IR 05000322/1987002
| ML20211P922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1987 |
| From: | Anderson C, Joe Golla NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211P901 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-87-02, 50-322-87-2, NUDOCS 8703020454 | |
| Download: ML20211P922 (9) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 87-02 Docket No.
50-322 License No. NPF-19 Licensee:
Long Island Lighting Company P. O. Box 618 Wading River, New York 11792 Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
Inspection At: Wading River, New York Inspection Conducted: January 17-21, 1987 Inspectors:
adMI I
E- /7 - d' /
eph M Golla, React'or Engineer date
'
/f!f?
Approved by:
2.
Clif fc'rd J. (Anderson, Chief date Plant Systems Section, EB j
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on January 17-21, 1987 (Inspection Report No.
50-322/87-02).
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of procedure review, test witnessing and preliminary results evaluation of periodic containment integrated leak rate test.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
070302 % $$$$$22 PDR A
-__ _. _.
_.. -. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
. -
.....
.
..
..
.
.
.
...
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted LILC0 M. Case, ILRT Engineer
- T. Durando, Licensing Engineer
- R. Grunseich, Operations Compliance Engineer F. Hubert, ILRT Engineer
- L. Lewin, Maintenance Engineer
- R. Perra, Section Head, Quality Control Division
- P. Pizzariello, Maintenance Engineer
- C. Seaman, Manager, Quality Control Division
- D. Smith, Compliance Engineer
- W. Steiger, Jr., Plant Manager
- M. Toner, ILRT Engineer and Test Director Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation W. Carrol, Engineer J. Busa, Engineer R. Parry, Engineer R. Samson, Engineer Nuclear Regulation Commission
- C. Warren, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting, held on January 21, 1987.
2.0 Containment Integrated Leak Rate Testing (CILRT)
'
2.1 General During the period January 19 through January 21, 1987 a periodic CILRT was performed at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.
The test was conducted with the Containment Isolation Valves (CIV's) and Containment Pressure Boundaries (CPB's) in an "As-Left" condition. The test was performed in accordance with station Procedure Number 84.654.01, Revision 3, " Primary Containment Leakage Rate Test - Type A".
The inspector reviewed the test procedure and witnessed preparations and various portions of the "As-Left" CILRT.
The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain that the CILRT was conducted in compliance with the requirements and commitments referenced in the following sections, and that the test results met the acceptance criteria specified in the station procedures and Appendix J, 10 CFR 50.
The procedures were reviewed for their technical adequacy to perform the intended activitie.
-
.
.,
,
4 2.2 References Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications
Section 4.6.
10 CFR; Part 50, Appendix J, Primary Reactor Containment
Leakage Testing for Water Cooled Power Reactors.
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
- ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981, Containment Systems Leakage Testing
Requirements.
USNRC I&E Information Notice No. 85-71; Containment Integrated
Leak Rate Tests.
2.3 Documents Reviewed 84.654.01, Primary Containment Leakage Rate Test - Type A,
Revision 3.
Calibration records for CILRT instrumentation by Grumman and
EG&G.
Stone and Webster Calculation No. 19.2.1-25-4, Revision 3, ILRT
Weight Factors - IT49 System.
Official Type A log of events.
- Procedure No. 12.080.04, Type B and C total leakage.
- Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Appendix J - 10 CFR 50 Test
Program Briefing Session, September 1986 Instrumentation selection guide calculation.
- 2.4 Pretest Activities
-
'
A preliminary walkdown inspection was conducted on January 18, 1987 to verify the positions of RTD's and dewcells which were to be used for the containment integrated leak rate test.
The inspector verified the positions of a sample of RTD's and dewcells in the drywell and wetwell.
The two dewcells in the wetwell were found to be installed at an elevation approximately 10
!
, _ - _.
... _, _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _,. _ -,. _ _ _
., _.. _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. - _,.,_,. _ _ _ - -.
_
.
-
feet above their specified position. The licensee responded to the inspectors concern about this by repositioning them at their specified elevation. The inspector witnessed the insitu testing of several sensors and determined that 16 RTD's and 6 dewcells were installed.
Four air compressors were lined up for containment pressurization through the hydrogen recombiner system.
