IR 05000397/1987017
| ML17279A402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1987 |
| From: | Clark C, Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17279A400 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-87-17, NUDOCS 8707230692 | |
| Download: ML17279A402 (16) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No. 50-397/87-17 Docket No. 50-397 License No.
NPF-21 Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System P.
0.
Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-2 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection Conducted:
June 1-22, 1987 Inspector:
C C.
A
'lark, Reactor Inspector Approved by S.
Richards, Chief Engineering Section Date Signed 7 (o 87 Date Signed Ins ection Durin the Period of June 1-22 1987 Re ort No. 50-397/87-17 Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test'CILRT) and areas covering unresolved and followup Inservice Testing (IST) i.tems.
The inspection included review of procedures, interviews with personnel, witnessing portions of the CILRT, inspection of containment building, associated penetrations and piping systems.
During this inspection, inspection procedures 70307, 70313, and 92701 were covered.
Results:
In the areas inspected, no violations of NRC requirements were identified.
8707230692 8707k 0 PDR
- DOCK 05000397
DETAILS l.
Persons Contacted Washin ton Public Power Su
S stem
"C. Powers, Plant Manager J.
Baker, Assistant Plant Manager
"M. Mills, Compliance Manager
- D. Feldman, Plant gA Manager
"R. Webring, Mechanical System Supervisor
"M. Bartlets, Plant gA Supervisor D. Welch, Supervisor NDE Services P. Inserra, CILRT Director D. Injerd, CILRT Director M. Reis, CILRT Director J., Snyder, Senior Engineer Performance NP K. Worthern, Principal Engineer NP OPRNS
'.
Morgan, Engineer I
NP Maintenance
"R.
Rana, IST Program Leader
- J. Steiol, Principal gA Engineer
~C.
Van Hoff, Sr., State Liaison
"Denotes those personnel in attendance at the exit meeting on June 10, 1987.
The inspector also held discussions with other licensee and contractor personnel involved with CILRT and IST open items.
2.
Containment Inte rated Leak Rate Test CILRT A.
Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the CILRT procedure as described in the WNP-2 Plant Procedures Manual (PPM), Procedure No. 7.4.6. 1.2. 1, Revision No. 0, issued June 2, 1987, titled "Primary Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test."
This review was to ascertain compliance with plant Technical Specifications, Regulatory Requirements, and Applicable Industrial Standards as stated in the applicable sections of the following documents:
WNP-2 Technical Specifications, Sections 4.6. 1.2 and 4.6.6. 1.
WNP-2 FSAR, Sections 6.2.6. 1, 6.2.6.4 and 6.2.6.5.
Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, "Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water Cooled Power Reactors."
American National Standards,
"Leakage-Rate Testing of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors,"
American National Standard,
"Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements, " ANSI/ANS-56. 8-198 Based on the procedure review, review of records, and observation of work activities, the procedure addressed the major areas specified in the licensee's commitments for the CILRT program.
Some procedure improvement comments are provided in Section 2. E of this report.
No violations or, deviations were identified.
Records Review The inspectors reviewed the records to assure that the following required activities were performed prior to initial pressurization:
(1)
Completion of all applicable identified local leakage rate testing and identification of leak rates prior to and after any repairs.
(2)
Removal or venting of items listed on the valve lineup list.
(3)
Inspection of interior and exterior. containment surfaces and components for evidence of deterioration or damage.
(4)
Suppression pool level verified.
Containment sump water levels identified and recorded.
(5)
CILRT measurement system properly installed, functionally checked, and all instrumentation calibrated within the last six months with NBS traceability certificates available.
(6)
Pressurization system tested; including proper operation of the air compressors, after-coolers, moisture separators, air dryers, and valves.'7)
Containment ventilation system adjustments completed.
(8)
Valve lineups completed.
(9)
Pressurization system in service.
No violations or deviations were identified.
CILRT Surveillance Prior to the CILRT the inspector performed an area survey for instrument location assignments within the containment drywell and wetwell.
The purpose was to locate and evaluate the placement of the temperature and dewpoint sensors.
This inspection revealed that the sensors were located within the tolerances of the installation instructions.
The operation of the pressurization equipment (air compressors, after-coolers and air dryers)
used for pressurization of the Containment Building was inspected to assure that procedures for prevention of potential problems were enforced.
This included establishment of communications between CILRT control center and the
pressurization station, adequate cooling water supply to the after-coolers, and control of after-cooler air temperature during press urizati on.
The inspector witnessed the following CILRT activities:
(1)
Initial pressuri zati on.
(2)
Stabilization.
(3)
Data Acquisition.
(4)
Completion of CILRT.
(5)
Leakage Rate Verification Test.
(6)
Initial Containment Building Depressurization.
Applicable electrical and mechanical penetrations were inspected.
The valve lineups were completed in accordance with procedure, except that because of unacceptable valve seat leakage the discharge line for valve MS-V-678 had to be cut and a cap welded on it.
Valve HS-V-67B was scheduled for repair and retest after the completion of the CILRT.
The overall performance of the CILRT crew members were observed by the inspector.
