IR 05000309/1985018

Insp Rept 50-309/85-18 on 850815-22.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Procedure Review,Test Witnessing & Results Evaluation of Local Leak Rate Test & Integrated Leak Rate Test & Closeout of Open Items

ML20133H486
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	10/03/1985
From:	Joe Golla, Jerrica Johnson, Kucharski S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133H484	List: IR 05000309/1985018 ML20133H482
References
50-309-85-18, NUDOCS 8510170395
Download: ML20133H486 (7)

Text

.

'

3. -

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-18 Docket N License N DPR-36 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive ,

Augusta, Maine 04336 ',

Facility Name: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Is Inspection At: Wiscasset, Maine Inspection Conducted: August 15-22, 1985 Inspectors: *' l 'Of 3 f I#I

'

%S.D.Kucharski,ReactorEngineer date

' $ scoNd&

Golla, Rg#for Engineer '

/D/Af date Approved by: IN 3l

. J. Johnson, Chief, Operational Programs date Section, Operations Branch, DRS

,,

Inspection Summary: Inspection on August 15-22, 1985 (Inspection Report No. 50-309/85-18)

Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of procedure review, test witnessing and results evaluation of Local Leak Rate Test (LLRT) and Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT), close out of outstanding open items, and tours of the facility. The inspection involved 127 hours0.00147 days <br />0.0353 hours <br />2.099868e-4 weeks <br />4.83235e-5 months <br />'onsite by two region-based NRC inspectors.

.

Results: No violations or deviations were identifie s 8510170395 85100f? ,y PDR ADOCK 05000309 G PDR

>

.

A

. -- _ -_ . .

.

.

.

i DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted i

1.1 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company E. T. Boulette, Assistant Plant Manager

• R. C. Crosby, QA Section Head

"J. H. Garrity, Plant Manager C. A. Giggey, Plant Engineer (Test Supervisor)

• D. S. Lemieux, I&C Supervisor

• C. N. Rowe, QA Engineer

• L. J. Speed, Lead Performance Engineer 1.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

,

C. Holden, Senior Resident Inspector

• J. Robertson, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit interview on August 22, 198 .0 Licensee Action on Previous NRC Findings (' Closed) Inspector Follow up Item (50-309/82-18-01) Deficiencies in Recording of Type B and C Test Results

The licensee has now incorporated a method of keeping a historical record for each penetration including the As-Found and As-Left results. This item is close .2 (Closed) Inspector Follow up Item (50-309/82-18-03) Resolution of Inspector Comments on ILRT Procedures The licensee has incorporated a table for the penetrations which are not in proper alignment during the integrated leak rate test. This enables the licensee to make corrections to the preliminary type A test results. This item is close .3 (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-309/82-18-05) Venting of Containment Weld Channels during ILRT

,

The inspector witnessed the venting of a representative sample of, J twenty (20) accessible weld channels prior to the start of the ILR l

The-licensee selected over half of the weld channels near the base mat junction which was considered a high stress zone. The inspector had no further question .4 (Closed) Inspector Follow up-Item (50-309/82-18-06) Modifications for Preliminary ILRT Results The review of the latest revision of the ILRT procedure indicates

,

l r ._.._..g- - _ . . - - _

,,, , . , - w .....,, , _.,.# e -_,,--m,.

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

.

< .

l'

.

i that there are provisions for recording the levels of the pressurizer

and the containment sump. The licensee also has added a section in

the procedure to account for systems that cannot be vented or drained during the ILRT. This item is close .0 Local Leak Rate Testing 3.1 Documents Reviewed

--

Surveillance Procedure 3.17.4, Class B and C Leakage Testing Revision Surveillance Procedure 3.17.4.1, Purge Exhaust Duct Leak Test,

,

Revision 6, 3/29/8 Surveillance Procedure 3.17.4.2 Purge Supply Duct Leak Test,

! Revision 6, 3/29/84.

)

4 --

Records of LLRT's performed between the previous ILRT (1982) and i the current ILRT (1985).

