IR 05000321/1989026

Insp Repts 50-321/89-26 & 50-366/89-26 on 891002-06.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Containment Local Leak Rate Testing & Verification of Controls for Ensuring Containment Intergrity

ML19325F241
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	11/02/1989
From:	Belisle G, John Zeiler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML19325F238	List: IR 05000321/1989026 ML19325F237
References
50-321-89-26, 50-366-89-26, NUDOCS 8911170183
Download: ML19325F241 (6)

Text

&

'MM

,

}.l Q

><

' UNITED c'ATES -

'

g>P A4euq%

c.

_y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L'

/

r b

'd-

[

REGION il d

b I.

101 MARIETTA STRGT.N.W.

'I I

ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323 e

.

\\..... J

r i:

Report.Nos.:. 50-321/89-26 and 50-366/89-26

Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295

"'

Birmingham, AL 35201

,

'

Docket Nos.:

50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.:

DPR-57 and NPF-5 t

Facility Name:

Hatch I and 2 L

r Irspection Conducted: October 2-6, 1989 hk ofLa b

//fZ h Inspector:

J. Zeiler

~'N

/

Cate Signed

////M/

Approved by:

W

,-r

,

G..A...Behsfe, Chief Date' Sicjned Test Programs Section Engineering Branch

-

Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY j'

Scope:

'

This routine, unannounce" inspection was conducted in the areas of containme'It local leak rate ter',ing and verification of controls for ensuring containment integrity.

Results:

One wer.kness was identified regarding the loose control of contair. ment penetration venting and draining activities prior to local leak rate testing, paragraph 2.a i'

With the exception of this weakness, the licensee's local leak rate test (LLRT)

program appears adequate in the areas inspected.

For the current outage testing, very few LLRT failures occurred. This is indicative of a good valve maintenance program.

Getailed procedures and controls were established, and LLRT personnel we-e knowledgeable of procedures, test oractices, end regulatory

.

requirements.

In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified i:

8911170183 891108 gDR ADOCK0500g1

ug y

-

m; c

v

'

-c3

[j.

'

>

.;

,,

,

,

,

7:

s MF.

.

-

,M'

i

\\

ma

,')

M.

-

!,

,

,,

,-

,

Py b E [F REPORT DETAILS i

'

,

@

f; Q,. '

L q;,

c

.i

,

-

1.

Persons Contacted

-

,

[

Licen.see Emplop es

[

• E. Burkhtt, Engineering Support

..a..

'

'

lf'

'*0. Fraser, Quality Assurance (QA) Site Manager

-

p'

• J. Hammonds, Nuclear Safety and Compliance Sepervisor

.'

,h

'

~ *A. Huber, $snior Plant Engineer

.

• J.7 Lewis, Acting Operations Manager

'

,

,

'L. Sumner Assistant General Plant Manager

+

.

,

l Other li:ensee employees contacted during this. inspection' included.

l

. engineers, operators, technicians, and' administrative personnel.

'

,

NRt. Resident' Inspectors.

,.

,

,

..

'

' *J. Menning, : Senior. Resident Inspector

.

..,ausser, Resident Inspector

!

.

f

• Attended exit interview 2.

Cor.tainment Local' Leak Rate Testing (61720)

• '

The ' purpose' of the inspection activities in this trea was to ascertain

that theilicensee's LLRT program was. being administered adequately and

.

conducted in compliance with NRC requi: ements.

The inspec. tor ; reviewed

-.f

.LLRT. procedures, evaluated test results, witnessed ongoing leak rate testing' for the current Unit 2 outage, revicwed containment-isolation i"

valve (CIV):niaintenance records, and reviewed licensee QA coverage cf the

,o LLRT program.

t

'

a.

LLRT Procedure Review

'

The inspector reviewed survefilance procedure 42SV-TET-001-2S, Type B

,

'

and C ' Leakage Tests (Revision 4), and verified that the following attributes' were included to ensure proper leak rate testing of

containment isolation botndaries:

"

,

LLRTs were performed at containment integrated leak rate test

-

,'

L (CILRT) peak design pressure.

I The LLRT program utilized approved methods for testing

-

containment penetration b:undaries and CIVs.

t

'

Penetration leakage rates were determined using the maximum c

-

'

pathway leakage.

i

.

t N.

'

.,1

'3.-

C.;;

<

W

&

-

.

