IR 05000312/1977014
| ML19309A382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1974 |
| From: | Canter H, Crews J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309A378 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-77-14, NUDOCS 8003270833 | |
| Download: ML19309A382 (4) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _. _
_
_ - - _ - _ -
-
_
.
._ ____ _
__
- __ _ ____ _
-
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
,
Report No.
50-312/77-14 Occket No.
50-312 License No.
OpR-54 Safeguards Group
,
Licensee:
Sacramento Municioal Utility District P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Facility Name: Rancho Seco
,
inspection at: Rancho Seco Unit i: Clay Station. California inspection conducted: October 3-5, 1977 Inspectors: M. k.
10 - 10 -B H. L. Canter, Reactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved by:
/
/0[.1o/77 i
J. L. Crews, Chief, Rea'ctor Operations and 0' ate Signed
Nuclear Support Branch
,
J Summary:
'
Inspection on October 3-5, 1977 (Recort No. 50-312/77-14)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of plant testing;
Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test witnessing; Type A Test pro-cedure review; and, Independent Type A Test calculations. This inspec-
,
tion involved 5 back-shift and 24 regular on-site inspector hours by one NRC inspector.
-
Results: Of the areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or-deviations were identified.
.
O IE:V Form 219 (2)
8003270 8 3 3
.
.
.
.
__
..
- - -.
_
_ _
- -
. -- ---
. _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _
- - _ _.
. _.
_ _ _..
.
-
_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
e
%
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted:
- R. Rodgriquez, Piant Superintendent
- J. McColligan, Assistant Superintendent, Technical Support
- R. Columbo, Technical Assistant
- G. Coward, Senior Mechanical Engineer
,
- A. Schwieger, Quality Assurance Director
- D. Abbott, Engineer
- R. Dundas, Bechtel Engineo-G. Cranston, Becntel Engineer The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the technical and en-gineering staff, technicians, shift supervisors, reactor oper-ators and maintenance personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit intervi.ew.
)
2.
Major Surveillance - Containment Intecrated leak Rate Test The inspector witnes' sed selected portions of the first periodic Containment Integrated Leak Test (CILRT). The test war,sonducted weight percent per day (psig) with an acceptance criteria of 0.1 at full pressure (Pa=52 La). The licensee took the option of performing a full pressure test at Pa rather than a reduced pressure test at Pt (>26 psig) because of the difficulty in accurately correlating a Pt test to actual containment conditions at the peak pressure. This option was taken in accordance with the technical specifications.
The licensees preliminary results for the Type A test were as follows:
Total Time (NOVAP)**=.073%/ day 0145/10-4-77 to 0145/10-5-77 Mass Point (NOVAP)**=.036%/ day 0145/10-4-77 to 0145/10-5-77 Total Time (NOVAP)**=.061%/ day 0145/10-4-77 to 0645/10-5-77 Mass Point (NOVAP)**.028%/ day 0145/10-4-77 to 0645/10-5-77 Note: The acceptance criteria is that the leak rate at the
'
95% upper confidence level is less than.075 %/ Day (.75La).
O
.
- See 2.d.
'
_,
_
.
' 2-
-
,
.
,
l
.
The inspector's preliminary independent calculations agreed with the above results to within 3 percent.
'
The following items of interest were noted by the inspector during the test:
~
a.
Procedure 205.01, Reactor Building Integrated Leak Rate Test, was approved and in use by test personnel.
b.
Test prerequisites were complete prior to test commencement.
c.
Required data was recorded and analyzed by proper personnel.
Unusual data points, trends, and. sudden changes were "high-lighted" in the test log or procedure.
d.
Approximately 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> into the test, the dew cell output
,
made erratic shifts, apparently due to power supply problems.
Approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of acceptable data was available to verify stable dew points in the containment. Consequently, the licensee performed a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> plus test and calculated
,
leak rates without correcting for vapor pressure (NOVAP).
~
As stated during the exit interview, the instrument loss shall be described in the technical sumary report, due in January, 1978.
e.
The verification test method used was the superimposed leak rate method. About 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after an imposed laak rata (Li)
of La was initiated (0800 on 10-5-77) a power outage
occurred. The outage lasted for 12 minutes and during this
.
time the data acquisition system was deenergized. An
'
analysis of this problem by the licensee and licensee re-presentatives indicated that the verification test should be restarted. Therefore, at 1145 on 10-5-77 the verification test was restarted with the acceptance criteria being met after some 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> of data was taken. The test was officially completed at 1830 on 10-5-77.
This item shall also be discussed in the summary tech-nical report.
f.
The inspector observed that a one-point rather than a two-point RTD verification was performed during the pre-test lineups, and that no post-test calibrations or calibration
'
checks were planned. A licensee representative stated that (
4
.
,e-.
.
-
e.
,v
-
,,
.-.-,,yr
,. - -, -.,.-. -,,. -. -
yy,
,.,
m.y-,, -w y------,--
, -
5.--,
- - - -- - -.-i~---
. _ _ _ - _-
__
_.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
._
_
_ _ _ - -
__
.
.
.
-3-
.
.
the Lithium RTO's used for this test have an extremely long lifetime and that a one-point calibration check in the same i
temperature range as the test range was satisfactory.
Never-theless, the licensee will review the work.done on the RTD's
<
and evaluate whether post-test calibrations or calibration checks are necessary.
g.
Various manually operated valves were adjusted after test
pressurization began on October 2, 1977. Valves such as SAS 052, FWS. 470, MSS 549, MSS 516, and NRCW (SFV) valves to the Emergency Coolers were manipulated. Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, Section III. A states that during the period between the initiation of the containment inspection and the performance of the Type A test, no repairs or adjust-
.
ments shall be made so that the containment can be tested in as close to the "as is" condition as practical. The licensee stated that the containment was inspected prior to pressurization and at 12 psig, and the test wasn't commenced until the stabilization period began about 2040
.
on October 2, 1977. All valve manipulations performed during the test will be reviewed in the context of Appendix J and appropriate action taken.
3.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 5, 1977. The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized
,
'
by the inspector. The licensee stated that the summary technical report would include discussions relative to the dew cell problems, loss of power during the verification test, valve ma'nipulations and other anomolies.
(Paragraph 2)
,
a
.
f w