IR 05000413/1993010
| ML20035G825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1993 |
| From: | Branch M, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035G821 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-93-10, 50-414-93-10, NUDOCS 9304300070 | |
| Download: ML20035G825 (3) | |
Text
.
- "ID pt g
UNITED STATE S
-[(
og NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON 9 ~
o REGION 11 b
j 101 M ARIETTA STRE ET, N.W.
f ATLANTA, GEORGl A 30323
\\,
/
.....
Report Nos.: 50-413/93-10 and 50-414/93-10 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.:
50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.: NPF-35 and NPF-52 Facility Name: Catawba 1 and 2 Inspection Conductedh March 16-21,)993
f!Y 3
,
Inspector:
O
'
%
"r H. Whitener Date Signed
e)//5f73 Approved by:
)
'
%
M. Branch, Chief Date Signed
!
Test Programs Section
>
Engineering Branch
'
Division of Reactor Safety
e
'
.
SUMMARY l
Scope:
,
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of witnessing i
Motor Operated Valve (MOV) differential pressure and flow testing.
j Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
i The licensee has developed system Inservice Test (IST) procedures which
.!
incorporate Generic letter (GL) 89-10 MOV differential pressure (DP) testing.
Dedicated test crews are identified for performance of the M0V tests and
.
i specialist are identified for interpretation and analysis of test data. These personnel were knowledgeable and competent in their area of responsibility.
Communication and coordination between the several groups involved in MOV differential pressure testing was good and test control was adequate. MOV test results are analyzed by Design Engineering to verify the validity of design input to MOV performance calculations.
I 9304300070 930420 PDR ADOCK 05000413 PDR G
-
_
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- T. Cline, Nuclear Services / Mechanical Maintenance
.
- N. Estep, Nuclear Services / Mechanical Maintenance
!
C. Helmers, Engineering
- H. Henkel, Engineering
- J. Lowery, Regulatory Compliance
- P. McIntyre, Component Engineering Supervisor J. Simril, Component Engineering D. Ward, Engineering Supervisor
R. Winn, Component Engineering Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
+
engineers operators, mechanics, and technicians.
NRC Resident Inspectors W. Orders, Senior Resident Inspectors
- P. Hopkins, Resident Inspector
<
J. Zeller, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
.
2.
Design Basis Differential Pressure And Flow Testing The inspector witnessed the performance of static baseline and design basis differential pressure (DP) and flow testing for selected GL 89-10
program motor operated valves (MOVs) using the Valve Operation Test and
.
Evaluation System (V0TES) diagnostic equipment. The tests were a
'
coordinated effort involving several plant groups and required close communications. The system engineer (SE) owning the systems being tested coordinated the test from the control room. Operations aligned system valves and operated the pumps and valves to achieve, as near as possible, design basis pressure and flow.
Component Engineers (CE)
supervised the test at the valve and data acquisition station to ensure that temporary instrumentation for pressure and/or flow was properly installed.
When test preparations were complete the component Engineer requested operations to cycle the MOV and directed the recording of required data. The technicians performed the sensor and computer hook
,
up and a brief initial examination of the acquired data to determine that the intended data was captured.
The inspector observed the pre-test briefing in the control room for the static baseline, and DP flow tests of component cooling water (KC)
system MOVs 2KC-050A and 2KCC-037A. The SE briefed operations on the system test conditions and provided the system periodic test procedure and valve alignment.
The CE reviewed the sequence of pump and valve-
~
..
l
!
i operation necessary to achieve design differential pressure and flow l
during the MOV cycle. _ The inspector considered the pre-test briefing i
adequate.
_
.
The inspector also observed testing from the valve location and data
acquisition station to verify that communications were established;
temporary instrumentation was installed and monitored; appropriate l
calibrations were obtained; and appropriate procedures were present and
followed. Procedures involved for the baseline and differential i
pressure testing of the KC system MOVs included:
l
[
PT/2/A/4200/21A, KC Valves Inservice Test, Enclosure 13.5A
!
.
(2KC-050A) and Enclosure 13.17A (2KCC-037A).
j IP/0/A/3820/04A, MOV Testing With Votes.
.
!
IP/0/A/3820/04B, Guidelines For Differential Pressure (DP)
.
