IR 05000321/1982013
| ML20054G957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1982 |
| From: | Jape F, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054G954 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-82-13, 50-366-82-13, NUDOCS 8206220446 | |
| Download: ML20054G957 (5) | |
Text
..
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
- # "%g UNITED STATES p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
f,.
,,93
'
y'
g REGION 11 C
101 MARIETT A ST.. N.W., SUITE 3100 5.
- #
0,
- ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
%,
p
.....
Report Nos. 50-321/82-13, 50-366/82-13 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. 0. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 s
Facility Name: Hatch Docket Nos. 50-321, 50-366 License Nos. OPR-57, NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch site near Baxley, Georgia
^
8 /_
Inspe tar:
_
//ag
_
Date Signed H. L. Whitener Approved by:
/f (lAt M-NM7-V Frank Jape, Sec'tTon pf(ieff Dste $1gned Engineering Inspectron Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on April 28 - May 4,1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 58 inspector-hours on site in the areas of witnessing the preparation and performance of the containment integrated leak rate test and review of the test results.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
0206220446 820528 PDR ADOCK 05000321
PDR J
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. Nix, Plant Manager
- T. Green, Assistant Plant Manager
- C. Jones, Assistant Plant Manager
- C. Belflower, QA site Supervisor
- J. Watson, Senior QA Field Representative R. Houston, Senior QA Field Representative M. Bray, Senior QA Field Representative W. Wagner, Senior QA Field Representative C. McWhorter, ISI Engineer, Southern Company J. Glass, ISI Engineer, Southern Company J. Churchwell, ISI Engineer, Southern Company
- W. Kirkley, Senior Plant Engineer Other Organizations Bechtel
- M. Burgess, Technical Director R. Blum, Engineering Specialist P. Galanti Senior Startup Engineer F. Kleman, Senior Startup Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- R. Rogers, Senior Resident Inspector
- P. Holmes-Ray, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 4,1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector stated that the measured leak rates were within the limits required by the Technical Specification and Appendix J to 10 CFR50. Add-on leakage was discussed and the inspector stated that, with the identified add-on leakage, the test results were still acceptable.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings and had no further questions.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
.. ~
.
.
.-
-
..
.
_.
,
.
a
1'
i 4.
Unresolved. Items
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Containment Integrated Leak' Rate Test A Region Specialist, in conjunction with the Resident Inspector, witnessed performance of the primary containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) to determine that the test was conducted in accordance with the requirements of'
!
Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, ANSI N45.4, Bechtel Topical.. Report-1,- ILRT l
procedure and Technical Specification. Selected sampling of the licensee's
- '
activities which were inspected included: (1) review of the test procedure to ve-ify _ that the procedure was properly approved and conformed to i
regulatory requirements; (2) observation of test performance to determine
test prerequisites were completed, special equipment was installed and calibrated and that appropriate data were recorded and analyzed and (3)
preliminary evaluation of leakage rate test results to verify that leak rate limits were met.
Pertinent aspects of the test are discussed in the
.
'
following paragraphs.
a.
General Observations I
The inspectors witnessed and reviewed portions of the test preparation,
!
test performance and results analysis in the period of April 29 to May 4, 1982. Inspection findings are indicated below.
(1) The test was conducted in accordance with an approved procedure
,
'
maintained at the test control center.
(2) A sampling of test prerequi-ites was reviewed and found to be
completed.
!
(3) A sampling of plant systems required to maintain test control w&s reviewed and found to be completed.
}
(4) Special instrumentation was reviewed and found to be properly
'
installed and calibrated.
l
(5) Venting and draining of specific systems were reviewed and found to be complete.
(6) Data required for the performance of the containment leak rate calculations were recorded at 15 minute intervals.
l (7) Problems encountered during the test were described in the~ test event log.
l (8) Pressurized gas sources were reviewed for proper isolation and i
venting to preclude in-leakage or interference of out-leakage through containment isolation valves.
l
I
. - -, - - _ - _. -
-
- - -
. -. -. - - --...- - -, ~. - -
,
<
.
'3 (9) Selected valve alignments were reviewed against system' drawings to--
verify correct boundary alignment.
(10) A sampling of valve positions were observed to verify conformance -
to procedure valve alignment.
(11) Temperature, pressure, dew point and flow data were recorded at 15 minute intervals.
Data were assembled ana retained for final evaluation and analysis by the licensee's consultant. A final ILRT report will be submitted to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Except for item (5) above, no problems were identified during review of the above items. Regarding item (5), the licensee found that, during the Ler.t. a pressure of about 1 psi was indicated on pressure gauges in the main steam piping downstream of the outboard main steam isolation valves.
Further investigation showed that the main steam piping was not vented to the leakage control system as intended by the procedure.
The inspector concluded that reduction of the differential pressure across the main steam valves from 58 psig to 57 psig would not affect the test results..In addition, if the as-left leakage for the main
,
steam valves was added to the integrated leak rate, the. test results were still acceptable.
I b.
Integrated Leak Rate Test Performance j
(1) Method
!
The containment. leak rate. was determined by the mass point analysis and linear regression techniques on 10.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> of mass data recorded at 15 minute intervals.
Containment pressure was calculated peak accident pressure (72.3 psia). A statistical 95%
upper confidence limit (UCL) was calculated.
(2) Test Description and Results
!
Pressurization of the primary containment began at 11:00 am on May 2.
Fall pressure was achieved at 7:00 pm and temperature
!
stabilization criteria were met at 11:15 pm on May 2.
However, due to the loss of containment cooling units, containment
temperature increased and it was necessary to vent air from i
containment to control pressure. Consequently, time zero for the
.
measured leak rate was delayed until 3:30 am on May 3.
The test
{
was successfully completed at 2:15 pm on May 3.
Measured valves were as follows:
!
Lam, measured leakage rate 0.704 wt.% per day
!
95% confidence interval 0.018 wt.$ per day
,
!
j UCL, Lam + 95% confidence interval 0.722 wt.% per day
i l
,
- - - -..... -.. _..,,, _. _ _. _,. _,,,, _ -.,,,, _ _ _,.. _
,.,,.--,____wr-,m-,
- _.. _. _ _ _ _. - -. _..
-_. -
_
._,-,m...,
-, -. -, -,..,.
.
>
0.75 La, acceptance limit 0.9 wt.% per day The UCL is within the acceptance limit.
(3) Supplemental Test Appendix J requires that a supplemental test be performed to verify the accuracy of the Type A test and the ability of the ILRT instrumentation to measure a change in leak rate. A known leak rate (Lo) is imposed on the containment and the measured composite leak rate (Lc) must equal, within 0.25 La the sum of the measured leak rate (Lam) plus the known leak rate (Lo).
The acceptance criteria is expressed as Lo + Lam -
0.25La s Lc s + Lo + Lam + 0.25La.
Results f rom the supplemental test were as follows:
Lo
=0.9 wt.% per day Lam
=0.704 wt.% per day 0.25Lt
=0.3 wt.% per day Lc
=1.35 wt.% per day Substitution of these values in the acceptance criteria shows that Lc meets the specified limits of 1.304 ( l.35 ' 1.904.
The inspector obtained the test data and performed an independent calculation to determine the containment leak rate. The results obtained by the inspector were in agreement with the results calculated by the licensee.
..