
pump room cooler.
The work was completed under PCN 584-1-2914 and
controlled under MWR 157474 and MWR 138205,
i
l
i
t-
!
. - _ _ _ .
.-
g
--
,
1
,
1
5
1
During the performance of STP. 24.5, Service Water System Flow Path.
i
.
Verification Test, the licensee found service water valves 17B and 21B
closed.
The v61ves' are the inlet and outlet valves for 18 RHR room -
I
cooler.
The valves were realigned to the proper open position.
The
valves were determined to be closed for approximately 61 hours7.060185e-4 days <br />0.0169 hours <br />1.008598e-4 weeks <br />2.32105e-5 months <br />. This is
within the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> period allowed. by Technical' Specification 3.5.2. -The
{
valves were listed on the hydrostatic test valve , lineup sheet to be
j
positioned open.' There is no documentation.which indicates. closure of_the'
valves;
The MWR's do not list 17B and 21B as valves to be manipulated .
.since they are not hydro test boundary valves.
This item is unresolved,
,
pending further review (348/86-10-02).
-1
11. Semi-Annual Effluent Release Report (90713)
Technical Specification 6.9.1.8 requires the licensee :to submit within
60 days after January 1 and' July 1 of' each year, routine radioactive
effluent release reports covering the operation : f the unit during the
j
o
previous six months.
The licensee's Semi-Annual Radiological Effluent-
Release Report for July 1,1986, 'through December 31, 1986, was received.
1
February 23, 1987.
The effluent release data summarized in ' the. table-
below was obtained from current and previous Semi-Annual Effluent. Release
Reports
,
,
Effluent Release Summary for Farley
Units 1 and 2
Liquids (curies)
Calendar
Fission and
Year
Activation Products
i
1984
1.50 E-1
7.79 E+2
,
1985
1.05 E-1
1.10 E+3
1986
1.85 E-1
1.34 E+3
!
1
Gases (curies)
Calendar
Fission and
Year
Activation Products
lodines
1984
7.72 E+3
7.22 E-3
2.71 E+2'
l
1985
2.37 E+3
5.84 E-3
4.70 E+2-
1986
3.12 E+3
2.02 E-3
2.15 E+2
,
,
1
i
l
--
.
.
6
It should be noted that gaseous releases from the plant have decreased
from 1984 values.
Also, reported quantities of gaseous fission and
activation prooucts and iodines were less than the 1985 averages of
gaseous releases per unit for 21 operating PWRs in Region II (5180 curies
and 0.06 curies respectively). Liquid releases of fission and activation
products did not vary significantly from the 1984 values but were below
the 1985 average liquid release per unit of 1.35 curies. However, liquid
4
tritium releases were approximately 1.5 times the 1C'35 average of
420 curies per unit.
No uncontrolled releases of either liquid or gaseous
effluents were reported for calendar year 1986.
Technical Specification 6.9.1.8 requires the radioactive effluent release
i
report to be submitted 60 days after January 1 of each year and to include
!
an assessment of radiation doses to the likely most exposed member of the
j
public from reactor releases during the previous 12 consncutive months,
i
I
The assessment of the radiation doses is to ba performed in accordance
!
with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM).
A summary of the 1984,
1985 snd 1986 annual doses to the likely most exposed number of the public
is presented in the table below:
j
8
Dose Summary:
Farley Units 1 and 2
Liquid Effluent Pathway
Calendar
Total
i
vear
Body (mrem)
Thyroid (mrem)
GI-LLI(mred
!
1984
2.1 E-1
2.2 E-2
3.7 E+1
1985
3.2 E-2
8.7 E-3
6.4 E-2
1986
6.1 E-2
1.9 E-2
1.4 E-1
Gaseous Effluent Pathway
Calendar
Total
Year
Body (mrem)
Skin (mrem)
1984
3.7 E-1
7.2 E-1
1985
1.3 E-1
3.0 E-1
1986
1.2 E-1
2.7 E-1
The inspector noted that the reporting requirements for the Semi Annual
Effluent Release Report as specified by the technical specifications and
the applicable portions of Regulatory Guide 1.21 were met.