ML19354D623

Responds to Generic Ltr 89-10 Re safety-related motor- Operated Valve Testing & Surveillance.Util Intends to Meet All Recommendations Discussed in Ltr Except for Item C Re Changing motor-operated Valve Switch Settings

ML19354D623
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/15/1989
From:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
CON-NRC-89-160 GL-89-10, VPNPD-89-661, NUDOCS 8912280270
Download: ML19354D623 (3)

Text

.,,.:.

k.

Wtsconsm

' Electnc POWER COMPANY 2M w Mchort Po fe 2m. weaake,e.VA f>3205 (454) ??i 2 2 VPNPD-89-661 NRC-89-160 December 15, 1989 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

DOCKETS NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER NO. 89-10 SAFETY-RELATED MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE TESTING AND SURVEILLANCE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC Generic Letter No. 89-10, " Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance (Generic Letter No. 89-10) - 10 CFR 50.54(f)," dated June 28, 1989, directed that all licensees respond within six months of the date of the letter to the recommendations and schedule for action proposed in the attachment to the letter regarding testing and surveillance of safety-related motor-operated valves. If the dates and/or recommendations presented in the generic letter cannot or will not be met, licensees are required to inform the NRC of these concerns and provide a technical justifica-tion, including any proposed alternative action for their positions.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company intends.to meet the five-year schedule identified in the generic letter for the MOV's included in

'the scope of Generic Letter 89-10 at our Point Beach Nuclear Plant.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company intends to meet all of the recommendations discussed in the generic letter with the exception of Item c, regarding cbanging MOV switch settings and demonstrating operability, as noted b? low.

NRC Recommended Action:

Individual MOV switch settings should be changed, as appropriate, to those established in response to Item b. Whether the switch settings are changed or nut, the MOV should be demonstrated to be operable by testing it at the design-basis differential pressure B912280270 891215 0 Oh PDR ADOCK 05000266

-P PNU i g

(

A subsM,7 ofIIlanshi Diergy (orpatkin 1 L_ , i

e'~-

o r ~

[ USNRC Document Control Desk December 15, 1989 Page 2 e

and/or-flow determined in response to Item a. Testing MOVs at design-basis conditions is not recommended where such testing is

precluded.by the existing plant configuration. An explanation should be documented for any cases where testing with the design-basis differential pressure or flow cannot practicably be performed.

This explanation should include a description of the alternatives to design-basis differential pressure testing or flow testing that will be used to verify the correct settings.

L Each MOV should be stroke tested, to verify that the MOV is operable i at no-pressure or no-flow condition events if testing with differ-ential pressure or flow cannot be performed.

E PBNP Implementations i

We propose to use an alternate means.for testing the valves at Design Basis Accident conditions. PBNP currently utilizes a stem thrust signature test on the valves. This consists of a set of load cells mounted between the valve operator and the valve body, which provide an output voltage that is proportional to the load applied I '

to the cells. This output voltage is monitored by computer and is digitally stored for the valve. The signature testing is used to identify problems like excessive packing load on valves at Point Beach. The NRC audit ~of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Response to Generic Letter 85-03, which was conducted at Point Beach on August 15-18, 1986, found this method of signature testing to be an

acceptable method of determining the correct switch settings for the motor operated. valves.

L The testing we propose is full differential pressure test on one i valve'out of a family of valves, which are valves of the same type, size and manufacturer-equipped with similar operators. The switch settings will be established and the full differential pressure test is performed for that one valve. A signature will be recorded for that valve operated at full differential pressure. A second signature test will be performed on that valve with no differential t pressure. The balance of the valves in that family will be

c. signature-tested at no differential pressure with the switch

. settings established similar to those for the fully-tested valve.

Then, the signatures from the latter group of valves (those tested only at no differential pressure) will be compared to the signature of the valve tested with both no differential pressure and full differential pressure. A satisfactory comparison of the signatures at no differential pressure will verify operability. This method has been proven to be effective in the past when we have compared signatures-from valves of the same family.

E- l

,,y p; y - - -- -- -

2 :v s ? m. . ,

.j 7 m ,,o.

..'r+

A

!!. ,'USNRC-Document Control Desk

' December 15, 1989

Page 3 We would be pleased'to answer any questions you may have regarding the above information.

Very truly yours,

, s.

C..W... Fay Vice President Nuclear Power-Copies to NRC Regional-Administrator, Region III NRC Resident. Inspector

~

Subscribed;and-sworn /to'before me-

this /#.tk day of drumAe1, 1989.

I}NE01Q'& Q.' N' leu +GL Notary Public, LState of Wisconsin My. C'ommission expires hxc.T 19 9 4 v

h 4

4 Y

t l.-

o i

, i di