ML20154N180

Insp Rept 50-278/86-02 on 860117-23.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Procedure Review,Test Witnessing,Result Evaluation of Integrated Leak Rate Test Activities & Review of Unresolved Items

ML20154N180
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	02/26/1986
From:	Anderson C, Joe Golla, Kucharski S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154N168	List: ML20154N166 ML20154N180
References
50-278-86-02, 50-278-86-2, NUDOCS 8603170226
Download: ML20154N180 (7)

See also: IR 05000278/1986002

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-278/86-02

Docket No. 50-278

License No. OPR-56

Licensee: Philadelphia Electr_ic Company

H01 Market Street

Philadelphia, VA 19IDI

Facility Name: Peach Bottom, Unit _3

Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania

Inspection Conducted: J a n u a ry___17_-23, 1986

Inspectors: 8 j  % 4 4 r*

3./4Kutnarski,Residentfispector __

cate

sY dh

r

o7, e ctor Engineer

.ac ,n.

.2ldatl.~

Approved by: C M

E.~^icerson, CUsyr, - dite

/W

Plant Systems Section, EB, DRS

Insp

Insp.ection Surmary:ection on January _17-23,1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-27

Areas _ Inspected: Routine announced inspection of procedure review, test wit-

nessing, ana result evaluation of Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) activities,

review of unresolved items and tours of the facility, The inspection involved

67 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br /> onsite by two region-based inspectors.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

0603170226 06031i

PDR ADOCK 0%

G

_- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

l

'

l

I r

l

l .

l

!

l

DETAILS

i

i

l 1.0 Persons Contacted  :

l

l 1.1 philadelphia Electric Company (PEC0J

i

! *C. J. Campbell, Test Engineer, Project Group

• A. Fulvio, Technical Engineer i

"D. Smith, Superintendent, Operations l

l *A. J. Wasong, Results Engineer, Project Group i

l 1.2 General physics  ;

l

i

• C. Kootstra, Engineer ,

• E. Levinson, Engineer i

1.3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

f

T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector i

• Denotes those present at exit reeting held on January 23, 1986.  !

2.0 i.icensee Action on Previous NRC Findings

!

2.1 .(Closed) Violation (50-278/85-32-01) Performance of the fuel  !

reionstitut_fon ifVort without prope d iia lt M oltid Q r7 quired in

station procedures.

The inspector reviewed the response of the Itcensee informing the  !

NRC of the corrective and preventive actions taken to prevent this  ;

occurring in the future and found it to be acceptable. This item is !

closed.

[

2.2 (Closed)_V,tolation (50-278/85-32-02)_Fa11ure to follow approved  !

procedures. .

TW11Einsee fallad to follow approved procedures on two occasions  !

during the fuel reconstitution effort. The first occasion had to do

with differentiating between a recipient bundle and a donor bundle ,

for the QC inspection. The procedure has been revised to clarify  !

the intent of step V-2 for donor bundles. The second occasion dealt l

with personnel not taking the proper precaution in control areas.

The license, reinstructed all those concerned to comply with HP  !

procedures. This item is closed. I

!

2.3 (Closed), Follow-up Iten (50-278/85-32-03) Review of Sa fety~ Evaluation

~' ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~~~

i

o(Tu~el re c on s t rucif o'n". f

The inspector revfeWd'the Safety Evaluation performed by General [

Electric for the fuel reconstitution effort titled "pB-3-Reload 6,  !

Cycle 7-Safety Evalu.stion" October 1, 1935. This evaluation verified l

through calculational methods that there were no safety concerns as  !

a result of the pin swapping of the gadolinium pins. this item is l

Closed. I

i

r

<

d

.

3

i

2.4 .(Closed)UnresolvedItem(50-278/85-10-01)_Licenseenotperforming

Type B & C Testing Results Comparison to 0.6LA at time of shutdown

_

The inspector reviewed the method in which the ficensee keeps records

of the running totals for the "As Found" and "As lef t" condition of  ;

Type B and C leakage testing. All the information for the chrono- ,

.

logical condition of each penetration is available and accessible.

This item is closed.

