IR 05000414/1985029

Insp Rept 50-414/85-29 on 850628-0705.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Containment Structural Integrity Testing & Containment Integrated Leak Rate Testing

ML20133P204
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	07/26/1985
From:	Jape F, Macdonald J, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133P188	List: IR 05000414/1985029 ML20133P185
References
50-414-85-29, NUDOCS 8508140208
Download: ML20133P204 (5)

Text

.

~

UNITED STATES

[>3 MGg#' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O 'S ** REClON11 h, ' 101 MARIETTA STREET, *I f ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30373 g %# g

.....

Report Nos.: 50-414/85-29 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket No.- 50-414 License N CpPR-117 Facility Name: Catawba 2 Inspection Conducted: June 28 - July 5, 1985 Inspectors: N d //) (Na _ 7- 24- H. L. Witener - Date Signed rr 7-t(->' J. B. t(ac' donald Date Signed Approved by: , f ~ 7 - a C. - t/~

p F. Japf,&Section Chief Engineering Branch Date Signed Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, announced inspection entailed 97 inspector-hours on site in the areas of containment structural integrity testing and containment integrated leak rate testin Results: No violations or deviations were identifie Og,073014 DR ADOCK O O

.

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• J. Cox, Superintendent, Technical Services J. Snyder, Supervising Engineer, Performance Testing W. Suslick, Assistant Engineer, General Office S. Korellis, Associate Engineer, General Office

• R. Jones, Test Engineer, Performance

• Carwile, Associate Engineer, Performance R. Scarborough, Assistant Engineer, Performance Other licensee employees contacted included leak rate personne NRC Resident Inspectors

• P. Skinner K. Vandoorn

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 5,1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding Licensee management stated that the half pressure Type A test was aborted in that spurious noise introduced through the instrumentation system adversely affected the test results before the test could be completed. Consequently, the first periodic Type A test for Unit 2 will be a full pressure tes The licensee further stated that instrumentation repairs were in progress in preparation for performing the full pressure Type A leak rate tes The inspector acknowledged agreement with the position taken by licensee management and stated that the test results of the full pressure Type A test

'

would be reviewed on receipt of 90 day leak rate test repor No dissenting comments were received from the license The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.

)

_ _ - ___________- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..

O'

.

2 Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . Containment Structural Integrity Test (SIT) - Unit 2 (630508) Review of Test Procedure The inspector reviewed test procedure number TP/2/A/1200/06, Containment Initial Integrated Leak Rate Test and Structural Integrity Test, to determine if test activities were in accordance with FSAR Section 6.2.6, FSAR Table 14.2.12-1,Section III (1971 Edition, including Summer 1972 addenda) of the ASME code, and NRC requirements.

',

The test procedure specified the prerequisites to be completed prior to the start of the test, test equipment, the method and sequence for application of the test load (pressure), and acceptance criteri The test pressure was specified to be between 110 to 115 percent of the I

containment design pressure (15 psig) per FSAR and ASME requirements, Observation of Test Activities The inspector witnes? ?d portions of the containment pressurization and confirmed that the maximum test pressure of 16.618 PSIG fell within the specified range of 110 to 115 percent of the containment design pressur The maximum test pressure was held for the required time perio Licensee engineers from design engineering performed an

, inspection of the reactor containment building af ter maximum test pressure had been obtained to verify that the structure performed as expected during the SI No abnormal conditions were observe Review of Test Records The inspector reviewed the result of observations by design engineers during inspection of reactor building summarized in Memo to File dated July 2,1985, Subject: Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Containment Vessel Structural Integrity Test, File No. CN-1144.0 The

,' conclusions of the design engineers were that the containment vessel behaved as anticipated during the SI Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie . Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test - Unit 2 (70307, 70313)

,

The inspectors reviewed and witnessed test activities to determine that the

'

primary containment integrated leak rate test was performed in accordance with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, ANSI 45.4 and the test

,

c'

-

procedure TP/2/A/1200/06, " Containment Initial Integrated Leak Rate Test and Structural Integrity Test".