! 3.2 Scope of Review i

i The inspector reviewed the above documentation to ascertain that the

) licensee's LLRT program was conducted in compliance with regulatory ,

requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, applicable industry stan-

, dards and with station administrative guidelines. The inspector also witnessed local leakage testing, held discussions with the licensee

'

regarding the documentation of the test results, the repair and retesting of failed tests and the relationship of these items to the

"As-Found" and "As-Left" condition of containment as applied to CILRT t results. . Further details are discussed belo .3 Test Witnessing

On August 18, 1985, the inspector witnessed a type C LLRT of pene-i tration 67, purge exhaust duct isolation valves VP-A-3, VP-A-4, and VP-A-5. The test was being conducted in accordance with approved procedure 3.17.4.1, Purge Exhaust Duct Leak Test, Revision 6. The

test volume between the valves was pressurized to a pressure greater

!

than 55 psig (58.8 psig) and the leakage rate was estimated by noting the pressure decay over a period of time. The estimated leakage was 1 0.0 lbm per day, whereas the administrative leakage limit for this

penetration was 10 lbm'per day. On the same day the inspector also witnessed portions of a type C LLRT for the containment purge supply

<

duct isolation valves VP-A-1 and 2. The test was conducted with

! approved procedure 3.17.4.2. The results of the test for the total

leakage of the penetration was 7.45 lbm per day which is below the l acceptable limit.

The inspector. observed the performance of the test to ascertain that

' ,

l 1  !

<

a h

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

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

.

.

I

i

, prerequisites were met, proper precautions were taken, measuring and

'

test equipment was properly calibrated, and that the technician involved in the test was knowledgeable of requirements and use of j- the test instruments. No unacceptable conditions were identifie '

!

j 4.0 Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT)

, ,

! 4.1 Documents Reviewed i

--

Section 5.1 of the FSA !

--

Section 4.4 of the Technical Specification !

--

. Procedure 3.17.1, Class A-Integrated Containment Leak Rate Test,

Revision 6, 8/15/8 j --

Engineering Calculation, File SAS 1. A.5, Containment Air Tem-perature Weighting Factors, February 24, 197 j --

Engineering Calculations, Instrument Selection Guide, August 3,

'

198 CILRT Instrumentation Calibratio ,

--

CILRT Sequence of Events Log.

t

--

Test Result ~

--

Selected Piping and Instrument Drawing i 4.2 Scope of Review l

i The inspector reviewed the test procedure and related documents for technical adequacy and to determine compliance with the regulatory l requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, Technical Specifications, l and applicable industry standards. The inspector witnessed a large i

portion of the CILRT and subsequent verification test. The inspector I also performed independent measurements and calculations of the test

,

result '

4.3 Procedure Review

'

The inspector reviewed the CILRT procedure along with the documents

~ listed in paragraph 4.1 for technical adequacy and to ascertain compliance with requirements of Technical Specifications and 10 CFR

50, Appendix J.

i j On a random sampling basis, the inspector reviewed the procedure i valve lineups for piping penetrations. This review was to ensure i that systems were properly vented and drained to expose the contain-l I

.

I

,

'

'

._ _ . ,.___, _, ,,_ -..,_ __.,_ - _, _ _ ,__. ____._._ .__ _ _..,, _,_ _ . _ _.._ - ,,__,_,_. _ _ . a-z-s e _ ..n . . , . . - = , s a > -u.a.- a - . .a a,s..--,

..

'

i

!

.

1

ment isolation valve to containment atmosphere and test differential pressure with no artificial boundaries. No unacceptable conditions were identified.

,

4.4 CILRT Instrumentation i i

The inspector reviewed the calibration records for the resistance i temperature detectors (RTD's), dew point instruments, precision i pressure detectors, and verification test flowmeter Their cali- t

! brations were found to meet applicable accuracy requirements, and ,

!

were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The inspector  !

also verified that the instrument system satisfied the instrument j

_

selection guide of ANSI /ANS-56.8-198 The inspector observed the

operation of the automatic data collection system during conduct of

the tes The inspector had no further questions regarding the '

instrument system.

j 4.5 CILRT Chronology

3 August 17, 1985 l 1400 - Completed containment inspection and the selection of 20 weld channels.

} August 19, 1985 i

1840 - Commenced pressurization.

I 2047 - Reached 5 psig, air compressor secure Containment entry made for an inspection at 5 psig.

2215 - Started pressurization to 28.7 psig.

