IR 05000341/1990015
| ML20058D125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1990 |
| From: | Danielson D, James Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D119 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-90-15, NUDOCS 9011050348 | |
| Download: ML20058D125 (5) | |
Text
_
-
'
-
. -
c
,
.
l
-
- .-
!
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'!GION 111 i
Report No.:
50-341/9001B(DRS)
Docket No.:
50-341 License No.:
4 Licensee: The Detroit Edison Company 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport. HI 48166
>
f acili ty_- Name:
Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Station
.;
inspection At:
Fermi Site, Newport, M1 48166 Inspection' Conducted:
October 9-12, 1990 Inspector:
SpfbaMfre
/o/.a/ro
.
J. F. Smith D6te'
Approved By:' E 7d d m M frs ~
M
- D.-H. Danielson, Chief Date Materials & Processes Section_
_,
Inspection Sunnary '
j inspection'on October 9-12. 1990 (Report No. 50-341/90015(DRS)).
'
Areas: Inspected:
Routine inspection of IST (75765) pumps and valves and-followup (9UHf7of-previousinspectionitemsrelatedtopumpsandvalves.
i Results: ' No violations or additional-open items were identified. The
,
inspection disclosed the following strengths and weaknesses:
"-'
<
,
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
. Personnel involved with implementation of'IST thoroughly review and-
->
' understood all~ aspects of tests prior to performance. '
!
'
,
i P
L l
'
en.
W M M8!Lh
.
mm
~
!
-
-
-
.
..
_. - _ - - -
.-
.
.-
.
- -
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted DetroitEdisonCompany(Deco)
- W. S. Orser, Senior Vice President
.
. D. R. Gipson, Assistant Vice President and Manager
- J. Contoni, Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering
- G. Croustin, General Director, Nuclear Engineering
- L. S. Goodman, Director, Nuclear Licensing
- S. Here, IST Engineer
- A. Nayakwadi, Principal Engineer
- J. Pendergast, Compliance Engineer
..
- B. Sheffel..lSI/AEP Program Director
]
- J.. Walker, Nuclear Engineer U_. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- W. Rogers, Senior Resident inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on October 12, 1990.
'
- 2..
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
a.
-(Closed)'Unresolveditem(341/88037-09):
RCIC Valves Not Tested in Accordance with UFSAR~T<equirements This item was resolved through DER 89-0205, which resulted in the
'
issuance of licensee letter NE-PJ-89-0457, dated June 28,1989. < This
' letter provides a matrix.of the RCIC~ valves, the NRC Diagnostic EvaluationTeam(DET)concernsforeachvalve,-theassociatedUFSAR design parameters,.the; current testing applied to.these valves, and any new testing planned for these valves. The licensee also
'
e provided a detailed analysis for each valve of concern and idenLified the bases for-considering the testing prudent.
.The DER was closed on July 30,-1990. -The NRC inspector-reviewed the-completed DER package, the licensee's letter,-the valve testing matrix, and confirmed that the licensee'sirevised testing plan;will-perform the appropriate testing.-- This item is closed.
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (341/88037-08):
IST Program Maximum Stroke Times Were Not Coordinated with Data in the' Master Valve List (MVL).
.This' item was processed by the licensee through' DER 89-0206, which
.was. closed on. February '19,1990. The NRC inspector reviewed the completed DER package and concluded that the necessary coordination was established.
IST Program maximum stroke times are now
'
compatible with those shown in the MVL.
This item is closed.
.
M-
-!
.
.
-
.
.
c.
(Closed) Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) (341/88024-00):
railure of Redctor Recirculation Pump Discharge Valve to Close.
-
This CAL (CAL RIII-88-024) was conditionally closed by NRC letter dated October 4, 1988. The NRC inspector confirmed that the requirementsidentifiedintheletter(issuanceofInspectionReport No. 50-341/88025) were met.
This item is closed.
3.
.PumpandValveInserviceTesting(IST)progre._('3756)
Implementation of the liceasce's IST program was reviewed by observation of surveillance tests, normal operation and a post-:;urve111ance examination.
f a.
The NRC inspector reviewed pertinent portions of the " Main Steam Line Isolation Valve (MSIV) Functional Test" procedure,
,
NPP 24.137.001,-Revision 22, dated August 28, 1990, and witnessed performance of the test. The test included the monthly, partial exercise of eight MSIVs (B2103-f022-A through D and B2103-F028-A through D) and involved assurance of the. proper system lineup, then o
independent actuation of each MOV. The test switch for each valve was manually held.sufficiently to operate the limit switch..The limit.
- switch energizes the green (closed) light while the red (open) light remains.on. This intermediate signal indicates that the obturator is
.
'
in a position between.open and closed. As soon as the green light observed. the test switch is released and the valve automatically,is i
returns to the fully open position.
Before starting the, test,;all involved personnel met and reviewed eachindividualstepofthe. test. The operator responsible for the
. test explained what the system was doing at each step and described-what should be observed by each particioant., All members were encouragedsto actively participate in tie, meeting. Work was.not
started until all participants-indicated that they understood all the test requirements and had no further questions.
