IR 05000250/1979007
| ML17338A869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1979 |
| From: | Andrea Johnson, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17338A865 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-79-07, 50-250-79-7, 50-251-79-07, 50-251-79-7, NUDOCS 7907240070 | |
| Download: ML17338A869 (10) | |
Text
~
s
~
~S REO0, fp
~4
e
~u n
C Os
+**++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-250/79-07 and 50-251/79-07 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P.
O. Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152 Facility Name:
Turkey Point 3 and
Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection at Turkey Point Site near Florida City, Florida Inspector:
A. H.
ohnson Approved by:
R. D. Martin, Sec ion Chief, ONS Branch ate gned Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on February 20-23, 1979 This special, announced inspection involved 25 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of Containment Integrated Leak Rate Testing (including type "A",
"B", and "C" leakage testing),
Emergency Generator Test OP-4304.1 and Out-standing Items from inspection report 50-250/78-20 and 50-251/78-20.
Inspec-tor reviewed the above areas to ascertain whether Technical Specification requirements, regulatory requirements, licensee procedures, applicable codes, and licensee commitments were or would be met.
See paragraphs 3, 5, and
of inspection report.
Results Of the 3 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in 2 areas; 1 apparent item of noncompliance was found in
area.
Deficiency - Failure to use certified personnel as per gP-9.2 in the performance of leak testing between the period of December, 1978 and February, 1979 (50-250/79-07-01 and 50-251/79-0701).
V90'124007'
~
~
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Em lo ees
+J. K. Hays, Plant Superintendent, Nuclear
+J.
W. Brown, Assistant Manager, QA Applications
+D.
W. Jones, QC Supervisor
+R. E. Tucker, Senior QA Engineer
- W. A. Klein, Senior Plant Engineer
'%.
C. Sinnamon, Senior Plant Technician Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included techni-cians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
+Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 23, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
At this meeting the inspector discussed the areas inspected and summarized the inspection findings as discussed in this report.
The licensee did not take exception to the item of noncompliance.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s Inspector closed the following outstanding items from Inspection Report 50-250/78-20 and 50-251/78-20:
a.
78-20-01
-
(1)
Weekly Procedure Status Report Implemented.
(2)
16001.2 Updated.
b.
78-20-02
-
- No longer has safety related hydraulic snubbers.
c.
78-20-03
-
- Same as 2 above d.
78-20-04
-
- Same as 2 above e.
78-20-06
-
- Same as 2 above Item 78-20-05 could not be closed at this time because the licensee's evaluation had not been complete Si
- Note:
All of Unit 4 safety related hydraulic snubbers have been replaced with mechanical snubbers and all of Unit 3 safety related hydraulic snubbers (13 remaining at exit interview)
were to be replaced prior to plant heat-up, following the refueling in progress.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Containment Inte rated Ieak Rate Test (CILRT) and Local Leak Rate Testin LLRT a.
The following items were discussed:
For those systems that have valves tested in the reverse direction of containment pressure, the licensee must provide a documented evaluation to demonstrate that the results will provide equivalent or more conservative test results.
The licensee agreed to ascertain that all commitments made to the NRC in the Question and Response Section of the FSAR are met by the Leak Rate Test Procedure.
Responses to NRC questions address both local and integrated leakage rate testing.
The inspector stated that requests for exemptions that were not addressed by the NRC do not assure approvals for those exemptions.
(3)
(4)
The licensee was made aware that the NRC requires that Type A Test (CILRT) instrument calibrations and certifications to be traceable to National Bureau of Standards (NBS) or other recognized standards.
This documentation will be made available to the inspector prior to performance of the test.
The inspector received approved copies and changes to the local leak rate test (LLRT) procedures while on site.
The licensee stated that the containment integrated leak rate test (CILRT) procedure would be available to the inspector for review when approved.
(5)
The licensee was made aware that the isolation and venting of the pressurization (air compressors)
source is required upon reachiag tustjpressure and start of official CILRT test data collection:
The licensee sta'(ed that some form of tagging would be used for valve lineup'f systems for the CILRT tes e
~
i
(7)
The licensee stated that they would use an event log during the CILRT test.
The licensee stated that local leak rate testing would be performed after completion of the CILRT, or penetrations used to perform the CILRT test (i.e., penetration used to pressurize the containment), if appropriate.
The licensee stated that to maintain administrative controls during the CILRT, only one official copy of the CILRT test procedure would be used and that this copy would be located at the CILRT Test Station.