Attributes evaluated were:
availability of test procedure; test prerequisites being met; proper plant systems in service; special test equipment calibrated and,in service; and crew actions timely and correct.
Crew members had received CILRT training prior to the test; this appeared evident by satisfactory performance of their duties.
The licensee commenced pressurizing the containment at 3:30 p.m.
on June 7, 1987, and maximum test pressure (34. 7 +1. 0 -0. 0 psig)
was reached at 11:30 p.m.
on June 7, 1987.
No excessive leakage paths were identified during the four hour (minimum) hold/stabilization period that would interfere with the satisfactory completion of the Type A test.
An addition of one RHR heat exchanger load of 60'F water to the reactor vessel, during the initial stabilization period, did cause a perturbation of CILRT data and extended the stabilization period until approximately 6:00 a.m.
on June 8, 1987.
The licensee commenced taking official data at 6:04 a.m.
on June 8, 1987.
During the initial CILRT hold period, it was observed that the suppression pool level was decreasing.
In the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System, relief 'valve RCIC-RV-17 on "water leg" pump RCIC P-3 discharge line, was found to be lifting per design liftpoint and was discharging water from the suppression pool'.
Pump RCIC P-3 takes its suction from the suppression pool.
The valve was blanked and a design review requested.
The installed blank will be removed upon completion of CILRT.
The test was completed at 5: 19 a.m.
on June 9, 1987, and the official start time of the test was identified as 6: 19 a.m.
on.June 8, 1987.
After the
completion of the 23 hour2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br /> CILRT, a superimposed leakage rate verification test was performed from 8:03 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
on June 9,
1987.
During the verification test, the data readout from drybulb TE-17 was lost.
Since an in-situ calibration check of this drybulb could not be performed after the test, this wetwell volume fraction was divided up among the other three drybulbs in the wetwell for the leakage rate calculation.
The licensee's preliminary results for the Type A test, which did not include Type B or C additions, were a total time leakage rate of 0.2102 wt X per day with a 95K Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) of 0.2837 wt X per day.
The licensee's maximum allowable leak rate for this test was 0.375 wt I per day.
For information only, a
mass-point calculation provided a leak rate of 0.1996 wt X per day with a 95K UCL of 0.2080 wt X per day:, These preliminary Type A
test results appear to be within the latest allowed acceptable criteria.
But the licensee preliminary review of the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs) "as found" leakage test results indicates a
high probability that the "as-found" Type A test results will be unacceptable, when the differences between the affected minimum path leakage before and after repairs of MSIVs is added to the overall measured Type A test result.
This has the potential to impact the future test frequency of CILRTs. If two consecutive CILRTs failed, then the CILRT test frequency must be revised from once every 40 months to each plant shutdown for refueling or approximately every 18 months, whichever occurs first.
The final test results will be submitted to the NRC for review and evaluation.
No violations or deviations were identified.
B ass Leaka e Rate Test The CILRT director reported in a June 22, 1987 telephone conversation that the 1.5 psig bypass leakage rate test total time leakage rate and UCL were 6.471 wt X per day.
This was acceptable per the allowed acceptance criteria of 78.4 wt X per day.
During this test, the drywell was pressurized to 1.5 psig, and the CILRT instrumentation was used to measure any bypass leakage from the drywell to wetwell.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Procedure Im rovement Comments The following comments on CILRT PPM Procedure No. 7.4.6. 1.2. 1, Revision No. 0, were discussed with the licensee representatives, who stated that the inspector's observations would be considered for possible change/inclusion in the subject procedure.
(1)
This procedure did not require performance of an instrument area survey for containment temperature differentials and humidity, for location of CILRT test instrumentation, or identify that the specified instrument locations were identified by an earlier survey.
The licensee could not
provide a copy of previous survey results during this inspection, but stated one had been performed in 1984, and they did not know what would require them to maintain a copy after the original instrumentation locations had been selected.
The licensee also stated that an informal survey of containment temperatures was performed during instrument installation to verify an instrument was not installed near a heat source (such as a motor, etc).
Since ANSI 45.4-1972 (leakage rate testing of containment structures for nuclear reactors),
paragraph 7.4, discusses area temperature surveys, the inspector suggested that the licensee's procedure should also document the licensee's actions in this area.
The licensee identified that the same personnel who had performed the initial temperature and humidity survey and instrument installation were installing the instrumentation for this test in the previous identified instrument locations.
(2)
While Attachment B.2 identified drybulb and dewcell instrument locations by elevation and azimuth, there were no tolerances assigned in the procedure.
The licensee established location tolerances for the test instrumentation, and stated that installed locations and associated tolerances would be documented for reference during future installations of CILRT instrumentation.
(3)
The procedure did not provide for documentation of the identification of all instrumentation used in measuring CILRT test data, such as the volumetric CILRT data acquisition system (DAS) housed within the integrated leak rate monitoring system (ILRMS) cabinet and the leak rate verification flow unit.
This equipment identification was recorded in the ILRT test summary log.
(4)
The accuracy tolerances provided in Attachment B. 1 for the volumetrics RTD drybulbs did not agree with the tolerances identified in some of the licensee calibration reports for the same instruments.
