IR 05000335/1988032
| ML17222A665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1989 |
| From: | Jape F, John Zeiler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17222A664 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-88-32, 50-389-88-32, NUDOCS 8901260306 | |
| Download: ML17222A665 (9) | |
Text
gp,R Rfcg C~io k
I
0 Q
~O
+**4+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-335/88-32 and 50-389/88-32 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-335 and 50-389 License Nos.:
DPR-67 and NPF-16 Facility Name:
St.
Lucie 1 and
Inspection Conducted:
December 12-16, 1988 Inspector:
J. Zeil
)
Approved by:
,7 F. Jape, Chief Test Programs Section Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety
/
/Q Date Soigne Da'te Signed SUMMARY Scope:
Results:
This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of containment local leak testing for both Units and verification of containment integrity involving mainly Unit l.
The inspection findings indicated that the licensee has developed and implemented a
program of controls, procedures, and surveillance testing as required by plant technical specifications to maintain containment integrity for Unit 1.
Unit 1 containment related and post-LOCA mitigating systems were found to be in a high state of availability.
A limited review of the local leak rate program for both units indicated that, in general, procedures and controls have been developed consistent with the regulatory requirements of Appendix J to
CFR
and the plant's technical
'specifications.
However, a discrepancy involving leakage criteria was identified in the Unit 2 purge valve leak rate test procedure (paragraph 4.b.).
Surveillance test records in the areas inspected were found to be complete, legible, and in compliance with plant technical specifica-tions.
Local leak rate test personnel were well qualified and were knowledgeable in procedural and regulatory requirements.
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
8901260306 8901l7 PDR ADOCK 0500033
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- G. J. Boissy, Plant Manager
- J. A. Dyer, guality Control Staff
- K. N. Harris, Vice President
- L; McLaughlin, Technical Staff
- N. Motley, Technical Staff
- R. Sipos, Services Manager
.
K. Wiecek, guality Control Staff Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included operators, technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- G. C. Paulk, Senior Resident Inspector
+Attended exit interview 2.
Inspection Objective The objective of this inspection was to, ( I) verify the development and implementatiorj of controls and surveillance test procedures which ensure that containment integrity is established, monitored, and maintained, and (2) verify that adequate procedures designed to mitigate contamination releases in the event of loss of containment integrity following a
Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) have been implemented.
3.
Verification of Containment Integrity (Units I and 2) - (61715)
The adequacy and implementation of the licensee's program designed to ensure and maintain containment integrity was assessed by reviewing procedures relating to containment and post-LOCA mitigating systems.
Procedures were reviewed for technical content and the proper extent of administrative control of activities and record keeping.
Surveillance test records of tests performed in accordance with plant technical specifications on containment related and post-LOCA mitigating systems were reviewed to ascertain system availability status.
Selected penetra-tion walkdowns were also conducted to verify the proper positioning of containment isolation valve a.
Documents Reviewed
Administrative Procedure (AP)
No.
1-0010125A; Surveillance Data Sheet No. 03,
"Containment and Shi el d Building Integri ty" (Unit 1), (Frequency:
Monthly)
AP 2-0010125A; Surveillance Data Sheet No. 02, ".Containment and Shield Building Integrity" (Unit 2), (Frequency:
Monthly)
Operating Procedure (OP)
No. 1-1300052,
"Airlock Periodic Leak Testing",
(Frequency:
6 Months)
Reactor Control Operator (RCO)
Log Sheet (LS) No. 1, (Frequency:
12 Hours)
AP 1-0010125A; Check Sheet (CS)
No. 02, (Frequency:
Daily)
OP 1-0420050,
" Containment Spray - Periodic Test, Pump and Valve Operability", (Frequency:
Monthly)
OP 1-0400050,
"Periodic Integrated Test of the Engineering Safety Features",
(Frequency:
18 Months)
OP 1-0420051,
"Containment Spray Spray Nozzle Air Flow Test",
(Frequency:
5 Years)
Chemistry Procedure (CP)
No. 1-C-26,
"Determination of Sodium Hydroxide Percent Weight", (Frequency:
6 Months)
Senior Nuclear Plant Operator (SNPO)
Log Sheet No.
1; (Frequency:
Dai ly)
OP 1-0420052,
"NaOH System - Eductors Flow Test",
(Frequency:
5 Years)
AP 1-0010125A; DS No. 2,
"Weekly Equipment Rotation Schedule",
(Frequency:
Monthly)
CP 1-C-80,
"Determination of Hydrogen Gas in Containment",
(Frequency:
. Monthly)
b.
Scope of Document and Record Review The inspector reviewed the above surveillance procedures and related documents either totally or in part to verify applicable plant technical specification requirements were met, adequate information and instruction were provided, and adequate acceptance criteria and limits were specified.
The containment related and post-LOCA mitigation systems reviewed included the following areas:
Containment penetration alignment (abbreviated as CP)
Containment personnel airlocks (abbreviated as CA)
Containment internal pressure and temperature limits (abbrevi-ated as CPT)
Containment ventilation system (abbreviated as CV)
Containment spray systems (abbreviated as CS)
Containment spray additive system (abbreviated as CSA)
Containment fan coolers (abbreviated as CFC)
Conta'inment combustible gas monitoring system (abbreviated as CCGM)
The inspector also, reviewed test records-of the aforementioned survei.llance tests to determine their compliance with regulatory requirements and to ascertain the availability of'the above systems and components.
