IR 05000315/1987019
| ML17325A276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1987 |
| From: | Huber M, Phillips M, Wohld P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17325A275 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-87-19, 50-316-87-19, IEB-85-003, IEB-85-3, NUDOCS 8709090131 | |
| Download: ML17325A276 (7) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
, Repor ts No. 50-315/87019(DRS);
50-316/87019(DRS)
Docket Nos.
50-315; 50-316 Licenses No.
American Electric Power Service Corporation Indiana and Michigan Power Company 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43216 Facility Name:
D.C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At:" D.C.
Cook Site, Bridgman, Michigan Inspection Conducted:
August 3-5, 1987 Inspectors:
P.
R.
Wo ld Date M. 'P.
Huber Date Approved By:
M.
. Phillips, Chief Operational Programs Section F i/ZZ Date Ins ection Summar Ins ection on Au ust 3-5 1987 Re orts No. 50-315/87019 DRS 50-316/87019 DRS respect to Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin 85-03,
"Motor-Operated Valve Failures During Plant Transients Due to Improper Switch Settings."
Results:
No violations or other items were identified.
I g7P+Q9013L 8~
pgp ADOCK 05
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Indiana and Michi an Electric Com an
- W
- J AJ
+J R.
- J AJ G. Smith, Jr., Plant Manager Allard, Maintenance Superintendent Moline, Maintenance B. Droste, Production Czajka, Maintenance Rutkowski, Assistant Plant Manager, Production Van Ginhoven, Maintenance Engineer Supervisor b.
"J. Heller, Resident Inspector
"Denotes those who attended the exit meeting on August 5, 1987.
The inspector also contacted other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection.
2.
IE Bulletin Followu 0 en IE Bulletin 85-03:
Motor-Operated Valve (MOV) Common Mode Failures During Plant Transients Due to Improper Switch Settings, The inspection was performed to review the licensee's program of testing and operability determination methods for the MOVs addressed in the
'bulletin.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's bulletin response dated May 16, 1986, drawings and observed MOV testings The licensee had a good start in implementing the bulletin requirements; however, they had not yet completed all phases of their program and key personnel were not available to interview during the inspection.
Additional inspections will be performed to close the bulletin.
a.
MOV Wirin Dia ram and Valve Lo ic Review The wiring diagrams were reviewed for a sample of the valves in the bulletin.
The results of the review are listed below.
(1)
Thermal Overloads MOVs have protection circuitry installed to trip the motor breaker on electrical overload.
The licensee had increased the overload setpoints from 125% to 200% of rated or actual load, whichever was greater, for seismically classed MOVs in order to conform with NRC Regulatory Guide 1. 106.
Motor protection will be further discussed with the licensee's staff during a subsequent inspectio A
(2)
0 en Tor ue Switch B
ass t3)
The licensee planned to rewire all of their MOVs and to bypass the open torque switch for the entire length of valve travel.
Therefore, valve travel in the open direction would not be stopped by a torque switch, but would only be halted at the end of the travel using the "open on limit" logic.
Dur'ing
"as found" testing; however, the thrust available at open torque switch trip was being determined by the licensee.
By procedure, the licensee normally set the open limit switch't 955 of travel.
However, for certain high speed valves with a higher inertia, this limit,switch was set at 90%.
This was done to prevent backseating of the valve and was verified by fully stroking the valve open and observing the valve signature to ensure the valve was not backseating.
The rising stem valves the inspectors reviewed closed on the close torque switch.
During testing, thrust values were taken at the torque switch trip for valve closure using the MOVATS equipment and recorded for analysis.
b.
Pro ram Im lementation The licensee was using the Motor-Operated Valve Analysis and Test System (MOVATS) to detect degradation, incorrect adjustments, and other abnormalities that may exist in the motor operators and valves.
D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Procedure No.
12-MHP-SP-122,
"Testing of MOVATS 2150 Signature Analysis System with MCC Baseline Signatures,"
governed the performance of the testing of the valves in the bulletin.
The inspectors reviewed the testing being performed as well as a
physical inspection of the valve and operator.
The valve appeared to be in good physical condition and in good working order.
Both licensee and contractor personnel performing the testing were knowledgeable of the procedure and valve characteristics.
MOV signatures were obtained for as-found conditions, and following maintenance performed on the valve, as-left conditions.
(1)
Differential Pressure d
and Static Testin A sample of the bulletin valves were tested under actual dp conditions to determine the valve characteristics and operability.
This was done for "as-found" conditions onl The remainder of the valves would be tested under static conditions to determine valve operability.
All valves on which maintenance was performed would be static tested to determine valve characteristics.
The licensee also indicated that no valve failures were identified from differential pressure test activities already performed.
Trainin And En ineerin Su ort The licensee had dedicated personnel for their valve testing program for the bulletin valves.
Two full-time MOVATS technicians were onsite with two additional technicians to be added for additional testing.
The Maintenance Department also provided personnel to perform the necessary electrical and hardware support activities for the MOV testing program.
The licensee also indicated that all personnel involved in the program were required to receive training on the MOVs and the MOVATS equipment as well as the procedure to be performed prior to any work being done.
Additional Pro ram Review The licensee's program appeared to be generally adequate; however, the following items needed further development and review by the licensee and NRC review.
Lon Term 0 erabi1 it The licensee had not yet developed a program for followup testing in order to maintain long term MOV operability as required by Item d of Bulletin 85-03.
The licensee indicated that it did not know this was a requirement, but would begin review'ing this matter.
Procedure and Si nature Data Review This was the initial use of the MOV test procedure and the licensee recognized that problems did exist in the procedure.
Further review would continue of valve diagnostic signature data and the licensee indicated that the data would be made available for inspector review once testing was completed.
As of yet, no date had been set for program. completion to include complete data review and operability justification.
The licensee had no onsite review capability of motor load testing data.
This was to be reviewed further to ascertain if onsite review of data would be possibl (3)
N~ii V
The inspectors reviewed an American Electric Power Service-Corporation memo dated June 24, 1987,
"Minimum Voltage Requirements for Motor-Operated Valves (MOVs)."
Nore information was needed by the inspectors to determine operability status of valves under degraded voltage conditions.
This issue would be discussed further with the licensee's engineering staff during a future inspection.
3.
Final Considerations Most of the testing and data analysis had yet to be completed.
To close the bulletin, additional program development by D.C.
Cook Nuclear Plant would be necessary.
Therefore, additional inspection and evaluation will be necessary and will include further inspection of the evaluated data and discussions with engineering support personnel to determine acceptability of the licensee's program.
4.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on August 5, 1987, to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the statements made by the inspector with respect to items discussed in the report.
Tke licensee also. indicated that no.proprietary information had been reviewed by the inspectors.