ML20082H156
| ML20082H156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Cook |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1977 |
| From: | Kohler J, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082H066 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-384 50-316-77-21, NUDOCS 8312010042 | |
| Download: ML20082H156 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000316/1977021
Text
.
.
._.
._.
. _..
-
.
.
.
,,
(..
(
,
.'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
,
REGION III
.
Report No. 50-316/77-21
.
Docket No. 50-316
License No. CPPR-61
Licensee: American Electric Power Service
'
.-
Corporation
Indiana and Michigan Power Company
2 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
- . ,
Facility Name: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2
Inspection at: Donald C. Cook Site, Bridgman, MI
Inspection Conducted: September 30 and October 1, 5, 6, 1977
k.
k
Inspector:
J. E. Kohler
lOkl8b7,
/) f
~
Approved by:
W. S. Lit I M Chief
/0 /d 8
Nuclear Sepport Section
' '
, . .
.
Inspection Summary
Inspection on September 30 and October 1, 5, 6, 1977 (Report No. 50-316/77-21)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of performance of the
integrated leak rate test, and analysis of CILRT test data. The inspection
l
involved twenty-nine inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
!
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The
acceptability of the CILRT is an unresolved item pending the licensee's
n.
[
reanalysis of the data.
..p
i
. . . ~
,
8312010042 030825
.
GOCOL83-384
.-
e (p - O b
j
a
_.
.
_ _-
. .
-
__ _
-
.
-
.
-
.
.
.
_
.'
(/
,
,
."
(
'
.
,
T
,
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
D. Shaller, Plant !bnager
,
- B. Svenson, Assistant Plant Ibnager
- E. Smarella, Technical Supervisor
- C. Weber, Performance Engineer
- E. Kant, Performance Supervising Engineer
- M. Trezza, Cognizant Engineer, NY
-
K4N
- F. Walsch, Engineer, NY
.
- Denotes those present at the management exit on October 6
1977.
,
2.
Unit 2 Preoperational Integrated Leak Rate Test (September 30 and
October 1, 1977)
The licensee attempted to perform the Unit 2 containment preoperational
integrated leak rate test on September 30, 1977 and October 1, 1977.
During performance of the test, the system designed for the licensee
to analyze the data and calculate the leak rate was determined to
be incapable of performing this function.
The licensee was there-
fore not able to utilize an online system for data analysis and
did not perform meaningful leak rate calculations during collection
of the data.
,
-
t
i
Subsequent to data collection for the CILRT, a supplemental
.
verification test was performed in which a leak rate equivalent
l'
to 2. 77 ccfm was induced.
collected for at least four hours. Data on the supplemental test was
no online data analysis was performed.However, as in the CILRT,
Ng
f
After data collection was complete, the licensee was able to
use a large offsite computer system located at
i
the corporate
headquarters in New York ~to aid in analyzing the raw leak rate
test data.
A computer punch card deck was assembled with
l
the Unit 2 data and' transmitted to New York for analysis.
L-
The
I
analysis was performed using a program written in 1974 for the
Unit 1 preop and transmitted back to the site.
I
Preliminary results
showed the Unit 2 leak rate to be slightly negative (in leakage)
%-
with confirmatory results in the supplemental tcst.
-
- -
-2-
,
.
.
,
.
.
C
C
-
.
On October 5, 1977, the inspector returned to the Cook site to
,
inspect the data analysis performed of fline for the D. C. Cook
Unit 2 CILRT.
The inspector had performed one set of hand cal-
culated containment compartment temperature averages and had the
licensee's preliminary on line analyses of containment
temperatures which supplemented the of fline computer analysis
compartment
.
During inspection of the offline data, the inspector determined
that the analysis for containment subcompartment
did not match either the inspector's hand calculation or the
temperature
preliminary online calculations performed during the test.
'Ned
discrepancy identified by the inspector invalidated the initial
The
'
offline analysis performed by the licensee.
After this discrepancy was identified the licensee traced the
..
problem to the configuration in which the data was analyzed.
The 1974 Unit 1 test coalyzed the data in a particular order.
For the 1977 Unit 2 test the order in which the data was assemb
was different than Unit 1.
This change was not entered into
the computer. Therefore, the subcompartment temperatures
calculated by the offline computer did not agree with the actual
subcompartment temperatures.
The preoperational integrated Icak rate test for the D. C. Cook
Unit 2 remains an outstanding item.
The licensee has indicated
that additional offline computer analysis using the correct data
configuration will be performed in the future.
The RIII office
will be notified when the analysis is complete and another
inspection will be initiated.
The licensee is fully aware that
a retest will be necessary should the corporate reanalysis of the
CILRT test indicate that technical specifications were not met.
3.
Containment Volume
&
The inspector questioned the licensee regarding the basis for
using subcompartment weighting factors normalized to the ice con-
denser volume.
The factors used are related to the volume of the
containment.
However,
late the factors into cubic feet.the licensee was unable to freely trans-
Two different containment
volume studies were available to correlate the factors.
.
following table describes the information available.
