UNITED STATES# #o*

! f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION5 E REG]ON 11

2o 101 MARIETTA ST N.W.. SUITE 3100ATt.ANTA, GEORGIA 30303

.....

Report Nos. 50-348/81-11 and 50-364/81-14

Licensee. Alabama Power CompanyE00 North 18th StreetBirmingham, AL 35202

Facility Name: Farley Nuclear Plant

Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-36A

License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8;

Inspection at Farley Site near Dothan, Alabama .

Inspectors: i fA- v 5.- T ~ . E'~

W. H, Bjadford, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed

! |l x_

/- t .

- ,-;-i: ;- -: , . . , . /,,. . '

r i Date SignedT. A. Pe,ebleg -

VR . n .

,

Approved by: ;$-r' P ..Y ...I & b _- - ?''~

Paul J. Kellogg, Acting Chief, Reactor Project Date SignedBranch'2, Division of Resident and ReactorProject Inspection

SUMMARY

Inspection on May 13, 1981 through June 15, 1981

Areas Inspected

This rcutiae inspection involved 196 hours on site by the resident inspectors inoperational safety verification, monthly maintenance observation, Unit 2lice.ising condition, Unit 2 startup testing, independent inspection effort,review of plant operation, and plant trips.

Results

Of the 7 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were found in 6 areas; 1violation was found in 1 area (Failure to follow procedues paragraph 5).

.

.

.

8109010599 810814'"

PDR ADOCK 05000348'

G PDR, ._ ._ . _ _ - _ _ __ _ --. , _ _ , - - _ . -

- . _____

.

..

.,,

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Licensee Employees

W. G. Hairston, Plant ManagerJ. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant ManagerD. Morey, Operations SuperintendentR. S. Hill, Operations SupervisorW. D. Shipman, Maintenance SuperintendentR. W. McCraken, Technical SuperintendentD. E. Mansfield, Unit 2 Startup SuperintendentC. Nesbitt, C&HP SupervisorL. Williams, Training SuperintendentW. C. Carr, Supervisor of SAERK. W. Kale, SAER EngineerR. D. Rogers, Technical SupervisorR. H. Marlow, Engineering SupervisorL. A. Ward, Planning SupervisorR. G.Berryhill, Systems Performance and Planning Superintendent

Other licensee employees contacted included technicals, operating personnel,maintenance and I&C personnel, security force members and office pesonnel.

* Attended exit interview

2. Exit Interview

The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 22, 1981 andJune 10, 1981, with the plant manager and selected members of his staff.The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.

3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings

(Closed) 50-348/80-42-01, 50-364/80-53-01

This violation concerned evidence of smoking in the no smoking area of thediesel generator building. The licensee has initia'ted corrective actionwhich has been reviewed by the inspector. The inspector has no furtherquestions.

4. Unresolved Items

Unresolved. items were not identified during this inspection.

5. Operational Safety Verification

The inspectors observed control room operations, reviewed applicable logsand conducted discussions with control room operators during the report

L. .

. _

-_ - - ..

.

..

..,

'

2

1

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, diesel, and turbine buildings |

were conducted to observe plant equipment conditions including potentialfire hazards, fluid leaks, and excessive vibrations and to verify thatmaintenance requests had been initiated for equipment in need ofmaintenance. The inspectors by observation and direct interview verifiedthat the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with thestation security plan.

,

|

The inspectors observed plant housekeeping / cleanliness conditions and j-verified implementation of radiation protection controls. The inspectorswalked sown the accessible portions of various safety-related systems onUnits 1 and 2 to verify operability. The inspectors also witnessed portionsof the radioactive waste system controls associated with radwaste shipments.,

These reviews and observations were conducted to ascertain that facilityoperations were in conformance with regulatory requirements, technicalspecifications and administration procedure No. 16, (Conduct of operation -'

; Operations Group).

During inspector observation of Unit 1 control board instrumentation oni May 20, 1981, the inspector found one channel of the core subcooling monitor

out of service. The control room operator and shift supervisor had notnotcd this condition. Subsequent investigation revealed that the channelhad been out of service for modification since May 16, 1981. Thisinformation had not been passed on to succeeding shift personnel by shiftturnover logs or log book entries.

On June 5, 1981, after a reactor trip on Unit No. 2, the digital rodpositf on indicator system showed control rod J-7 to not be in the fullyinserted position as required. The operator action was in accordance withapproved emergency operating procedures. The control room operator was not

i

| aware that ore digital rod position indicator system had been diagnosed onJune 3,1981, as not responding correctly. Corrective maintenance had notyet been performed and the inoperative status had not been passed on tosucceeding shifts by shift turn over logs or by operator log book entry.Proper knowledge of this condition would have allowed the operator to morereadily respond to the other plant conditions following the reactor trip.The above are examples of. failure to follow procedures by not turning oversignificant equipment deficiencies to succeeding shifts and of not being

i aware of control board parameters as required by Administrative ProcedureNo.16 " Conduct of Operation - Operations Group". This is an apparent

| violation of section 6.8 of the Technical Specification. (50-348/81-11-01and 50-364/81-14-01) .'