2.5 (Closed) Unresolved Item _{50-278/83-11-04) Testing _of Valves which l

perform a Pressure Isolation Function '

The inspector reviewed the liceidd9 evaluation of certain pressure

isolation valves as requested, and is now in agreement with their

reclassification. It also has been noted that the table in question

(I.S.2) of the FSAR has been removed. This item is closed.

3.0 Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test _ Unit 3

3.1 Do_cuments Reviewed

- ILRT Valve Line ups

- Section 4.7 of the Technical Specification - Section 5.2.5.1 of the FSAR

- ST 12.5-1, Integrated Leak Rate Test, Revision 6, January 15, 1986

- Instrumentation Selection Guide Calculation ,

- Containment Volume Fraction Calculation  :

- CILRT Instrumentation Calibration  ;

- CILRT Sequence of Events Log t

- Test Results

- Selected Piping and Instrunent Orawings

4 - DMC 1.0, Integrated Leak Rate Testing Revision 0, May 1985

l - DMC 1.6, ILRT-Attachment, Revision 0, May 1985

.

- ECCS Operability Requirement for ILRT.

l '

3.2 Scope of Review  ;

The inspector reviewed the test procedure and related documents for

technical adequicy and to determine conpliance with the regulatory ,

I requirements of Appendin J to 10 CFR 50, Technical Specifications, I

l and applicable industry standards. The Inspector witnessed a large

I

'

portion of the CILRT and subsequent verification test. The inspector  ;

also performed independent maasurements and calculations of tne test i

, results.

L

t 3.3 Procedure Review

the inspector reviewed the CILRT procedure along with the documents i

listed in paragraph 3.1 for technical adequacy and to ascertain com-

pliance with requirements of Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50,

Appendiv J.

l

,

I

b

.-_ - _ _ -

.

4

On a random sampling basis, the inspector reviewed the procedure line

up of valves in the procedures for piping penetrations. This review

was to ensure that systems were properly vented and drained to expose

the containment isolation valves to containment atmosphere and the

test differential pressure with no artificial boundaries. The

licensee pointed out to the inspector that the valve line up was

changed somewhat because of leakages discovered. During the perfor-

mance of an ILRT, the RHR configuration has one RHR pump in operation

in the shutdown cooling mode and the others lined up for the LPCI

mode. This means that containment valves that are normally isolated

during a DBA are open during the ILRT. With these valves open and

the RHR lined up for LPCI, valves that are not isolation valves had

to be isolated so that the vessel would not drain into the suppres-

sion pool during the test. This would significantly affect the

calculation of the containtrent leak rate. While lining up the

systems to begin the test it was discovered that these valves had

gross leakage. Therefore to perform the test the LPCI injection

valves had to be closed. As stated before since this is not a normal

valve Ifne up for a DBA this was acceptable. This valve line up is

acceptable only for the performance of this test. No unacceptable

conditions were identified.

3.4 CILRT Instrumentation

The inspector reviewed the calibration records for tha resistance

temperature detectors (RTD's), dew point instruments, precision

pressure detectors, and verification test flow meters. Their cali-

brations were found to meet applicable accuracy requirements, and

were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The inspector

also verified that the instrument system satisfied the Instrument

Selection Guide (ISG) calculation. The inspector observed the oper-

atton of the data collection during the test. The procedure was as

follows: the technician would record the data on a fifteen minute

interval and relay this information to the computer personnel who

would manually enter the information into the computer. On an hourly

basis the data would be verified to eliminate any errors. No un-

acceptabic conditions were identified.

3.5 CILRT Chronolojy

January 21, 1986

0047 - Commenced Pressurization of Containment,

two compressors in operation.

0100 - 2nd set of data recorded. Data was taken on an hourly

basis during pressurization.

_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

-

5

b

0300 - Containment pressure was 28.00 psia - started leak

search. Personnel were instructed on how to search for

leaks and not to adjust or repair any leaks found.

1035 - Removed Dew cell point 5 (Torus) from calculation

due to erratic reaoings.

1110 - Containment pressurization was temporarily halted due tc

Reactor vessel temperature dropping. Adjusted Drywell

chiller loading to increase Drywell temperature.

1300 - Combination of the chilled water temperature increase and

reactor water temperature increase resulted in an

increase of drywell dew point readings and a slight

increase in containment pressure. Still holding to confirm

Reactor pressure vessel temperature has stabilized.