Testing of Motor Operated Valves.
VOTES " Sensor" Test Report Analysis Guidelines (Temporary
!
.
Change For Version 2.21 data and TCF Analysis).
{
-;
VOTES Differential Pressure Test Analysis Guideline,
!
.
!
Based on review of portions of the above procedures, the inspector
!
~!
concluded that adequate, step by step instructions were provided for preparation, calibration, data acquisition, and data analysis using the
V0TES diagnostic equipment.
.
!
Valve 2 KC-050A is the KC system Auxiliary Building Non-essential Supply
.]
Header Isolation valve. The valve is a 12 inch gate valve equipped _ with i
a Rotork 16NA157 actuator.
Its safety function is to close. The design-l input for valve actuator setups was provided_in CNM - 1205.00 -1977, i
Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, Torque Switch Setting Sheets i
Rotork and Limitorque. The inspector reviewed portions of the design
,
input and data analysis for 2KC-050A.
For the static baseline test
setup design provided the thrust window for ' control (torque) switch trip '
!
(CST), the target value of thrust at CST ~ and the structural limit of l
thrust from the' set up document, CNM 1205.00-1977. A 10 percent error
.
is assumed for generating the design values. The CE removes the assumed i
10% error and introduces a more rigorous error analysis based on _
t consideration of system inaccuracy, calibration range, torque correction
-
factor, sensor location, and torque switch repeatability. Based on these corrections for 2KC-050A, the thrust range for CST was 9660 lbs to 14216 lbs, the target thrust at CST was 11345 lbs, and the structural limit thrust was 26467 lbs. CST and maximum thrust-(including inertial
,
loading) for the static baseline tests (#3, and #4) and the differential-l pressure / flow tests (#5, and #6) are given below:
i i
I
'
-
,.
l CST (lbs)
Required Range (lbs)
Maximum Thrust (lbs)
- 3 11397 9660 - 14216 15725
- 4 11415 9660 - 14216 15939
- 5 11170 9660 - 14216 15744
- 6 11077 9660 - 14216 16005 The thrust at CST occurs reasonably close to the target value and well within the design specified range in all cases. The maximum thrust which includes the thrust at motor cut off plus the inertial loading is well below the structural limit in all cases.
The licensee concluded that the torque switch setting of 5 for valve opening and 4.5 for valve closure are adequate. The opening torque switch setting is set at the maximum attainable setting since the valve opening actuator cut off is by limit switches. Although the design pressure for 2KC-050A is 135 psig the licensees analysis indicates a differential pressure of 104 psig for normal and accident modes of operation. Test data indicate that the valve functioned properly when a differential pressure of 102 psig was achieved at about 30% of design accident flow.
3.
Other Inspection Areas a.
Analysis of MOV Test Results
'
The inspector reviewed portions of design calculation CNC 1205.19-00-0016. This calculation determines the minimum required and maximum allowable thrust / torque for Safety Injection (NI) system
'
MOVs. Attachment 5 to this calculation contains the differential pressure test analysis sheets from previous tests of MOVs 1 (2)
NIOO9A and 1 (2) NIO10B. The calculated valve factor based on actual data from a number of previous tests indicates that the calculation frequently exceeds the industry standard of 0.3 but did not exceed the valve factor of 0.5 which the licensee used in thrust calculations. The inspector concluded that the licensee is using the actual test data to confirm the appropriateness of design input as recommended by GL 89-10.
b.
Schedule The inspector discussed the intended test schedule with the licensee. At this time, the licensee intends to meet their commitment to complete all static baseline testing and Group 1 DP flow testing by December 28, 1994.
DP pressure flow testing of other groups (less safety significant valves) would be completed within three refueling outages following testing of Group 1 valves. The licensee has formed a committee which is in the process of reevaluating which valves are practicable to test at differential pressure and flow.
One current criteria is that 80%
of design differential pressure be achievable. The licensee is considering changing this criteria to 50% of design differential pressure. This would expand the number of valves to be tested at pressure and flo r;
.
,.
4.
Exit Interview I
The inspection scope and results were summarized on March 18, 1993, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspector described the
.
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.
'
Although reviewed during this inspection, proprietary information is not
.
contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not received from
'
the licensee.
i l
.
h
I