The following table describes the records reviewed and also gives the applicable plant technical specification which requires the surveillance test.
Containment S stem Procedure No.
Records Reviewed T.S.
CA CPT CPT CV (Unit 2)
CS 8( CSA CS 5 CSA CS CSA CSA CSA
- CFC CCGN AP 1-0010125A AP 2-0010125A OP 1-1300052 RCO LS Ol AP 1-"0010125A AP 2-0010125A OP 1-0420050 01/27/87 01/19/88 08/13/87 11/01/88 11/01/88 01/19/88 06/15/88 through 11/23/88 through 11/15/88 through 08/18/88 through ll/30/88 through 11/30/88 through 1 1/15/88 through 12/07/88 OP 1-0420051 CP 1-C-26 SNPO Log Sheet OP 1-0420052 AP 1-0010125A 04/08/80 02/23/88 12/01/88 04/01/83 10/05/88 and ll/22/85 through 11/07/88 through 12/14/88 and 02/12/87 through 12/14/88 CP 1-C-80 04/11/88 through 11/22/88 OP 1-0400050 12/03/85 through 07/15/88 4.6.l.l.a.l 4.6.l.l.a.l 4.6.1.3.b 4.6.1.4 4.6.1.5 4.6.1.7 4.6.2.1.a 4.6.2.1.b 4.6.2.2.a 4.6.2.1.c.l 4.6.2.l.c.2 4.6.2.l.c.3 4.6.2.2.c 4.6.2.1.d 4.6.2.2.b.2 4.6.2.2.b.1 4.6.2.2.d 4.6.2.3.a F 6.2.3.b 4 '.2.3.c 4.6 '.1.1.a 4.6.4.1. Procedure and Records Findings Summary The procedures reviewed were technically accurate and in conformance with plant technical specifications.
No unacceptable conditions were observed.
The inspector's review of surveillance test records identified no discrepancies.
The inspector verified that'he surveillance tests were performed at the required frequencies; that test results met
.
acceptance criteria or limits; and 'ppropriate sign-off, test reviews, and test concurrences were performed.
These findings indicated that required plant systems and components designed to ensure containment integrity or mitigate post-LOCA containment releases are in a relatively high state of availability for Unit 1.'
similar review of containment related surveillance procedures and tests will be conducted in a future inspection for Unit 2.
d.
Penetration Walkdowns A walkdown visual inspection of selected containment penetrations and isolation valves was conducted for the outside of both containments.
This included the following penetrations:
Unit
Penetration-No.
Penetration No.
Penetration No.
Penetration No.
Penetration No.
Containment. Purge Exhaust
Containment Purge Makeup
Hydrogen Purge Makeup
Hydrogen Purge Filter 58 - Hydrogen Purge Filter Bypass Unit 2 Penetration No.
10 - Containment Purge Exhaust Penetration No.
ILRT Connection Penetration No.
Hydrogen Purge Makeup Electrical Penetration Bank A and B
Personnel Airlock The inspection objectives were to observe any obvious leakage or" incorrect valve lineups.
No unacceptable conditions'ere identified.
4.
Local Leak Rate Testing (Units 1 and 2) - (61720)
a.
Inspection Scope An important part of monitoring and maintaining containment integrity is the periodic testing performed to verify.the leak tightness of containment leakage barriers.
As part of the evaluation of containment integrity, the inspector performed a
limited review 'of the Unit.l and 2 procedures established by the licensee to verify local leak tightness of leakage barriers.
Documents reviewed in part to verify compliance with plant technical specifications and Appendix J included:
OP 1-1300051, Revision 10, "Local Leak Rate Test", (Unit 1)
OP 2-'1300051, Revision 3, "Local Leak Rate Test", (Unit 2)
OP 1300052, Revision 20,
"Airlock Periodic Leak Testing",
(both units)
OP 2-1300055, Revision 7, "Purge Valve Leak Rate Test", '(Unit 2)
The inspector held discussions with the licensee regarding the documentation of test results and the repair and retesting of valves following failed test.
The inspector revi'ewed the completed'As Found" and
"As Left" Type B and C leak rate test results for cboth units since the previous outages and the corrective maintenance performed, since those times.
b.
Findings In general, the leak rate test procedures were technically accurate and, in conformance with the regulatory requirements of Appendix J
and plant technical specifications.
However, one discrepancy was identified in the Unit 2 procedure',
Purge Valve Leak Rate Test.
The leakage criterion limit for each 48 inch purge valve was specified in the procedure as 49,300 standard cubic centimeters per minute (SCCN).
Technical Specification surveillance requirement 4.6. 1.7.3 specifies that the measured leakage rate should be less or equal to 0.05La; where La is the maximum allowable containment leakage rate.
The inspector calculated 0.05La to be approximately. 48,500 SCCN.
Therefore, the licensee's leakage criterion was higher than the surveillance requirement specification.
The leak rate test coordinator took appropriate action to correct the test procedure and also checked leakage criteria for other test procedures.
The test coordinator stated that his leakage program poli'cy has been to manditorily perform maintenance and repair on valves with measured leak rates greater than one-fourth the procedural limit.
The inspector also reviewed a sample of purge valve leakage test results and verified that
"As Left" leakage values have been relatively low.
Based on this information and the conservative leak test program policy conducted by the licensee, the inspector had no further concerns in this area.
No other unacceptable conditions were identifie.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on December 16, 1988, with 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.