ML20235F490
| ML20235F490 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1987 |
| From: | Bradford W, Dance H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235F455 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-87-13, 50-364-87-13, NUDOCS 8707130413 | |
| Download: ML20235F490 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000348/1987013
Text
i
-/pH REGug%
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
REGION 11
'
o
.'
y
,j
101 MARIETTA STRE ET, N.W.
t
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
.
%
6
%
$
Report Nos.: 50-348/87-13 and 50-364/87-13
Licensee: Alabama Power Company
600 North 18th Street
Birmingham, AL 35291
Docket Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364
License Nos.:
Facility name: Farley 1 and 2
Inspection Conducted: May 18 - June 12, 1987
Inspection at
riey s'te near Doth n, Alabama
/b
Inspector:
L/
W. H. Bradford
Oatt Si ed
Approved by:
C
Aw
7 [ d' 7
41. C. Dance, Section Chief
Ddte Signe'd
Division of Reactor Projects
'
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, onsite inspection entailed: monthly surveillance
observation, monthly maintenance observation, operational safety verification,
and engineered safety system inspection.
Results:
One violation was identified with two examples: a procedure had not
been established for control of testing equipment and material and, failure to
perform post maintenance testing.
8707130413 870702
ADOCK 05000348
G
pyg
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
_ _ ___ ___ - _ _
L
.
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Licensee Employees Contacted
J. D. Woodard, General Plant Manager
D. N. Morey, Assistant General Plant Manager.
W. 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
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 June 10, 1987, with the
general plant manager and selected members of his staff. The licensee
acknowledged the violation identified in Paragraph 7.
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 Item *
See paragraph 7.
- An Unresolved Item is a matter about which more information is required to
determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or deviation.
-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1
.
e
5.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)
The inspector 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:
Containment Integrity Verification Test
STP-14.0
-
2B Diesel Generator Operability Test
STP-80.1
-
2C Diesel Generator Operability Test
STP-80.2
-
STP-22.19
Motor Driven Auxiliary Feed Pump Flow Path Verification
-
Auxiliary Feed Automatic Valve Position Verification
STP-22.18
-
Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Annual Inservice
STP-22.17
-
Test
Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio Calculation
STP-7.0
-
Operations Daily Shift Surveillance Requirement
STP-1.0
-
STP-71.0
Main Control Room Remote Valve Verification
-
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Mont,ly Maintenance Observation (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 standards,
and were in conformance with Technical Specifications.
The following items were considered during the review:
limiting
conditions 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 to returning components or systems to service; quality
control records were maintained; activities were accomplished by qualified
personnel; 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:
.
- - - _ _ _
_
_
3
.
D/G 1-2A starting air compressor PM's
Unit 2 turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump thrust bearing
balancing and lube oil classification change
,
Unit 1 turbine driven auxiliary feed pump steam supply valve
HV-3226 1B service water pump overhaul
1B auxiliary buildir.g 125V DC battery (3 cells replaced)
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Op'
tional Safety Verification (71707)
The inspector observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logs
and conducted discussions with control room operators during the report
period.
The inspectors verified the operability of selected emergency
systems, reviewed tagout records, and verified proper return to service of
affected components.
Tours of the auxiliary building, diesel building,
turbi~ building and service water structure were conducted to observe
pl a n'.
equipment conditions, including fluid leaks and excessive
vibrations. The inspector verified compliance with selected Limiting
Conditions for Operations (LCO) and results of selected surveillance
tests.
The verifications were accomplished by direct observation of
monitoring instrumentation, valve positions, switch positions, accessible
hydraulic snubbers, and review of completed logs, records, and chemistry
results.
The licensee's compliance with LC0 action statements were
reviewed as events occurred.
,
The inspector routinely attended meetings with certain licensee
management and observed various shift turnovers between shift supervisors,
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
organization 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.
The inspector found that the licensee had not established and implemented
procedures establishing requirements for control of test equipment and
material storage following maintenance activities in safety related areas.
Certain safety related areas contained testing equipment for electrical
breaker testing, lifting devices for rod control MG set and ladders. None
of the equipment was secured to prevent potential movement and damage to
adjacent safety related equipment in case of a seismic event. Absence of
precedures to cover storage precautions of mobile equipment is the first
example of a violation of TS 6.8.1.a (348,364/87-13-01).
- _ _ _ _ _
4
.
On May 10, 1987 at 11:05 p.m. the licensee found 1B RHR pump room cooler
inlet and outlet valves (V021B and V0178) closed during the performance of
STP 24.5, Service Water Flow Path Verification.
The valves were
immediately opened and an investigation was initiated.
(See Unresolved
Item 364/87-10-02) . The licensee had completed changing service water
carbon steel piping to stainless steel piping on the room cooler.
A
hydrostatic test was performed and maintenance work requests 138205 and
157474 were released and signed off as functionally accepted on May 8,
1987 at 12:30 p.m.
At that time IB RHR pump room cooler was improperly
returned to service.
This was in violation of Administrative Procedure
(AP) 52, Equir at Status Control and Maintenance Authorization, Section
7.5.9 which
wra that proper test and restoration be completed prior
to functionu
Wante of the work request.
It further states that
those systems '
o Appendix III of AP-52 require that verification of
line up be per
prior to return to service. The service water system
is among thosa
.s listed in Appendix III.
modification was planned to be completed within
The service water i i ,,
the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LC0 peried .llowed by TS 3.5.2 Action statement a.
However,
the room cooler was out of service in excess of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> befote actual
valve verification by STP 24.5 found the mispositioned valves.
It was
recognized that the lack of room cooling could reduce the service life of
)
the 1B RHR pump motor if it had been required to operate.
It was not
required to operate.
1A RHR pump room cooler was operable during this
period. This event is described in Licensee Event Report 348/87-09.
Failure to properly restore the Unit 1B RHR pump room cooler to service
following maintenance as required by AP 52 is a second example of a
violation of TS 6.8.1.a and also resulted in exceeding the Action
statement a of TS 3 3.2 (348,364/87-14-01).
On June 9,1987, at approximately 10:30 a.m. the licensee attempted to
perform FNP-0-PMP 1087, Test For Isolation For Fires Dampers In The
)
Control Room Air Conditioning System.
The NRC Resident Inspector was
present to observe the test. The test could not be performed because both
trcin "A"
and "B" fire dampers were found to be inoperable.
Links were
found open in field terminal boxes on both trains; A wiring disorder was
found in a "A" train terminal box.
The licensee is investigating this
incident.
The inoperability of the control room fire dampers is
unresolved pending further evaluation (348,364/87-13-02).
8.
Engineered Safety Systems Inspection (71710)
The inspectors performed various system inspections during the inspection
period.
Overall plant conditions were assessed with particular attention
to equipment condition, radiological controls, security, safety, adherence
to technical specification requirements, systems valve alignment, and
locked valve verification.
Major components were checked for leakage and
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _
5
.
.
any general conditions that would degrade performance or prevent
fulfillment of functional requirements.
The inspectors verified that
approved procedures and up-to-date drawings were used.
Portions of the following systems were observed for proper operation,
valve alignment and valve verification:
Auxiliary Feedwater Systems
Chemical Volume Control Systems
Service Water Systems
Boric Acid Transfer System
Containment Spray System Including Chemical Additive System
Residual Heat Removal System
The systems were assessed to be operable in accordance with the Technical
Specifications, appropriate drawings, procedures, and the Final Safety
Analysis Report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
I
{
l
..
-_