IR 05000348/1987032
| ML20149E671 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1988 |
| From: | Jape F, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149E662 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-87-32, 50-364-87-32, NUDOCS 8802110226 | |
| Download: ML20149E671 (8) | |
Text
,
..
.
-.
.
..
UNITED STATES
./ p ta ry.q'o
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON
[1 REolONil n
g
,- j
'101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
- *
~r ATLANTA, GEORGI A 3o323
\\...../
ReportNos.:
50-348/87-32, 50-364/87-32 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL-35291-0400 Docket Nos.:
50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility Name:
Farley 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted:
November 17_-20, 1987 Inspection at Farley site near,Dothan, Alabama Inspector:
N.
- w
/- // - ff
,
H. L. Whitener Date Signed
/[N[N Approved by:
Ar/sa F. Jape, CM ef '" '
y/
Date' Signed Test Program Section Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, announced inspection was in the areas of containment leak rate testing on Unit 2 including observation of a portion of the test, evaluation of preliminary test results, review of changes to test procedure, review o# local leak rate test results, and follow up inspection of Unit 1 outstanding items.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
8502110226gj$0040 PDR ADOCK PDR G
_ _ _ _ _ _.
-
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
A
-
.
__
t REPORT DETAILS:
1.
Persons Contacted l
Licensee Employees l
- M. Coleman, Systems Performance Supervisor l
- D. Hartline,-GPE Supervisor L. Huey, Systems Performance Engineer
_
"J. Woodard, General Manager Other licensee employees-contacted included leak rate test personnel.
Other Organizations Bechtel P. Galanti, Alternate Leak Rate Test Director B. Patel, Leak Rate Test Director-K. Pimentel, Leak Rate Technician L. Putnam, Leak Rate Technician Volumetrics P. Zephier, Instrumentation Technician l
NRC Resident Inspector (
- W. Bradford, Senior Resident Inspector l
- Attended exit interview
.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 20, 1987, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
I One outstanding item was closed as follows:
(Closed) 50-348/86-25-03, Verify that the local leakage rate for penetrations 46, 56 and 57 are added to the Type A test result (Paragraph 7).
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection,
_ - _ _ _ _ _
-
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (70313), Unit 2 The inspector reviewed and witnessed test activities to determine that the primary Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT) was performed in accordance with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, ANSI N45.4, and Test Procedure FNP-2-STP-117.0, Revision 5, "Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test."
Selected sampling of the licensee's activities which were inspected included:
(1) review of the test procedure to verify that the procedure was properly approved and conformed to the regulatory requirements listed above; (2) observation of test performance to determine that test prerequisites were completed, special equipment was installed, instrumentation was calibrated, and appropriate data were recorded; 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 The inspectoi witnessed and reviewed portions of the test
-
preparation, containment pressurization, temperature stabilization and data processing during the period of November 17-20, 1987.
The following items were verified:
(1) The test was conducted in accordance with an approved procedure.
Procedure changes and test discrepancies were properly documented in the procedure.
(2) Test prerequisites selected for review were found to be completed.
(3)
Plant systems required to maintain test control were reviewed and found to be operational.
(4)
Special test instrumentation was reviewed and found to be installed and operational.
(5) Data required for the performance of the containment leak rate calculations were recorded at 15 minutes intervals.
(6) Problems encountered during the test were described in the test event lo.
_
-
-
.
3'
,
( 7') Pressurized ' gas sources were properly isolated and. vented to preclude in-leakage or interference of out-leakage through containment isolation valves.
(8) A temperature survey of the containment was. performed to determine. representative locations of the instruments.
(9)
In-situ instrument checks were perfortrad to confirm channel agreement with the data acquisition system.
(10) Temperature, pressure, dew point, and flow data were recorded at 15-minute intervals. Data were assembled and retained for final evaluation and analysis by the Bechtel Corporation for the licensee. A final CILRT report will be submitted to the Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation.
No violations or deviations were identified in these areas.
-
b.
Procedure Review (70307) Unit 2 The test procedure for Unit I and Unit 2 are the same with some minor exceptions. During a previous inspection in November 7-14, 1986, the Unit 1 CILRT procedure, FNP-1-STP-117.0, Revision 6, was reviewed in detail.
During this inspection the inspector reviewed portions of the Unit 2 CILRT procedure, FNP-2-ST-P-117.0, Revision 5 to verify that the procadure is essentially the same as the. Unit I procedure and conforms to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and ANSI N45.4-1972.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the 11 procedure changes made to the Unit 2 procedure.
Procedural changes included:
Change Number Purpose SA Remove certain equipment from containment.
5B Change valve position verification require-ment: chance a referenced procedure: change valve resteration position.
SC Redefine alignment of certain instrumentation.
SD Vent certain electrical penetrations per vendor manual.
SE Isolate Penetration 28, RCP seal return.
Type C leakage will be addeJ to Type A test result.
__
_ ___
y;8
.
,-,
.
.
.
5F Provide flexibility in system alignments.
SG Change valve positions in secondary system.
5H; Redefine valve position-for' draining.
SI Provide. flexibility for containment recirculation-fan operation.
5J Update description of data acquisition system:
Isolate SW from RCP motor coolers, Penetrations 32 and 60.
SK Redefine valve positions to reflect a valve added in the sump pump discharge.
Of the above changes, only SE -and 5J affected the containment boundary.
