IR 05000348/1979019

IE Insp Rept 50-348/79-19 on 790508-10.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Pipe Support & Restraint Sys

ML20125A770
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	06/15/1979
From:	Brooks E, Burnett P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20125A765	List: IR 05000348/1979019 ML20125A762
References
50-348-79-19, NUDOCS 7908170234
Download: ML20125A770 (4)

Text

.. . . _ _

_3 e

s ** * 8 8

1. p %,'o UNIT ED STATES

, [\ ,f[,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION il

.-

g # e t [ 101 MARIETTA si N W sulTE 3100

">q * \ v ,/ ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303

.....

Report No. 50-348/79-19 Licensee: Alsbama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, Alabania 35202 Facility Name: Farley 1) nit 1 Docket No. 50-348 License No. NPF-2 Inspection at Farley Site near Ashford, Alabama Inspector: Ma <M s 8-45Off

' E /" X. Btti f~~~

~

Date Signea Approved by: / /, h & */

P M . Burnett, Acting Se~ction Chief, RONS Branch

-

[XfL/f ~

Date Signed StDetARY Inspection on May 8-10, 1979 Areas Inspected This unannounced inspection involved 14 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of pipe support and restraint system Results Of the areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ,73 7

,

,,

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees G. Hairston, Plant Manager

• R. D. Hill, Jr. , Quality Assurance

• J. V. Kole, Jr., Quality Assurance

• J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager

• K. W. McCracken, Technical Superintendent

• R. M. Coleman, Generating Plant Engineer

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 10, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I abov . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte .

• Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . Inspection of Pipe Support and Restraint Systems The inspector reviewed the following surveillance test procedures for safety related hydraulic snubbers:

Hydraulic Snubber Visual Test - FKP-1-STP-610.2, March 3,1979, Re Hydraulic Snubber Functional Test - FNP-1-STP-610.1, May 5,1979, Rev. 4 The licensee Both procedures were approved by the Operations Superintenden was advised that the procedures are considered inadequate for the following reasons: Hydraulic Snubber Visual Test Procedure Data sheet check tests do not include provisions for documenting the condition of snubbers with regard to:

1) Reservoir fluid level 2) Piston rod position

_

_ _ _ _

,. .

.

• -2-3) Threaded fasteners (locking)

4) Oil leakage 5) Piston rod surface condition (paint, gauges)

6) Alignment b. Hydraulic Snubber Functional Test Procedure Procedure does not include:

1) Guidelines for selection of snubbers for functional testing 2) Application of temperature correction factors The licensee confirmed that the above items will be given further i

consideration for inclusion in the procedures. The first visual inspection of snubbers subsequent to plant startup was conducted January 11, 1978. No snubbers were identified as inoperable. In l

accordance with Technical Specifications the visual inspection period

,

increased to 12 months i 25%. The current visual inspection was i

initiated approximately March 13, 1979, and continued through approxi-mately April 13, 1979. One snubber was identified as inoperable due to loss of hydraulic fluid as a result of a melted fluid reservoir which was in contact with a hot pipe. The inspector, accompanied by the licensees plant engineer, performed an inspection o ' both accessible and inaccessible hydraulic snubbers. The installation and condition of the snubbers appeared acceptable with the exception that paint was discovered on several piston rods, and ball joints had not been lubricate The licensee agreed to correct these conditions prior to plant startu The licensees next scheduled visual inspection will be 12 months 1 25 Fun <.tional testing of snubbers was in progress during the inspector's visit. This was the first functional testing period scheduled subsequent to initial plant startup. As required by the Technical Specifications at least 10 snubbers or at least 101 all safety related snubbers must be fur.ctionally tested, and for each snubber found inoperable an additional 10 snubbers or 10 percent of all snubbers must be teste For each test group selected, the licensee determined that at least one snubber failed to meet the test acceptance criteria for lock-up or bleed rate. Consequently, the licensee has concluded that all safety related snubbers subject to the Technical Specifications requirements for functional testing will be removed, tested, repaired if necessary, and reinstalled. The inspector requested that the licensee provide assorance that subsequent to reinstallation, and af ter the plant has achieved hot functional temperature, all snubbers will be visually inspected for operational readiness, i.e., f reedom f rom interference with adjoining pipes and structures, and with piston rods neither fully extended, retracted or locked up. The licensees inspection records shosed

_ -

m-

'

_ _ , )

.

- ---4

..

.

. 3 evidence of difficulty in locating snubbers and duplicate snubber number Consequently, it cannot be assured that snubbers will be reinstalled in ,

their original location, therefore, snubber piston rod positions could be affected. The licensee agreed to considtr additional visual inspection at plant hot-functional temperature. (This matter is identified for follow-up review 348/79-19-01.) l l

The licensee was requested to provide documentation to confirm that all snubber seals were ethylene-propylene material. The licensee could not produce manufacturer's data for confirmation, but on May 22, 1979, by telephone conversation with Region II the licensee referenced a letter f rom Barton to Moseley in response to ROII-JKR-IEB 75-05. The letter states that ethylene-propylene seals are used in all snubbers.