6. Monthly Maintenance Observation|

Station maintenance activities of safety-related systems and components wereobserved / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with

.

- , - - ve.- - . - - c - ,-. - , r , - - -

_ - - _ - __. . - - -. -.

'

..

, .,

J

'

3

approved procedures, regulatory guides and industry codes or standards andin conformance with technical specifications.

! The following items were considered during this review: the limitingconditions for operation were met while components or systems were removedfrom service; approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work;activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected as

i applicable; functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior toreturning components or systems to service; quality control records weremaintained; activities were accomplished by qualified oersonnel; parts andmaterials used were properly certified; radiological controls wereimplemented; and, fire prevention controls were implemented.

i Work requests were reviewed to determine the status of outstanding jobs andto assure that priority is assiged to safety-related equipment maintenancewhict may affect system performance.

The following maintenance activities were observed / reviewed:

! 1. Repair of 1-C and 2-C diesel thrust bearing

; 2. Repair of 1-C diesel jacket cooling water|

| 3. Repair of Unit 2 main feed water regulating valve.

| Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

7. Monthly Surveillance Observation

, The inspector obsarved technical specifications required surveillance| testing and verified that testing was performed in accordance with adequate! procedures, that test instrumentation was calibrated, that limiting

conditions for operation were met, that removal and restoration of theaffected components were accomplished, that test results met acceptancecriteria requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than theindividual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified duringthe testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate managementpersonnel.

The inspector witnessed / reviewed portions of the following test activities:

FNP-1-STP-28.1-1-C & 2C Diesel Generator Operability TestFNP-1-STP-1.0 - Operability Daily and Shift Surveillance Performance

RequirementFNP-1-STF-9.0 - RCS Leakage TestFNP-1-STP-27.1 - AC Source VerificationFNP-1-STP-22.11 - Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feed Pump Inservice

Inspection-

FNP-1-STP-109 - Power Range Neutron Flux Calibration

Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.,

|

!

'

_ ,-. . _ _ . . _ . . _ _.- - _ _ - - .._

.- . - __ _ . _ _. _,_

! .

.

.. -j

4

:

8. Unit No. 2 Licensing Condition

; The inspectors verified by direct observation and reviewed records that theLicensing Conditions which were required to be corapleted prior to exceeding5% power had bean completed. The following is a tabulation:

; 1. License Condition C.9.a

The augmented low power tests had been sat.Lfactorily completed,reviewed and the report sent to NRR on May 18, 1981;

2. License Condition C.10

The post accident sampling system was fully operational (Task ActionItem II.B.3);

'''

3. License Condition C.11 !

The training for mitigating core damage was completed (Task Action ItemII.B.4);

4. License Condition C.12.a

The tests-to demonstrate manual operation of an atmospheric steam dumpvalve were completed;

i

E. License Condition C.13,

The reset circuits for the containment air mixing fans, containmentpurge isolation valves, and auxiliary feedwater pump discharge valves;

i had been modified and tested and applicable procedures were changed;

; 6. License Condition C.21.F(a)

The capability for continuous sampling of plant gas effluents was| installed and operational. (Task Action Item II.F.1).

9. Unit 2 Startup Testing

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's analysis of the low power physicstest program for the test results that did not meet the Westinghouse designcriteria. The deviations between measured values and review criteria was *

determined to be within fuel manufacturing tolerance and therefore noretesting was necessary: The inspectors had no further questions on theresults which included the measured boron concentration value formaintaining a critical condition with all rods out, with Control Bank Dinserted, with Control Banks 0 and C inserted and with all Control Banksinserted.

The inspector witnessed portions of the augmented low power tests on allshif ts and fully reviewed the results of all tests. The, inspector found the

||

l

!..- -- .. _ - - _ _ _ , _ - _ - - _ - _ _ . . _ , . , -. . . - - . - . , . ... .--.-_,_, _ . . - .

_. - ._. _ . . _ _ _

.