2.5 Administrative Control of CILRT and Procedure Review The inspector reviewed controlled test procedures, procedural sign-offs, official Type A log of events, data taking, and observed test activities to verify that:
The test procedure was adequate.
- Test prerequisites were met.
- Test directors were designated and their responsibilities were defined.
The test was conducted in accordance with the procedure.
Proper plant systems were in service, and valves were lined up in accordance with the test procedure.
All required plant parameters were being recorded on at least
an hourly basis.
The inspector noted that the licensee maintained good access control to the reactor building before and during the test. No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.6 Test Instrumentation The inspector reviewed the calibration records of the ILRT instru-mentation to ascertain that the instruments had been calibrated within the 6-month period prior to the test, as per the industry standard ANSI /ANS-56.8-1981.
The calibrations were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The inspector also verified that the instrument system satisfied the specifications given in the instrument selection guide of ANSI /ANS-56.8-1981.
The inspector observed the operation of the automatic data collection system during the conduct of the test.
Under ANSI /ANS-56.8-1981, a minimum of 1 pressure sensor and 3 dewpoint sensors are required. The limitation on drybulb temper-ature sensors is that no sensor may represent a volume fraction greater than 10% during the test.
The following is a summary of the CILRT sensors:
~
.,,
,
.
-%
g
-
'
'
\\
,
z b E Sensor Minimum Actual (
Drybulb Temperature
16 i
Dewpoint Temperatu're
6 Pressure
'"3 c
<
~
-
.
,.
No unacceptable conditions were. identified.
-
2.7 Containment Inspection and Test Boundary Verification..'
' '
Theinspectorconducte[severaltoursindependentlyandy*th'
licensee personnel before and during the CILRT. The contr.inment was inspected for_ the existence of artificial boundaries ahd boundaries showing evidence of 1.eakage.
Several isolation valves we q found to be leaking slightly. However, the licensee inspection? teas identified the leakat;h sources and admidstrative meashres were taken to continue monitoring ~the*,e valves throughout the te.st7 No unacceptable conditions were identified. -
2.8 Test Witnessing l'
,
,
Theinspectorwitness6dportionsofthefohlowingtestactivities:
'
'
(1) Protest " Leak Chasing" by Licensee
?
(2) Containment Atmospheric Stabilization s
(3) 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> CILRT Data AcqJisition L
'
'
-
(4) 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> Instrument Verification
'
,
These activities were witnessed to ' verify that the CILRT was conduc-ted in accordance with the test procedure and within the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.
Additicdally, several paea-meters were monitored during the course of th1 CILRT and are listed
,,
as follows:
reactor vessel water level, suppression pool water i
.
level, and drywell equipment and drywell flocr sump leveis. Thr'
objective was to monitor the inventory of water in tha reactor coolant system for prompt identification of leaks and to chose leak sources.
These parameters showed no meaningful changes.
' -
2.9 Atmosphere Stabilization The containment atmosphere must meet'the following criteria por station procedure 84.654.01:
.
f
-
-
-
.
_
~
.
a.
a minimum of four hours has elapsed since securing compressors.
(The inspector verified this).
'
b.
/The change in containment weighted average temperatures should not exceed 0.5 F for the last two hours.
(The inspector calculated a change of 0.04 F/hr over the last two hours).
i/'
c.
The average mass rate of change over the data collection period should not exceed 15 lbm/hr and be decreasing.
(The inspector calculated an average mass rate of change of 13.78 lbm/hr over the four hour data collection period and verified
)
the rate of change was decreasing toward the end of the data collection period).
-
This meets the criteria for atmosphere stabilization.
2.10 CILRT Caronology
,
,
January 18, 1987
<
,
2224 Insitu tests of CILRT sensors are completed.
Deenergized
'
primary containment lighting and closed primary containment.
'
'
'
'y January 10, 1987 I,
0525 Began CILRT checklist f i 0624 Commenced Pressurization 0700 Initiated gross leakage investigation of accessible
-
penetration areas. Several minor leaks were noted and logged by the licensee.
1745 Charging header depressurized.
.
)'
2205 Test started. The atmosphere met the stabilization
-
t.riteria.
r January 20, 1987 0050 Operations valved in service water to RHR HX to cool reactor water, (Loop B in shutdown cooling). This caused the drywell temperature to drop by 0.1*F causing a pressure perturbation.