,i ,

i August 20, 1985

i 0745 - pressurization line isolated, containment pressure was 28.9 psig.

)I 0800 - Started vent and drain check ,

{ 1130 - Vent and drain check complete !

1300 - Temperature stabilization achieved, started 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> ILRT l - Pressurizer level 41% and containment sump level 1.6 f ! August 21, 1985 i

i 1400 - Test Completed. Pressurizer level - 39% and sump level 1.65 ft.

i k

i l

l i

!

- _

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

.- - . ~- .. . -

.

.

.

d a

<

I 1 I 1530 - Superimposed a leakage rate on containment Lo=1.01 SCFM or 111.22 lbm/ da l August 22, 1985

'

1630 - Started verification test.

i

0140 - End verification test.

'

4.6 Test Performance and Control The CILRT was performed within the procedural guidelines. Procedural

precautions were adhered to; especially, those related to manipula-tion of containment boundaries after the commencement of testing. At

'

the start of the test, one minor issue was pointed out to the licen-see that there was no redundancy in pressure tracking. The contain-ment pressure indicators were de-energized on the main control panel

'

.

for human factors work. Once this was pointed out to the licensee a j back up pressure indicator was re-energized. The inspector had no

-

further comments and no unacceptable conditions were identified.

)

l 4.7 Test Result Reviewed j The licensee evaluated the test results for the 25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> period

, between 1300 on August 20, 1985 and 1400 on August 21, 1985. The

] calculated leakage rate at the upper 95% confidence limit was 0.0448 i

weight percent per day. The test acceptance criterion is 0.0695 weight percent per day. The inspector noted that the above calcu-i lated leakage rate did not include correction for changes in free *

, volume and penetrati,ons in use during the test. This value does i represent the containment system "As-found" overall leakage. The j licensee will continue to perform local leak rate testing and read-just their overall containment leakage to an "As-Left" value and that value will be compared to 0.0521 weight percent per day which is 0.75 j Lt. This value will be reported in the CILRT final report submitted by the licensee.

l The inspector performed an independent calculation of the test results

using a sample of raw data from the test to estimate the accuracy of the

licensee's leak rate calculations. The results were as follows:

i LTM (Mass point) UCL (Mass Point)

l Maine Yankee 0.0399 wt %/ day 0.0448 wt %/ day j NRC 0.0400 wt %/ day 0.0448 wt %/ day j' The inspector concluded that the licensee's calculations were appro-

! priately performed and acceptable.

I j

,

!

!

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

-

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

~'

..

.

The CILRT was followed by a successful superimposed leak verification test. The licensee imposed a leak of 1.01 SCFM (0.0279 weight per-cent per day) on the existing leak. The measured verification test leak was 0.0681 weight percent per day at the upper 95*4 confidence limit. The test result was within the acceptance criteria band (0.0521 s Lc s 0.0869). The inspector also verified this result by independent calculation. No unacceptable conditions were identifie .0 Facility Tours The inspector made several tours of the facility including the control room, Primary Auxiliary Building, Spray Building, The Computer Room, and the containmen During these tours the inspector examined the containment system bound-artes, and instrumentation used to support the CILRT. The inspector observed licensee personnel checking for evidence of leakage and verifying selected valves to be in the correct position according to procedural re-quirements. One minor issue did arise concerning the tubing which was connected to several of the drains. The concern was the possibility of creating a loop seal which in case of a penetration leak might help to contain i The licensee punctured holes in all the tubing to eliminate this concern. The inspector also made several tours with an ultrasonic leak detector to verify the licensee's findin No unacceptable condi-tions were identifie .0 Independent Calculations The inspector performed independent calculations of the test results of the CILRT and the subsequent verification test. Details are included in Section 4.7 of this repor .0 QA/QC Involvement During the performance of the CILRT, the inspector verified QA involvement in test monitoring, and determined that the QA personnel were knowledge-able of their responsibilities, how to perform their duties, and how to report their finding Independent verification of valve positions was performed by the licensee's on site Quality Assurance personnel. No un-acceptable conditions were identifie .0 Exit Meeting A meeting was held on August 22, 1985 to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection as delineated in this report (See Section 1. for attendees). At no time during this inspection was written information provided to the license _ _ ._ _ ---