IR 05000155/1993016
| ML20057E499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1993 |
| From: | Huber M, Jeffrey Jacobson, Replogle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057E495 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-93-16, NUDOCS 9310120218 | |
| Download: ML20057E499 (6) | |
Text
--
.
..
y j
..
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
j
<
Report No. 50-155/93016(DRS)
Docket No. 50-155 License No. DPR-6 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company
212 West Michigan Avenue
Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant Inspection At:
Big Rock Point Site, Charlevoix, MI
-
Inspection Conducted:
September 13-17, 1993 I
Inspectors:
p/
-
t/CcT9)
H{P.Hube Date t
I h*
/
/0/6/f3
/
o G. D. Rep e[
Date Approved f.
h-
/O '/- O J. M/_ ' a obso., Chief Date
'
.\\
Mat (ria s & rocesses Section Inspection Siitnm
!
Inspection conducted September 13-17. 1993 (, g rt No. 50-155/93016(DRS))
Areas Inspected: Announced safety issues inspection of the licensee's Inservice
,
Testing Program (TI 2515/114), the licensee's program on check valves (TI 2515/110), and licensee self-assessment in these areas.
Licensee actions on previous inspection findings (92701) and a review of a Licensee Event Report review were also conducted (92700).
Results: No violations or deviations were identified. An effective program for conducting inservice testing of pumps and valves was implemented. Progress has been made to address the performance of check valves; however, it appears that additional work needs to be performed.
,
!
i 1:
l
.i
'
9310120218 931004 PDR ADOCK 05000155 G
PDR:.
y
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company
.
P. Donnelly, Plant Manager D. Moeggenberg, Engineering Supervisor J. Horon, Operations Manager
- G. C. Withrow, Safety and Licensing Director
- G. Boss, Engineering Manager
- M. Bourassa, Senior Licensing Engineer i
- M. W. Acker, inservice Inspection Coordinator
- T. Sikavitsas, Senior Engineer
- S. G. Kupka, Senior Engineer
.
- D. Gaiser, Maintenance Engineer J. B. Toskey, Senior Engineer U. S. Nuclear Reoulatory Commission (NRC)
l
- R. J. Leemon, Senior Resident inspector
- C. E. Brown, Resident Inspector i
i
- Denotes those personnel attending the exit meeting on September 13-17, 1993.
2.0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (Closed) Violation 50-155/92010-03(DRS): Inadequate corrective actions taken to -
remove defective packing from safety-related emergency core spray backup valves.
The Notice of Violation was issued because the licensee removed some, but not all, defective packing from two safety-related valves.
The-s'ame packing type i
caused two non-safety related valve failures and corrective actions in response to the event were supposed to include complete removal of the packing from the
'
two affected safety-related MOVs. However, when packing removal was performed, some defective packing was unintentionally left in the valves and subsequently caused one valve to fail. In response to the violation, the licensee developed procedural guidance that required positive verification that all the packing was removed during packing removal operations. The applicable document appeared to be acceptable.
This item is closed.
i 3.0 Licensee Event Report (LER) Review
~
(Closed) LER 155/92002: As-Found Setpoint Failure (Low) of Liquid Poison Relief Valve RV-5049.
This LER identified a liquid poison relief valve failure which could have caused the liquid poison system to be inoperable.
The licensee
performed an analysis which showed that the system was capable of performing the required safety function. Additionally, safety-related relief valve seat leakage testing would be performed in the future to preclude similar failures.
The analysis and corrective actions appeared to be acceptable. This LER was closed.
-
-
m
p
'
.
.
or observations of each of the quantities specified by the Code shall be measured at the end of that 5 minute period. However, by taking data immediately after establishing test conditions, the validity of the results could not be guaranteed to be free of the effects of system transients.
The licensee agreed to revise the applicable procedures so.that the wait period was conducted after the test conditions were established.
The licensee's corrective actions appeared to be acceptable.
'
4.3 Trendina The IST coordinator maintained a computer database of all pumps and valves in the
)
IST program to trend performance.
Graphic representation of the data' allowed easy. interpretation and comparison of test results to the appropriate alert and
action ranges.
The trending program appeared to be acceptable.
5.0 Check Valve Proaram i
I 5.1 Scope i
The check valve program was considered to be adequate.
It consisted of two l
parts: (1) the IST program, and (2) the Preventive Maintenance (PM) program. The i
PM program for check valves was developed to address Institute of Nuclear Power i
Operations (INP0) Significant Operating Experience Report (50ER) 86-03, " Check
.!
Valve Failures or Degradation."
i The scope of the review to determine which valves would be included in the check l
valve PM program included valves found in systems identified by SOER 86-03 and I
valves in systems of importance to safety and plant reliability. Approximately 25 percent of the check valves were in both the IST and PM programs.
5.2 Desian Application Review Check valves were evaluated on their safety and reliability in five categories.
Valves were rated in each category and assigned a numerical value in that category. The values were added to determine an overall score, which determined which valves would be include in the PM program. However, valve orientation and the relationship of actual flows to design flows were not considered when evaluating check valves for inclusion in the PM program.
5.3 Disassembly and Inspection (D/I)
!
The check valve program was recently implemented and governing administrative procedures were not developed.
Some D/I was performed during the recent refueling outage in accordance with the overall program plan; however, the plans for documenting and evaluating the results were not clearly defined by procedure.
Work in this area was ongoing and will be reviewed during a future inspection.
- - - _ _