-.

.

?$f

\\#

p

,

...

.

-

...

,

,

.g l

!c

.

,

'

m L

,

!

,

'

The criteria and responses 'for LLRTs and combined leakage rate

-

failures were incorporated in the test procedure.

'

Repairs : and modifications to ' containment isolation. boundaries-

-

and CIVs were preceded and followed by LLRTs.

"

LLRTs were performeo at the correct frequency.

-

A detailed review' was performed for valves ' in the following :

l

,

e penetrations to verify edequate alignment for venting and draining,

'and adequate boundary alignment fcr leak rate testing:

'

M Penetration'7B'

Main Steamline "B" Penetration 8 Steamline Condensate'Diain.

Penetration'10 Stetm to Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Turbine Penetration 12 Residual. Heat Removal (RHR) Suction

.

Penetration 14 Reactor Water ^ Cleanup Supply (RWCU)

,

.

,

Penetratiori 169 Core Spray Supply

>

Penetration 42

' Standby Liqt.id Control Pene,: ration 44 Nitrogen Makeup Inlet Penetration 63 Drywell Pneumatic Return

'

Penetration 81 Nitrogen Makeup Inlet Denetration 221B Vacuum Breaker High' Pressure Core i

Injection (HpCI) Turbine Exhaust

?

Penetration 2228 Hydrogen Recombiner Return Review of the LLRT documents.and the penetrations indicated a

~;

weakness -in the licensee's LLRT program regarding penetration ve.nting and draining controls.

,

Procedure 42SV-TET-001-2S lists valves and their desired positions

,

for leak rate testing various penetrations. Operations Department personnel perform tFese alignments by using equipment clearances, i.e.,

.

valve tagouts. They also vent and drain these penetrations by using clearances prior to leak rate testing; however, the procedure does not contain specific instructions on how to vent and drain these penetrations.

Operations personnel stated that as a general practice, all fluid filled systems such as RHR, Core Spray, etc., are totally drained shortly af ter plant shutdown for a refueling outage. However, LLRT personnei do not review Operation's valve configurations for

.

.

cenetration venting and draining before leak testing or afterwards to

!

(

ensure that the alignments are acequate.

The inspector reviewed completed records of equipment clearances for penetration venting and draining to ensure that adequate draining was accomplished.

Using plant piping, instrumentation, and isometric

,

4,

- -

I

.i

i

~

"

, -..

,

.*,

....

e-

,

W

-

,

'h

= drawings, the. inspector verified. that acceptable vent and -low point.

,

H

' drain valves were specified which would adequately' drain !.the

~!

Fs penetrations in tho:e systems reviewed. Since no discrepancies were

.:

p noted, the inspector was satisfied that containment penetrations were g.<

being drained correctly,

.,

. Although no specific problems were identified by the inspector, the

.

potential exits for incorrectly venting and draining penetrations-

,

'

,

before leak rate testing and the lack of coordination between LLRT

'

and Operations Department personnel in performing LLRT is considered

[

,

a weakness.

'

.

b.

LLRT Witnessing

.

The inspector witnessed,the performance of LLRT activities to verify

L that approved test procedures were-available and were. followed

,

,and that qualified test equirment and tools were used. -The following

'

g tests were witnessed:

Penetration 12, RHR Suction, on October 2, 1989, "As-Found". Type

-

C test of outboard CIV valve 2E11-F008.

.

Penetration 210B, RHR Test Line, on October 3,1989, "As-Founda

-

-

Type C test of outboard CIV valve 2E11-F028B.

ihe inspector discussed the system lineup for the tests and i

determined that they were in acceptable test configurations. Test

,

personnel followed approved procedures and utilized qualified test equipment.

Personnel conducting the tests ~ demonstrated a gooo

-

,

understanding of ' the test equipment and the use of tht test

procedure. Acceptable leak rate results were obtained in the test of CIV 2E11-F008; however, valve 2E11-F028B would not maintain test pressure.

After troubleshooting the test boundary by soap bubble

+

testing, it was determined that leakage was occurring through a coundary valve. The licensee was taking corrective action to assure leak tightness of valve 2E11-F028B prio. to startup from the current

outage.

c.

Leak Rate Test Maintenance Controls-The inspector tracked the repair and retest of several CIV; to verify that adequate controls existed to ensure maintenance and retest of

.

the valves. A work request far maintenance is generated by the LLRT

-

'

Coordinator when a valve fails to pass its local leak rate test.