The test proceeded smoothly and without incident. The operator signed off each step as it was completed and recorded information provided by remotely positioned observers.when it was not.available through.coatrol room instrumentation. Both actions are encouraged because they reduce the. possibility. of inadvertantly skipping a test step,
b.
-The-NRC inspector' reviewed pertinent portions of the quarterly.
~
" Recirculation Sample System Iso _1ation. Valve Operability Test" procedure, NPP-24.138.04, Revision 2 dated December 2, 1988, and witnessed performance of the. test.
The~ test consisted primarily of-stroke, time testing of Reactor Water Sample System primary containment. isolation valves B31-F019'and B31-F020.
personnel involved in the test attended a meeting similar to that described in Paragraph 3.a., above. The measurement and test.
,
.
equipment used, stopwatch 1SW-029-M, was verified to be within its
L calibration frequency. Once started, the test was run and documented L
in an~ effective manner.
_.
-
,
..
_ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
F
.-
.
}
-
.'
.
i c.
The NRC inspector reviewed pertinent portions of the " Residual Heat Removal System" procedure, NPP-23.205, Revision 34, dated September 5,
,
1990, which realigns the RHR system into the torus cooling mode r
and witnessed performance of the realignment. The participants followed the same procedure review process described in Paragraph 3.a.
above, and the switchover was completed smoothly and documented effectively. Torus water temperature was perceptibly reduced within
minutes.
,
d.
The NRC inspector reviewed pertinent portions of the " Primary
Containment Monitoring System Valve Operability and Position Indication Verification Test" procedure, NPP 24.408.01, Revision 22 t
+ dated September 27, 1990, and witnessed inspection of the position
indicating reed switches.
4 *
Valve T50-F451, was previously stroke time tested and initially
-
failed to provide a fully closed signal. Without altering the valve,
!
it was tested again and successfully showed a fully' closed signal
.
!
within the required period.
Several subsequent tests were unable to duplicate the original failure. The T50-451 valve is a solenoid valve with a very short throw, it contains two magnetically operated
'
reed switches which must be set very carefully to ensure accurate I
open and, closed position indication.
To permit control of higher currents, the-reed switches operate relays on the top of the valve.
All electrical-switches, relays, and connections are located inside
'
the valve-operator cover.
The licensee hypothesized that the. indicated failure to stroke was more likely the result of a defective position
indication than of a valve operation failure.
To test this theory, the licensee planned to remove-the valve operator cover and inspect
,
the reed switch and relays.- Either a loosely positioned reed switch or a dirty relay contact would produce the results observed on the t
original test.
Before starting the work, personnel involved in the operator cover removal met to discuss the scope of work and'to review the controlling procedure. The work involved was not as routine as surveillance efforts and this was reflected by the active participation of the
, workers in the details of the job.
Drawings of the volve were reviewed while'the various' job steps were considered.
Tools were-selected by correlating the job steps with f astener description on the drawing.
The tools were transported to the work site and.' confirmed, as far.as possible, to be correct. : Lighting was checked, communication with the control room was established, and accessibility to the valve was,
assured before the. crew was brought to the work area. The work was performed effectively, inspection.of the~ internal switching failed to reveal the cause of the problem.
Additional. operation of the-valve disclosed no problem. The reed switches were securely fastened;
>
and the relay contacts were clean.
Proper positioning of the reed switches cannot be determined by measurement.
Adjustment is by physically moving the reed switch assembly antil the close switch barely operates when the valve is fully closed and the open switch
'
L
.
i
"
1,( i
.-
._
-
r
-
.
?
[
-
.
-
+'
c..
.
barely operates when the valve is fully open.
Although a readjustment l
,_
of the reed switches was performed on this valve, the NRC inspector
_'
h did not witness that operation.
In general, the performance of surveillance tests in both the control
!
room and in the plant appeared to be well planned and effectively executed.
i L
The planning performed prior to work done in 3.d., above, is appropriate
-
L for all work areas but produces its obvious L*nefit in a high radiation
,
areas where delays result in unnecessary radiatbn evpc:Ure.
[
4.-
Summary p
1 The licensee's improved performance in the maintaining and testing of
pumps and valves is evident in the steady reduction of open items in these areas.
The licensee's implementation of routine surveillance and
-
-
inspection demonstrated good practices in the following areas:
Familiarization of all personnel performing the work with the whole
job before starting.
,
.
s L
Notification of non-test personnel of the effect that the test will
'
'
,
.
have on equipment they may be observing, t
o i
Previewing the plant area in which the work will be done for health physics, lighting.. accessibility, communications with control room, and for proper tools before a work crew is sent in, t-E cPrompt signoff at' completion of each step (as contrasted with-
'
'-
L
'signoff of multiple steps'of a similar nature, which is susceptible j
to missing-steps).
5.-
, Exit Meeting h
Theinspector-metwithlicenseerepresentatives(denotedinParagraph1)
L on October 12, 1990,-to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection.
[
In addition.-the inspecto'r also discussed the likely. informational content-
'
of-the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by_
theti_nspector during the inspection. The licensee did not: identify any
,
F Jsuch documents or processes as proprietary.
C y
<
h- '
a
,
+