(10)
The licensee stated that the reactor coolant system would be vented during the CILRT test.
The licensee stated that applicable station procedures would be used to make changes to the approved leak rate test procedure.
b.
The inspector informed the licensee that the following NRC Staff positions would be used while performing the inspection of the licensee's leak rate test program:
Ventin and Drainin Position The reactor vessel, those systems that are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and could provide direct communication with the containment atmosphere under post-accident conditions, and those systems which are postulated to rupture (i.e., not designed for post-accident functions)
shall be vented and drained to the extent necessary to assure exposure of the containment isolation valves (as defined in Section II-H of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50) to the containment air test pressure, such that they will be subjected to the simulated accident differential pressure.
If the venting and draining of any system potentially jeopardizes the maintenance of a
safe shutdown condition, then those systems shall not be vented and drained; however, in this event, the local leakage rates (Type C) for the isolation valves in these systems shall be added to the upper 95$
confidence limit of the CILRT before determining acceptability of the tes (2)
CILRT Correction for Local Ieaka e
Position If, during the performance of a Type A test, identifiable local leakage occurs to the extent that it could cause failure of the Type A test, e.g.,
through penetrations or isolation valves, the leak may be isolated and the Type A test continued until completion.
A containment penetration which is isolated during a Type A test must have a design which will permit local leak testing of all potential leakage paths through the penetrations.
Local leakage rates measured before and after repair must be reported, and the sum of the post-repair leakage rate and the CILRT upper 95/ confidence limit must meet the Appendix J allowable leakage rate (0.75 La).
However, the difference in Type B and C test results before and after the repair of local leaks may not be deducted from the Type A test results in order to achieve an acceptable containment integrated leak rate.
Type B and C leak rate testing and repair prior to containment CILRT is also considered to be acceptable.
Inclusion of Instrument Errors Position The uncertainty in the measured leakage rate shall be estab-lished by calculation the 95/ upper confidence limit (UCL)
of the least squares fit of the leakage rate data.
The test results will be considered acceptable, if the 95/
UCL is less than or equal to 75/ La (75$ LT for reduced pressure tests).
The accuracy of the measurement of the Type A leakage rate will be verified by the supplemental verification test.
The measured difference between the supplemental verification test leakage rate and the Type A test leakage rate must be within 0.25 (0.25 Lt for the reduced pressure tests).
The licensee stated that further research would have to be made into the possible diaphram rupture of narrow range containment pressure transmitter when exposed to CILRT test pressure (this diaphram is an isolation boundary for the containment).
This item willbe carried as an open item pending future inspections.
Open Item (50251/79-07-02).
d.
The above items were inspected to ascertain whether requirements of
CFR 50 Appendix J; Technical Specifications; FSAR; Reg.
Guide 1.68; ANSI 45.4; Licensee Commitments and NRC Positions relative to leak rate testing are being met.
e.
The inspector found that Turkey Point Plant Letter of March 25, 1976, PTP-QC-76-57, entitled
"Delineation of Special Processes for Turkey Point Plant" was not being followed for leak testing during the period of December, 1978 through February, 1979.
Plant Letter PTP-QC-76-57 requires leak testing (one of the listed
"special processes")
shall be controlled by approved procedures and performed by individuals qualified in accordance with approved procedures.
The above letter implements Quality Procedure (QP) 9.2 which requires that special processes shall be performed by personnel trained and qualified in areas as necessary to meet the requirements of the appropriate codes and standards.
QP-9.2 also states that examples of acceptable training and qualification methods can be found in SNT-TC-1A and Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code, or other acceptable standards.
QP-9.2 requires that personnel be recertified as needed prior to the expiration of the documented certification period. If the certification expires, mandatory suspension from performance of special processes is required until recertified or requalified.
QP-92 implements FPL Topical Quality Assurance Report (FPLTQAR).
FPLTQAR, Section 9.0 Control of S ecial Processes requires that leak testing (special processes be controlled, qualified, and performed in accordance with TQR9.2.
6.
Emer The licensee was informed that failure to implement certification or recertification of personnel performing leak testing since December, 1978 was an item of noncompliance with Criterion IX of Appendix B to
CFR 50 which states in part that measures shall be established to assure that special processes, including welding, heat treating, and nondestructive testing, are controlled and accomolished by qualified personnel usina qualified procedures in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications, criteria and other special requirements.
enc Diesel Generator Periodic Test OP 4304.1 The inspector reviewed and witnessed the OP.4304.1 on February 22, 1979.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie g
~
0