Selected sampling of the licensee's activities which were inspected included: (1) review of test procedure to verify that the procedure was I) properly approved and conformed with the regulatory requirements listed above; (2) observation of test performance to determine that test i

prerequisites were completed, special equipment was installed, instru-mentation was calibrated, and appropriate data were recorded; and (3)

preliminary evaluation of leakage rate test results to determine that the i calculated leak rate is within the acceptance limit. Pertinent aspects of the test are discussed in the following paragraph General Observations The inspector witnessed and/or reviewed portions of test preparation, containment pressurization, temperature stabilization and data processing during the period of June 28 - July 5,1985. The following

, items were verified, i (1) The test was conducted in accordance with an approved procedure maintained at the test control center. Procedure changes and test discrepancies were properly documented in the procedur !

(2) Selected test prerequisites were reviewed and found to be complete l (3) Selected plant systems required to maintain test control were j reviewed and found to be operationa (4) Special test instrumentation was reviewed and found to be

{

installed and calibrate !

(5) Problems encountered during the test were described in the test i

event lo <

(6) Temperature, pressure, dew point, and flow data were recorded at 10 minute intervals. Data were assembled and retained for final evaluation and analysis by the licensee. A final ILRT report will

,

be submitted to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

3 Integrated Leak Rate Test Procedure Review

The inspectors reviewed the test procedure (TP/2/A/1200/06) to verify

,

'

that adequate test controls, acceptance criteria and valve alignments were specifie Enclosure 13.8 of the procedure lists those

penetrations which were not aligned in accordance with Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 and specifies that Type C testing will be performed on these

,

'

penetrations and the results added to the 95% upper confidence limit for the Type A test result.

!

.

e

<

~

Some procedural discrepancies relating to the stabilization time at test pressure and temperature stabilization criteria were discussed with the licensee and resolved. The Type A test as performed met all requirements in these areas. The procedure specified a mass point leak rate analysis using a linear regression technique in accordance with the equations of ANSI /ANS 56.8-198 The ANSI 56.8 method is considered a technically valid analysis on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> data bas c. Integrated Leak Rate Test Performance

,

(1) Method l The containment leak rate was determined by the mass point I

analysis using linear regression techniques on a minimum of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of data recorded at 10 minute intervals for the half pressure (7.34 PSIG). The half pressure test was aborted and a full pressure (14.68 PSIG) test was performe A supplemental test was performed to verify the full pressure Type A test result and instrument system respons (2) Test Description A structural integrity test was performed at greater than 110% of design pressure. Subsequently containment pressure was reduced to 85% of half pressure (Pt) for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to allow for outgassing and

-

stabilization of the containment atmosphere. The containment was

'

then pressurized to 22 PSIA (half pressure) and allowed to restablize. The half pressure Type A test was initiated at 8:30 a.m. on July 2,1985. Due to an initial high leakage rate and the isolation of leakage paths the test was restarted at

,

5:00 p.m. on July 2 and terminated at 2:50 p.m. on July The

, test was aborted at 2:50 p.m. as'a result of large step changes in i test parameters which resulted in an increasing trend in leak

rat Instrumentation problems became increasingly severe as the i test progressed. The licensee checked and repaired the instru-

mentation and elected to perform the full pressure test without repeating the half pressure tes This requires that the next Type A tests ba performed at full pressure. The inspector did not witness the fu.' pressure test but was informed by the licensee by telephone on July 9 that the test was successfully concluded July The mass point leak rate of 0.12 wt% per day and 95%

upper confidence limit of 0.126 wt.% per day meet the acceptance limi.t of 0.15 wt% per day. A supplemental test was performed and met the .25 La limits. These results will be reviewed on receipt of the 90 day leak rate test repor Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie I

.

4