IR 05000275/1985015
| ML16342B129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1985 |
| From: | Clark C, Dodds R, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341D320 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-85-15, NUDOCS 8507230301 | |
| Download: ML16342B129 (10) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0%1ISSION
REGION V
Report No.
50-275/85-15 Docket No.
50-275 License No.
DPR-80 Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1435 San Francisco, California 94106 Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Inspection at:
San tuis Obispo County, California Inspection conducted:
April 8-13, 185 Inspector:
Approved By:
C.
C
, Reactor Inspector
@~<As Date Signed g-~g-s~
T. Youn Chief, gineeri tion Date Signed R. T, odds, Chief, Reactor Projects Section
at Signed
~Summar Ins ection durin the eriod of A ril 8-13 1985 (Re ort No. 50-275/85-15)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine, announced inspection of activities relating to a
periodic Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT).
The inspection included procedure
.review, interviews with personnel, witnessing portions of the CILRT, and inspection of containment.
The inspection consisted of 77 inspector hours onsite by one NRC, inspector.
Results:
No violations with NRC requirements or deviations were identified.
850723030i 850627 PDR ADOCK 05000275 G
PD.
r DETAILS"
f
. ~
h (c Persons Contacted
,I JJ Paci:fic Gas'and Electric,'(PG&E)"-'-'
.
R. C;-'Thornberry, plant,'Manager R. Patterson, Plant Superintendent
"-L"., F". Momack; Engineeri'ng,,Manager,;
'-M. Angus'," Engineering.".,i'
R.
Roo's", Operations,Senior, Control Operator tC-Denotes those involved',in exit discussions on April 13, 1985.
) f Containment Inte rated Leak Rat:e Test (CILRT)
I t"
"(
a.
Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the licensee's CILRT procedures as described in test procedure'TP M-7, Revision 3 of March 13, 1985, entitled,
"Surveillance Test 'Procedure Containment Integrate Leakage Rate Test (CILRT), Type A."
This review was to ascertain compliance with plant technical specifications, regulatory requirements, and applicable industrial standards as stated in the following documents:
Units 1 and 2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant CESAR, Containment Systems:
Sections 6.2.1.4.2 and 6.2.4.4.
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,'Unit 1, Technical Specifications, Containment Systems:
Section 3/4.6.
Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, "Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Mater Cooled Power Reactors."
American National Standard,
"Leakage-Rate Testing of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors,"
Topical Report BN-TOP-1, 11/1/72, Revision 1, "Testing Criteria for Integrated Leakage Rate Testing of Primary Containment Structures for Nuclear Power Plants,".
Bechtel Corporation.
American National Standard,
"Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements,"
The inspector reviewed the latest PG&E computer program, developed for the computation of the Type A containment leakage rate.
The inspector reviewed the hand calculations used to verify the program as well as the output of the verification checks of the program, performed by both Bechtel and PG&E using data from previous leak rate tests.
No violations with NRC requirements or deviations were identifie.
Pt V
v
)i P$.
g k /.
g g4 <<II I'"~~,WIN f
I n
fx <
l
ll
.
~
f
~ t '4
'I
'I t
1 I'
i, lg v,
<"of all'dentified local leakage rate testing.
f
<<I (2)
f Removal or mentmgf'of items listed on the valve lineup list.
'3)
Xnspecti'on,of <<interior'hd exterior containment surfaces and
,'- components 'for evidence of deterioration or damage.
I I f (4)
Cdntainment sump water levels below high level mark.
n p,
I
+I I <<"
] I
'(5)
CILRT measurement system properly installed, functionally checked, and all instrumentation calibrated within the last six months with NBS traceability cer'tificates available.
(6), Pressurization system tested; including proper operation of the
, air compressors, after-coolers, moisture separators, air dryer, and v'alves.,
C.
(7)
Containment ventilation system adjustments completed.
(8)
Valve lineups completed.
(9)
Pressurization system in service.
No violations with NRC requirements or deviations were identified.
Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector r'eviewed calculations for'nstrument location assignments within the Containment Building.
The purpose was to evaluate the pla'cement of the temperature and dewpoint sensors.
This review revealed that the sensors were properly located and oriented to provide an accurate representation of the containment air mass.
Containment isolation and pressurization were initiated prior to inspector arrival onsite.