The tolerances specified in both of these documents were within the required acceptance criteria, but they should agree,'r clarification information should b'e added to the procedure.
3.
Licensee Action on Previousl Ins ector Identified Items A.
0 en Followu Item No. 50-397/85-17-02:
IST-Licensee Review of Im lementin Procedures A ainst ASME Section XI Re uirements
~Re uired The followup item covered six (6) discrepancies and weakness noted during the original inspection.
The concerns and their status are discussed below:
(1)
IST program plan pump vibration monitoring details were not fully incorporated in the site surveillance procedure for the diesel oil transfer pumps during the initial inspection.
It
appears the site surveillance procedures have been updated in accordance with the latest industry practice.
Relief request RP-1 is still outstanding.
The licensee has taken appropriate action, therefore, this concern is closed.
(2)
During the initial inspection the IST procedures/associated data sheets had no provision for the system engineer or assigned reviewer to sign off for,his review of data sheets or for documentation of any required changes in test frequencies..
In response to this concern, the licensee has stated that approximately 80X of the applicable procedures/data sheets have been revised as of the date of this inspection, and the remaining will be submitted for issue in the next ninety days.
The cover sheets on the new procedures have a statement that reads
"Test data satisfies acceptance criteria satisfactory yes or no" and per the licensee, if the answer is no then changes to test frequencies and other corrective actions will be identified in applicable areas of the cover sheet or under the comments section of the new cover sheet.
This above action will be verified completed and acceptable prior to the final signature at the bottom of the new cover sheet by the assigned reviewer.
The licensee is taking appropriate actions and this concern is cl os ed.
(3)
During the initial inspection, the IST safety and relief valve test procedure did not require that two consecutive acceptable lifttests be achieved prior to acceptance of a valve, which is a conservative testing practice that the nuclear power industry has recently been following.
During this inspection, it was identified that PPM procedure 7.4.0.5. 19 (Revision 3 of Hay 18, 1986),
"Hain Steam Relief Valve'et Point Verification,"
requires a total of four (4) lifts per steps 5 and 6 of paragraph 7.4.0.5. 19.8.C, for in shop testing and two (2) lifts for on-line testing, per Attachment 4 of the same document.
While the above procedure has incorporated the latest industrial testing guidance, PPH procedure 7.4.0.5.20 (Revision 2 of April 8, 1987), "Testing of Technical Specification Related Safety/Relief Valves," still only requires one (1) lift test per step 3 of paragraph 7.4.0.5.20.7.
The licensee said they are still reviewing the question of how many times they want to perform lifttesting per PPH Procedure 7.4.0.5.20.
This concern will remain open until the licensee has reviewed whether or how it wants to follow this latest industry testing practice.
(4)
During the initial inspection, the IST diesel oil transfer pumps testing procedure did not provide for recording of storage tank levels and tank correlating levels to pressure as specified in note A to the
"WNP-2 Pump Inservice Test Table" in the program plan.
The licensee has changed this procedure, therefore, this concern is close (5)
During the initial inspection, it was identified that the IST valve, stroke timing/exercising procedures did not have specific precautions/requirements to take data on the first operation of a valve.
The licensee stated these procedures had been changed, and a sample review of some procedures, such as PPM Procedure 7.4.0.5.6 (Revision 5, issued June 25, 1986) revealed that paragraph 7. 4. 0. 5. 6. 4. I,.specified "Valves are to be tested in the 'as found'ondition unless specifically directed otherwise."
The licensee has taken appropriate action, and this concern is closed.
(6)
The initial inspection revealed that the IST valve program did not provide for evaluation and corrective action of valve stroke times based on the previous test times, as required by ASME Section XI, subsection IMV-3417.
This concern was identified as part of enforcement Item No. 50-397/85-17-01,.
which is still under staff review.
This item has been referred to NRR for review.
This concern will remain open unti 1 the staff have completed their review.
This item will remain open until all concerns are resolved.
Closed Unresolved Item No. 50-397/85-17-03:
IST-Licensee Review on uestion of the Ade uac of Test Result Reviews Re uired During the initial inspection, the inspectors questioned the adequacy of the reviews performed on the completed IST data sheets and the associated corrective actions issued.
The licensee stated the equality Assurance (gA) organization would perform specific reviews of IST program implementation, including proper evaluation of test results and corrective actions.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the following gA surveillance reports:
Surveillance Re orts No.
Date of Issue 2-85-096 August 30, 1985 2-85-115 September 3,
1985 2-86-059 June 20, 1986 2-87-022 January 27, 1987 The above gA surveillance reports documented the licensee gA organization performance of IST reviews and identified similar findings as noted during the original inspector review. It appears the licensee is taking appropriate actions to improve the adequacy of IST data reviews.
This area will be looked at again during future inspections to track the trend of gA inspection results.
h This item is close The inspector met with the licensee management representatives denoted in paragraph 1 on June 10, 1987.
The scope of the inspection and the inspector's findings up to the time of the meeting, as noted in this report, were discussed.
At this meeting, the inspector also identified that additional information on IST open items had been obtained and requested, and that this material would be reviewed in the region and the inspector's findings documented in this report.