The
. ,. -
-3-
.
k
i
.
.
e
.
,
1
.
-
.
C
.
C
.
,
SUBCOMPARI NT
!
Ice
Upper
Lower
l
Weighting Factor
1.0
4.2959
FSAR, ft
160,111
687,820
__J t2835
'
Respgnse Q.Pl-1,
365,614
ft
210,723
687,820
.
Vol.occupieg
365,614
by ice, ft
50,601
i
,
Thg licensee could not provide the basis for sele ti
a
ft
as the net free volume of the ice condenser subcompa t
- 9
c ng 160,111
with ice added.
vide the basis for selectingTheinspectorrequestejthelicenseetopro-
..
r ment
160,111 ft
of the ice condenser.
as the net free volume
- 46
In addition
volumes agre,e in both volume studies.as can be seen from the table, th
would be more accurate to normalize to the the uppeThe inspecter state
volume.
In that case,
r or lower sub-
would be correct.
the upper and lower containment factors
condenser volume.
The only uncertainty would be in the ice
The incpector suggested that
denser loaded with ice from maximum, minimuma param
e ice con-
ditions based on actual ice basket weight and t
, and average con-
The purpose of this study would be to determine thechnical specification.
If it can be showr. thatselected for the ice condenser ha
e effect the volume
-
the leak rate does not
eak rate.
e
when the ice condenser volume is varied over its f llchange significantly
a nominal value selected for ice condenser net
u
range, then
accpetabic.
parametric study will be available for inspection atThe lic
that this
headquarters during the next inspection.
the corporate
4
4.
_In s t ru_ men ta tion
The containment was instrumented with 46 RTDs
cator and four hygrometers for measuring dewpoint 6 pressure indi-
,
felt
there was a lack of redundancy in instrumentatiThe inspector
.
respect to dewpoint measurement.
on with
point instrument fail. grab sample could be obtained and analyzed sh
t cal dew-
inspector suggested that additional less expConsidering state of the
the
instrum
entation be acquired to provide redundancyensive dewpoint
.
.
E
N
-4-
.'
~
I
'
>
.
..
.
C
Containment Model
the Cook plant is d
leak rate at
any of the available ANSI stan -
6.
The model used to calculate thedescribed in
,
model differs from
i
,
The
It is not
or published.models in that
i hted
three subcom-
'
unique.
ards either in draft form
traditional containment calculated and volumetrically we g
leak rate
The
.partment leak rates
overall integrated leak rate. knowledgeable
are
test were not
in
d l development and the documentat oof the ques
an
together to providelicensee individuals performing the
of the history behind the mo e answer some
provided was not suf ficient to
l
before future
, . ,
exit that
,'
hrose.
The inspector stated at the managementmodel should be update
W ,%
are performed, thewill be well founded.
'
leak rate tests
documented so that future tests
.
Data Management
analyze data created
-
7.
to
dditional hours to the test. analyzed quick
The system designed by the licensee
<
i
a bottleneck that added many aThe data collected could no
l
began to accumulate.
This has shown
input.
s part of
The system designed used manual data
i
consuming, error prone, labor ou
management exit the inspectorautomated suc
to be the most time At the
into a ,
leak rate testing.
suggested that the data input ,be
essary before input
an
mediate conversion factors are nec optimally should createsets with erron
,
system
Data
In addition, the h data set. analysis, and the leak
I
computer.
unalterable hard copy for eacdata should be easily deleted
h
l
able to
should be
rate program
the test start point.
Type C Leakage Penalty
leakage from Type C testsccounted
g
8.
The licensee calculated that theto add to the Type A test a
that NRC required the licensee
for .03 wo/ day.
!
about which more information ish th
Unresolved Items
l
9.
matters
Unresolved items dis-
Unresolved items are
required in order to ascertain w e
items of noncompliance, or deviatdiscussed in Paragraphs
ions.
closed during the inspection are
l
'
. . .
.
-5-
!
e
--
g
- - um
%
. .-
..
. .-
-
,
.
..
(
.
'
'
,
'
-
10.
Management Exit
,;
l
'. ; .
A management exit was conducted at the conclusion of the inspec-
it
tion. The following i. ems were discussed relating to additional
of fline computer anal sis performed by the corporate office,
New York Post Test Analysis Requirements:
a.
.
(1) Correct cont 'inment configuration
'
(2)
Input changed to accept and print out raw data for
'
verification against original raw data tapes
.
same
(3) Parametric study on the ice condenser volume
(4) Rerun of raw data
(5) Documentation to support leak rate presented
_ Data Management and Model Improvements Necessary before Next Test
.~ '
b.
(1) Automated data input
(2) Redundancy in dewpoint measurement system
(3) Better working conditions
-
%*
. . .
,'
!
-
r
' <
p..
_ . . .
(=
-
i
-
-6-
.
b
.
- 4~
q
e
N
L
'
$6$U
. - . , . . - , ..
-
_ - . - . . . . _ . - . - - . - . . _ . _ _ . . _ - , _
. . . . - . -
. . . - - - . - - - . -
. -