Leak chasing ongoing.
,
.
/
- N,
,
,
"
.
January 21, 1987
>
0745 The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test period was terminated.
0925 Superimposed verification stabilization period complete.
Start superimposed verification test.
1325 Verification test period ended.
2.11 Test Results The licensee computed the containment leakage using both the total time method (TTM) of ANS-N45.4-1972 and the mass point method (MPM)
of ANSI /ANS-58.6-1981.
The inspector also computed the leakage from
,
'
the licensee's averaged data utilizing an NRC CILRT computer program.
A comparison of results for the 24 hr. CILRT is shown below.
The units are containment atmosphere weight percent per, day.
j LICENSEE NRC j
TTM MPM TTM MPM Leakage Rate
.171133
.181272
.17113
.18127 Calculated, Lam 95% UCL
.039520
.002101
.03305
.0021
.
Lam + UCL
.210653
.183373
.20418
.1 ?37 Corrections
.052427
.052427
.052427
.052427 For Type B Leakage Corrections
.004962
.004962
.004962
.004962 For Type C Leakage Total Type A
.268042
.240762
.261569
.240759 Leakage Rate Acceptable
.3750
.3750
.3750
.3750 r
Leakage Rate The licensee and NRC. computations show good agreement.
The preliminary results indicate a 50ccessful CILRT..(Note that corrections for Type B & C Leakage was not independently calculated by the inspector.)
-
The acceptance criteria of.375 Wt., %. Day (.75 La) is applicable to both the "as-found" and "as-left" test results. A plot of the leakage trend may be seen on Attachment 1.
The above results are subject to
' additional local leakage from the hydrogen recombiner system penetrations which were isolated during the test. A final test' evaluation is pending NRC review of the licensee's summary technical report.
'
__
._
.
_
_
..
_-
.
The inspector informed the licensee that the mass point calculational method is not sanctioned for use in 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and will not be evaluated as the official test result.
The 24 hr. CILRT was followed by a successful 4 hr. superimposed leakage verification test.
3.0 QA/QC Coverage The inspector discussed the coverage of the containment integrated leak rate test with a QA/QC representative and reviewed QC inspection documen-tation concerning the CILRT.
The inspector verified QA/QC involvement in test monitoring. QC was present to provide coverage for assigned witness points during the test including several test prerequisites and to verify that the test was properly executed.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.0 Exit Meeting Licensee management was informed of the purpose and scope of the inspection at the entrance interview. The findings of the inspection were periodically discussed and were summarized at the exit meeting on January 21, 1987.
Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in Section 1.0 of this report.
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.
_
.
_. -.
_
.
_
_
. _.
..
_
_
.
_
_
.
_
_
l TT
.
T l8rG 8 S
s TT
.
S E
LM l8mG T
.
L
.
CR n
E UL l8nG a T
.
i J
R
.
l8+G 1 R
.
v
-
a
E E
.
d l8r G M
a
/
-
N t
.
%
-
t I
w l8rG T
K
.
o
-
R
.
.
E
l8. O
L
-
.
-
V
.
T l8 + m T
D I
M Nt1 E
.
EFMT I
-
orm MLMR L
l :
E H
-
C l8cm C&EG u
-
N E
A H
RE M
T TLCT
-
l8 m TCHN I
P T
E
-
I C
FUSI
.
C
-
S A
l8n m T
V
-
N T
E E
S l8m w
.
M G
E H
A T
.
C K
A A
l8cw ar T
E
.
T L
8rw A
.
.
l EM
-
I 8m a T
l
-
S L
.
A 8h w R
a l
_
T
.
.
O U
T 8+w 7 O
-
l
H
-
_
o S
8t -
l
- ml L
-
.
8cwn o
l a
E
.
8wJ M
-
I
-
-
T m
8ms 2
-
l
_
.
.
.
8cG n
.
.'..
.
..-
l 8cO ar l
-
-
-
-
-
_.
_.
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
7
5
2
,m L
l
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
l
>EA\\n I
W g E E y e e u a u ]_
.
l yEt1 J[Hgr t -- -
l
> [' is, J.o a I
s s
,
'
.i