The operation of the pressurization equipment (air compressors, moisture separators, after-coolers and air dryers)
used for pressurization of the Containment Building was inspected to assure that procedures for prevention of potential problems were enforced.
This included evidence of checking the pressurizing air for evidence of oil contamination, establishment of communications between CILRT control center and the pressurization station, adequate cooling water being supplied to the after-coolers, and control of after-cooler air temperature was being maintained during pressurizatio I
L
'\\l II 1*
k 1'l
't l
g f I'gl R
t
\\
E>
)
t t
I
1g A
1-
'he inspector witnessed the following CILRT activities:
(1)
Pressurization:
Initial pressurization on April 8 1985 to 27 psig for a reduced pressure test.
Reduction of pressure from'27 psig to 10 psig for internal containment leak survey inspection on April ll, 1985 and repressurization on April 11, 1985 to 25 psig for a reduce pressure test.
Initial pressurization on April 13, 1985 for a full/peak pressure test at 62 psig, after experiencing difficulties in obtaining acceptable reduce, pres'sure (25 psig) test results with the
"restri'ctive'testing parameters assigned for reduce pressure testing.
1I (2)'tabilization: >> The containment atmosphere was allowed to
'tabilize, at 'test'ressure prior to start of two reduced pressure'and,one full/peak pressure leakage rate tests.
3j ir (3)
Data Acquisition.
(4)
Completion, of,,two reduced pressure CILRT's.
The external portions of twenty electrical and forty mechanical penetrations were selected at random for inspection.
The valve lineups were completed in accordance with procedure, and no artificial barriers were erected.
The overall performance of the CILRT crew members were observed by the inspector.
Attributes evaluated were: availability of test procedure; test prerequisites being met; proper plant systems in service; special test equipment calibrated and in service; and crew actions timely and correct.
Crew members had received CILRT training prior to the test; this appeared evident by satisfactory performance of their duties.
The licensee commenced pressurizing the containment on April 8, 1985, for the initial reduced pressure (27 psig) test.
During this initial Type A CILRT, pressurization was secured several times for the following reasons:
(1)
To allow work on containment air supply valve FCV-662, which would not open a couple of times at normal operating pressure or maintain a satisfactory disc to seat open position.
(2)
For leak inspection, since preliminary test data indicated a
containment leak rate in excess of the expected value, a leak around or across the inner door seal of the personnel air lock was identified by an increase in air pressure between the two doors'3)
To install air blocks (approximately 25 psig) between the two personnel air lock doors and two containment purge valves, on April 10, 198 ~ tv Irwin t,
~I W
" J,ft TJI
'
lc I
rc Ikj I L Jf.'lk ff NJ I
rw If I
C C
~
>
k$
~ll'I)
c j rc f,
I I I '
C)
<<I Jt
~
N ~
I '
Itc I
W I
'
N
'
r I
(4)
To depressurize to 10 psig for containment entry to isolate steam generator instrumentation piping, which appeared to allow leakage into the steam generators'n April 12, 1985, the licensee decided that they would raise containment pressure and perform a full/peak pressure (62 psig)
CIIRT.
The inspector noted that a review of historical CILRT information, revealed that the licensee has experience difficulties in the past in performing successful reduce pressure CILRT's on the subject containment, and that it had been recommended that future tests should be performed at full/peak pressure.
The licensee informed the inspector in a telephone conversation on April 15, 1985, that a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> CILRT had been completed at 06:15 a.m.,
on April 15, 1985 without any penetration blocks.
Subsequently, a copy of the computer printout test data was provided to the inspector for review.
The licensee's preliminary results for the Type A test (which did not include Type B or C additions),
were a total time leakage rate of 0.058 wt. / per day with a 95 percent Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) of 0.087 wt.
% per day, which was verified by a mass-point calculation of 0.057 wt.
% per day with a 95 percent UCL of 0.058 wt. '/ per day.
These results were within the allowed acceptance criteria.
No violations with NRC requirements or deviations were identified.
3.
Mana ement Meetin The inspector discussed the scope of the inspection, observations and findings with the test personnel at the conclusion of the inspection on April 13, 1985.
The inspector also discussed the above applicable items and final CILRT results, in a telephone conversation on April 15, 1985, with the personnel denoted in paragraph ~ 1
~
h