1445 - Restarted pressurization.

1535 - Stooped pressurization at 64.1 psia. Began stabilization

period, and also started recording data at 15 minute

i r, tu rv a l s .

0145 - Temperature stabilization criteria met. Commenced ILRT.

January R2,1986

0545 - lLPT Completed.

0615 - Established verification flow of 4.35 SCFM.

0715 - Stabilization period for verification test completed.

4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> verification started.

1135 - Verification test completed.

1520 - Depressurization started.

'

3.6 _ Test Performance and Control

The CILRT was performed as delineated by the procedure and appro-

priate administrative guidelines were followed. Test personnel

exhibited logical and technically sound approaches to leak searches.

One problem was discovered after the test by the licensee. A sample

sink root valve was found to be misaligned (closed instead of the

test condition, open). The sample sink root valve was tagged and

double verified to be open as part of the test preparation, but some

time durf - the test, or after the test the valve was manipulated.

,

-

6

The licensee performed a local leak test on the penetration on July

25, 1985 and the leakage was 10 SCCM. The licensee will perform

another leak test on the penetration and add the results to the ILRT.

This could be cited as a severity violation but since it meets the 5

test requirements of 10CFR2 Appendix C Section V.A, a violation will

not be written. That is:

(1) it was identified by the licensee

(2) it fits in severity level IV or V

(3) it was repor ted by the licensee '

(4) it will be compensated for in the final test result and

measures will be taken to prevent a future occurrence.

(5) it was not an occurrence that could reasonably be expected to

have been prevented by the licensee's corrective action from a

previous violation.

The inspector had no further questions at this time. ,

3.7 Test Results Reviewed

The licensee evaluated the test results for the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> period between '

2145 on January 21, 1986 and 0545 on January 22, 1986. The measured

leak rate was 0.0623 wt. % per day with a 95% upper confidence limit  !

(UCL) of 0.0709 wt. % per day. The inspector performed an indepen- '

'

dent calculation of the test results using the raw data from the test

to estimate the accuracy of the licensee's leak rate calculations.

The results were as follows:

Lam (Mass Pt.) UCL(Mass Pt.)

Peach Bottom 3 0.0623 wt %/ day 0.0709 wt. %/ day

NRC 0.0624 wt. %/ day 0.0735 wt. %/ day

The inspector concluded that the licensee's calculations were appro-

priately performed and accurate. Final computation of the total

integrated leak rate is dependent upon the addition of local leakage

values of penetration not included in the test, and of water level

corrections. The above value with the additions will reflect the

"as left" condition. The licansee in their final report will have

to reflect the leakage rate in the "as found" condition based on the

"as found" LLRT for each penetration.

The CILRT was followed by a successful superimposed leak verification  ;

The licensee imposed a leak of 4.35 SCFM on the existing leak.

'

test.

The measured verification test leak was 0.5748 wt. % per day at the

upper 95% confidence limit. The test result was within the accept-  :

ance criteria band (0.4336 s L composite s 0.6836) wt. %/ day. The ,

inspector also verified this result by independent calculation. l

!

t

,

_

.

7

The containment was then depressurized to 16.4 psia followed by

depressurization of the torus to atmospheric pressure for performance

of the low pressure drywell bypass test. A successful bypass test

was performed with a resulting equivalent bypass area of 0.021 in2 .

The acceptance criterion is 0.785 in2 or smaller. No unacceptable

conditions were identified.

4.0 Facility Tours

The inspector made several tours of various areas of the site to observe

test activities, other work in progress and general housekeeping. No

unacceptable conditions were identified.

5.0 Independent Calculations

The inspector performed independent calculations of the test results of

this CILRT and the subsequent verification test. Details are included

in section 3.7 of this report.

6.0 QA/QC Involvement

During the performance of the CILRT, the inspector verified QC involvement

in test monitoring, and determined that the QC personnel were knowledge-

able of their responsibilities, how to perform their duties and how to

report their findings. No unacceptable conditions were identified.

7.0 Exit Meeting

A meeting was held on January 23, 1986 to discuss the scone and findings

of the inspection as delineated in this report (See Section 1.0 for

attendees). At no time during this inspection was written information

provided to the licensee.