ML20211F887

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re IE Bulletin 85-003, Motor-Operated Valve Common Mode Failures During Plant Transients Due to Improper Switch Settings. Info Requested within 1 Month of Ltr Receipt

ML20211F887
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	02/19/1987
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Schnell D UNION ELECTRIC CO.
References
IEB-85-003, IEB-85-3, NUDOCS 8702250226
Download: ML20211F887 (5)

Text

9hb o

FEB 191987 P'

Docket No. 50-483 Union Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Donald F. Schnell Vice President - Nuclear Post Office Box 149 - Mail Code 400 St. Louis, MO 63166 Gentlemen:

The preliminary review of your revised response to IE Bulletin 85-03

" Motor-0perated Valve Common Mode Failures During Plant Transients-Due To Improper Switch Settings" indicates the need for additional information before the program to assure valve operability can be approved. The specific information necessary for the completion of our review is enclosed.

Additional information is requested within one month of receipt of this letter.

The written reports shall be submitted to the appropriate Regional Administrator under oath or affirmation under provisions of Section 182a, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Also, the original copy of the cover letters and a copy of the reports shall be transmitted to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 for reproduction and distribution.

Questions addressing this issue may be forwarded to Richard J. Kiessek, IE (301) 492-8119.

Sincerely,

" original Signed by C. E. Norellus" Charles E. Norelius, Director Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

Request for

Additional Information i

See Attached Distribution I

up R R I/fr R I RIII 4

La nan /qg P lips 1 ' Vus 02/1 /87 g/fr/// f3l57 0702250226 070219 PDR ADOCK 05000483 I 9 von p,

l REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL lhFORMATION (RAI) RE:

Review of Responses to Action Item e of IE Bulletin 85-03 Licensee: Union Electric Company Unit: Callaway 1 1901 Gratiot Street Date of Response: 5-19-Bf St. Louis, Missouri 9-19-86 10-17-86 Respondent:

Donald F. Schnell Vice President, Nuclear The information provided in your responses to Action Item e of IE Bulletin 85-03 was found to be deficient in some areas. Please provide the additional information requested by the following questions:

1. How is the calculated delta P load listed in Table 2 of Attachment B of your response of 10-17-86 added to the stem thrust signature without delta P in order to obtain the unseating thrust for a given valve?

In particular, if a constant delta P load is used, at what point of the signature without delta P is the delta P adder applied in order to determine the value of unseating thrust (Tu)?

Note: Please refer to the sketch on the last page for clarification of Question 1.

2. Is Valve 27 of Table 2 of Attachment B of your response of 10-17-86 -

meant to have a Size 1 operator? It appears to be grouped incor-rectly with Size 00 operators.

Why are valves HV-5, -9 and -11 of the AFW System excluded from

~~

3. -7, the list of valves for which bulletin actions are required, particu-larly in view of the observations that they are safety-related MOVs and that they could be left closed inadvertently?

Per Page 1 of Enclosure 2 of your response of 10-17-86, these valves are taken to be exceptions to the WOG methodology because they are used for flow control purposes at Callaway. The possible problem that the system would be inoperable if these MOVs were left closed inadvertently should be addressed.

4. Is valve ste- drag caused by the packing checked in accordance with maintenance procedures?

5. 15 data available to justify the following state cnt at the bottom of Page 4 of Enclosure 2 of your response of 10-17-66?

1. "Since cracking thrust pean does not occur on the closing cycle, actuator thrust capacity will not be exceeding during this initial phase of valve travel in the closed direction and need not to be tested for this capability."

The following items should be addressed in considering the validity of the foregoing statement:

a) Has the effect of different torque switch settings for opening and closing been taken into account?

b) Has the effect of the torque switch bypass settings for opening been taken into account?

c) Has the effect of end pressure on the valve stem (piston effect) been considered?

6. A continuing program for flow and pressure testing of at least some motor operated valves is needed in order to provide assurance that the methodology and empirical formulas, as outlined, are acceptable.

This program should be explicitly outlined by MOVATS Inc. The lack of test data to support the MOVATS empirical fomula concerning closure against flow is of particular concern.

7. Recomendations should be made by MOVATS regarding the frequency for each test or verification. If the MOVATS recomended schedule is not followed by a licensee, an explanation should be provided. Any conflicts with ASME Section XI testing should be addressed.

8. In Table 2 of Attachment B to the October 17, 1986 letter from Union Electric Co. the notation "NC" is undefined. Also, an explanation should be provided for blank entries. It is also noted that several actual values are very close to calculated. Since the MOVATS formu-las include a factor which, in the NRC discussions with MDVATS, was represer,ted as being quite conservative, the closeness of the values should be explained.

9. On page 4 of Attachment B to the October 17, 1986 Union Electric Co.

submittal, the formula for thrust against flow includes a differen-tial pressure tem. The precise definition of what is meant by differential pressure should be explained because differential pressure will vary until the valve closes.

10. A plot which compares actual vs. computed thrusts for gate valves in the open direction is included in Attachment B to the October 17, 1986 Union Electric Co. submittal. No plot was submitted for the close direction. This should be explained or the plot should be furnished.

11. The method used to arrive at the empirical formulas, including each of the numerical factors would be explained in detail.

ce ra" s-o si cs s-res o 5 or 3 c ..s. o, usu JTA I ki Jd B 45 03 sue ,a l'o rt cat i A WA Y /

ClAB/// CAT */oH of Gv/31/cu / ,

U^/3 [ A 7 / ^/G THM V S T f7y)

,' /N U

\

J n' vet rA P H /

fo sfg

% \

D I f

\

k N k \

/

l 's --..

WlC pft TA /

7/ME CAL Cut A 74 D 27ft 7A P O fd W t o A :p (A D DE /t )

m

n-J Union Electric Company FEB 1919Fi Distribution cc w/ enclosure:

A. P. Neuhalfen, Manager Quality Assurance S. E. Miltenberger, General Manager, Nuclear Operations DCS/RSB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Region IV Resident Inspector, Wolf Creek K. Drey Chris R. Rogers, P.E.

Utility Division, Missouri Public Service Cmamission SNUPPS l

\ _- . . . . . .- - . - _ --- -.. -