. .,

5

ii

program to be successfully completed with all licensed personnel having: observed testing.;

The inspectors witnessed portions of the following power escalation testingon all shifts and fully reviewed the test results and evaluations of all

i testing date. The performance of each test was evaluated against therequirements of ANSI N 13.7-1972, Section 6.0, " Test and Inspection

| Procedures," ANSI N 45.2-1971, Section 12, " Test Control", FSAR Chapter 14,; " Initial Tests and Operations", and Regulatory Guide 1.6,1.9 and 1.41.j Testing was satisfactory except as noted:i

I a. 100-7-006 Feedwater Thermal Expansion

b. 500-7-050 Radiation Survey

c. 500-7-301 Recording Setpoint Data

d. 063-7-704 Automatic Steam Generator Level Tests

e. 045-7-542 Feedwater Pump Speed Control Test

f. 056-7-703 Automatic Reactor Centrol

g. ETP-44 Preliminary Incore-Excore Calibration.

h. 500-7-542 Chemical-Radioactivity Chemical Analysis!'

i. 500-7-523 Load Swing Test at 35% Turbine Power.

4 100-7-006 Main Steam Dynamic Response to 50% Trip

I k. 500-7-529 Power Range Negative Rate Trip at 50%|

This test did not meet the Westinghouse criteria for 3 or 4 . channelsand will require the Unit to be operated under the same interimcriteria as Unit 1.

1. 500-7-538 Loss of Offsite Power at 10%

m. 500-7-539 Shutdowr Crom Outside Control Room

10. Independent Inspection Effort

The inspectors routinely attended meetings with certain licensee tranagementand various shift turnovers between shift supervisors, shift foremen andlicensed operators during the reporting period. These meetings anddiscussions provided a daily status of plant operating and testing

I activities in progress as well as discussion of significant problems or

| incidents.|

.

c -- ~ . . - - m,. . , -,,,,,.-.,-r an. . , , . , . , - - , - . - - , , , . , , , . . , , , ,,.,e, , . - , - , . _-

. _ _ _ _ _ - _ ,,

, .

.. -

6

9

11. Review of Plant Operations

During the report period the inspectors reviewed the following activities:

a. Procurement

The inspector reviewed procurement and storage activities to ascertainwhether the purchase of components, materials and supplies used forsafety-related functions, is in conformance with the licensee'sapproved QA program and implementing procedures; nonconforming itemsare segregated and marked accordingly; applicable preventativemaintenance is performed; housekeeping and environmental requirementsare met; and, limited shelf-life items are controlled.

b. Review and Audits

The inspectors verified that the Plant Safety Review Committee (PORC)meeetings, membership, review process, frequency and qualifications metthe requirements of the technical specifications. The inspectorsconfirmed that meeting minutes reflected decisions and correctiveactions.

The inspector reviewed certain audits performed by the licensee SafetyAudit and Engineering Review group.

c. Training

The inspector attended 2 of the licensee's operator requalificationlecture series and verified that lesson plan objectives were met andthat training was in accordance with the approved operator requalifi-cation program schedule and objectives.

The inspector verified by direct questions of one new, one existing,'

and one temporary employee that administrative controls and procedures,radiological health and safety, industrial safety, controlled accessand security procedures, emergency plan, and quality assurance trainingwere provided as required by the licensee's technical specifications;verified by direct questioning of one craftsmen and one technician thaton-the-job training, formal technical training commensurate with jobclassification, and fire fighting training were provided.

d. Environmental Protection

i The inspector verified the installation and operability of certainenvironmental monitoring stations and associated equipments.

e. Licensee Action Concerning Identified Problems

The inspector reviewed corrective actions taken by the licenseepertaining to recurring failures and resolution of ident1fieddiscrepancies involving safety-related components.,

|l

- - . . - , - - - _ . - - _-. _ . , _ .- , - , - - - - -- - _ _ . - - - , , - - . - ,

.. _ _ _ . __ _ -- _ . _ . _ - __ . _ -------_-_ _ _- _ _

'1 . , . .

,

e, -

,

7',

1

J Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviaticris were identified.

| 12. Plant TripsJ

j After the following plant trips, the inspector ascertained the status of the- reactor and safety systems and by observation of control indicators and

discussions with licensee personnel concerning plant parameters, emergency,

! system status and reactor coolant chemistry. Proper reporting and

i corrective actions taken by the licensee were verified. All systemsresponded as expected following the trips.'

.

8:45 a.m./May 14 Unit 2 trip due to 5% power range setpoint on! intermediate range too low

8:17 p.m./May 21 Unit 1 trip due to bumped electrical panel whichsecured power to the oil pumps supplying the main feed

; pumps.:

5:05 a.m./ June 5 Unit 2 trip due to grounded test lead on main*

feed pump speed control

!

i

!

I

i

i

~

|

i

1

.

,

,.m----- , -, m ,- ~ a,,n,-,c... ,-- ,-.--, - - - . , . . . - , ,, , - - - - .-~