<

,

This request is sont to the Planning and Con'.rol Department where

.'

)'

Maintenance Planners prescribe work procedures and post-maintenance testing requirements.

Before valve maintenance is performed, the Maintenance Wo-k Order (MWO) package is sent to the LLRT Coordinator

,

,

h

-

q:

>

,

.#

-

-IL j

.,,

6 ;,

-

.

rs

[c

=

'

li

.

(

t.

for. review and assurance that cerrect LLRT post maintenance -is-

-

prescribed. When.. maintenance is completed, leakage retest of the

."

U valve 'is performed.

Completion' of the work request constitutos verification that all tests have been performed as required.

Six MW0s for CIV 2E11-F008, seven MW0s for CIV G31-F001, one MWO for

CIV E21-F005B, ten MW0s for CIV E51-F007, six MW0s for CIV E41-F111, t

'

,,*

and one MWO. for CIV 2P70-F002 were reviewed.

Based on this. review, eh the inspector concluded that the licensee has. implemented a workable

. system to ensure that maintenance and retest of' CIVs were-l

.satisfactor:1y completed.

'

l-The. inspector also.noted that for the current Unit 2 outage, and as-n of October 3, 1989, very few LLRT valve. failures have occurred. This

"

is indicative of~a good valve maintenance program.

.I d.

QA' Coverage The inspector discussed local leak rate testing coverage with 'QA

'

representatives to ' determine the amount of QA involvement in.LLRT

!

activitie's.

QA audit and surveillance reports were also reviewed

since'1987 for activities related to containment leak rate testing.

{

The. inspector concluded that QA provides acceptable coverage of leak

,

rate test activities.

!

Within these areas, no violations or deviations were identified.

'

Verification of Containment Integrity (61715)

-

3.

i e

The purpose of the inspection activities in this area was to verify the

>

adequacy and implementation of procedures and controls designed to ensure and maintain containment integrity.

,

The inspector reviewed Unit 2 Operations Procedure 34GO-0PS-003-2S,

'

Startup System Status Checklist (Revision 2), which ensures all necessary plant conditions are established for reactor startup.

The inspector

-

verified that the. procedure included the following c:inimum provisions to

,'

ensure primary containment integrity exists before the plant enters operational modes which require cnnt.ainment integrity:

-

All penetrations not capa' le of being closed by automatic isolation

o

-

J valves and required to be closed during accident conditions were closed by valves, blind flanges, or deactivated automatic valves.

'

-

All equipment hatches were closed and sealed.

Each containment airlock was operable.

-

I s

>

,

_.

-

-

f*C n-

' - -

TO t

hIk

'.

'

p,,

^

,

i

..

....

g, -

b

(

'

'

i

'

o

'

.

'

Containment leakage rates were within'TS limits.

.;

-

.

,

'

ESealing mechanisms associated with each oenetration were operable.

!

-

,

-

The inspector also reviewed ' procedure 34SV-SVR-011-25, Primary and'

l L

'

,

. Secondary Containment Integrity Demonstration.(Rev.ision~.2).. This procedure' implements Technicai Specification 4.6.1.1.a which demonstrates

>

,

containment -integrity by verifying -that :all required manual isolation.

• m valves,. blind flanges', and deactivated automatic isoletion valves are

-

closed._ The inspector verified t' at all appropr ate conta1nment isolation

boundsries were included:"- the ocedure. Unit 2 completed surveillance L

records for. this - procedur ir the previous eight months of operation

[

^ were niso reviewed-No,- * ices were reported of ' incorrect valve or

.

p blind-flange alignment.

'

,

.

.

.

Within the area inspected, no violations er deviations were identified.

4.

Exit-Interview:

i f'

The inspecti,on scope and results,were summarized on October 6, 1989, with; i

L those persons indicated in. paragraph 1.

The inspector described the areas-

,

inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results. ' Proprietary information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.

'

. A we'akness was' identified relating to venting and draining penetrations

-

-

before leak rate testing and the lack of. coordination.between LLRT ar.d

'

I

~ Operations Department personnel in performing LLRT (paragraph 2.a).

n

.

i

,

t$

kI r

o s

,

s.

l'tl

?

t

i

k,$ '

'

i 1.,