Specifically, Penetrations 28, 32, and 60_ were not correctly aligned for the Type A test. The licensee has. resolved this matter by adding - the local leakage measurements for these penetrations to the Type A test result. The following penetrations were identified in the test procedure as not aligned in the-required post accident condition:
Penetration Function
Containment Leak Test Connection,
Containment Leak Test Connection 61A Post Accident Containment Sampling /
Containment Pressure
CVCS/RCP Seal Return
CCW from excess Letdown /RCOT Heat Exchanger
SW from RCP Motor Coolers The local leakage rates from these penetrations will be added to the Type A test result.
The inspector had no further questions on procedure changes.
c.
Test Description A brief description of test events extracted from the test log are shown below:
_ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - __.
.
.
]i
'
.-
,
,
l
,
i Date Time Event 11/19 0230 Containment pressurization initiated.
1230 Pressurization-terminated at containment t
pressure of_50 psig.
Minimum four hour stabilization period initiated.
1240 Containment fan coolers secured.
2100 Stabilization declared - Type A test initiated.
11/20 2100-Twenty-four hour Type A test completed.
Began preparation for verification test.
'
2200 One hour stabilization for verification test complete, b
2215 Verification test initiated.
11/21 0215 Verification test complete,
,
d.
-Containment Integrated Leak Rate - Unit 2 A 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> containment integrated (Type A) leak rate test and a four
hour supplemental leak rate test were performed on the Unit 2 primary
containment in the period November 19-20, 1987.
Mass point-linear
!
regression analysis and total time analysis were used by the licensee
- '
to determine the leak rate (Lam) and upper confidence limit (UCL) at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
The test met the acceptance criteria for both mass point
!
I and total time analysis as :hown below; the values are expressed as I
weight percent per day.
Mass Point Total Time i
'
wt'./ day wt'e/ day
.
I La 0.15 0.15 (allowable leakage)
i 0.75 La 0.1125 0.1125 (test acceptance limit)
Lam at 24 hrs.
0.063 0.059
-
I UCL at 24 hrs.
0.064 0.063
!
The inspector's calculations agreed closely with those of the
[
licensee for a 12-hour span of the test. Although the inspector left
.
the site prior to the conclusion of the Type A test, the licensee
!
- ~
provided the final test results to the Region II office. These data
will be reviewed in the course of the routine leak rate test
'
<
irspection program.
,
_ _____ ___-_-_ _ __.
s
..
Subsequent to-the Type A test, a four hour. verification test was ~
.
performed in accordance with the recommendations of Appendix C of ANSI N45.4-1972. The measured composite leak rate was within the
~
-
,
upper and lower acceptance limits specified by the equation:
Lam + Lo - 0.25 La <- Le < Lam + Lo + 0.25 La for both the mass point and total time analysis as'follows:
Verification Lower Limit Leak Rate Upper Limit Total Time 0.173 0.224 0.248
'
Mass Point 0.176 0.214 0.252 The inspector concluded that the licensee has demonstrated that the
,
containment' leakage meets the regulatory. requirements.
'
6.
Local Leak Rate Test (70313, 61720) Unit 2 The inspector previously reviewed, in detail, the licensee's local leak rate test program and controls established to determine the "as found" leak rate (see IE Report 50-348/86-25 and 50-364/86-25).
During this
,
inspection, portions of local leak rate test results were reviewed and the
overall test results' discussed with licensee test personnel.
The
summation of the as found maximum leakage paths was 22,528 secm.
This
'
value includes four valves which exceeded the ad:ainistrative limits as
follows:
,
,
Instrument air check valve
!
-
Backup air supply for PORV's check valve j
-
CCW water to thermal barrier check valve i
-
CCW return from letdown heat exchanger A0V j
-
This leakage is only 15% of the allowable 0.6 La limit.
The summation of the as found minimum leakage paths for the Type B and C
[
tests was 2.639 secm.
This equates to 1.75% of the 0.6 La allowable
<
'
leakage or 0.01 La. At this time, the licensee had not calculated the j-exact leakage correction to determine the "as found" containment i
integrated leak rate. However, it is clear that if all the minimum path leakage was corrected to zero, the "as found" integrated leak rate would
,
be no greater than 0.065 wt.%, which is within 0.1125 wt.% limit.
In the Unit 1 test, November 1986, the licensee had excluded two
!
components from the calculation of the "as found" integrated leak rate-the equipment hatch, and the fuel transfer tube flange.
The inspector
!
confirmed that local leak rate measurem.nts of these components are l
incorporated into the Unit 2 "as found" integrated leak rate as follows:
{
E t
i f
,
. - -..
. _ _
.
-
.
-.
.-
.
-
v
?
..r
.
Fuel Transfer Tube Flange 10/06/87 1 seem - before removal for outage 11/15/87 4 seem - just before the Type A test Equipment Hatch 10/05/87 10 seem - tefore removal for outage 10/18/87 18 seem - just before the Type A test The inspector concluded that the "as found' containment integrated leak rate is acceptable.
7.
Inspection of Outstanding Item (92701) Unit 1 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 348/86-25-03, Verify that the Type A test result is adjusted for the local (Type C) leakage rates for Penetrations 46, 56, ard 57.
The inspector reviewed the Farley Primary Reactor Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test Report for the Unit 1 CILRT performed November 1986.
Page 2 of this report shows that leakage for the above penetrations was included in the local leakage rates added to the Type A test result. The total add-on leakage of 0.0001 wt.% did not affect the Type A test result.
This item is resolved.