ML16342C586
| ML16342C586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde, Wolf Creek, Cooper, Arkansas Nuclear, Columbia, River Bend, Diablo Canyon, Waterford, South Texas, San Onofre, Comanche Peak, Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1994 |
| From: | Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9406170011 | |
| Download: ML16342C586 (96) | |
Text
,(yet g
~gR REQy
> ~c~
Wp0
~ ~i
++*<<+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON,TEXAS 76011.8064 m roN@
MEETING
SUMMARY
Licensees:
Facility:
Dockets:
Arizona Public Service Company Southern California Edison Company Pacific Gas and Electric Washington Public Power Supply System Houston Power and Light Texas Utilities Omaha Public Power District Nebraska Public Power District Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Entergy Operations-ANO Entergy Operations-River Bend Entergy Operations-Waterford Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
Washington Nuclear Power-2 South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units. 1 and 2
Fort Calhoun Station Cooper Nuclear Station Wolf Creek Generating Station Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2
River Bend Station Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 50-528/-529/-530/-361/-362/-275/-323-/-397-/-498/
-499/-445/-446/-285/-298/-482/-313/-368/-458/-382
SUBJECT:
MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE MEETING This refers to the meeting conducted in the Region IV office on May 17, 1994.
The meeting was related to discussion of motor-operated valve issues with Region IV licensees.
Special emphasis was placed on the process of closing out inspections of the implementation of Generic Letter 89-10, "Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance."
The meeting was attended by those listed in Attachment 1.
The meeting agenda is presented in Attachment 2 with copies of the presentation handouts provided in Attachments 3 and 4.
The meeting was considered beneficial and provided an open forum for discussion by the NRC staff, licensees, and others in attendance.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
9<06a7ooaa 9eosao PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
I
Meeting Summary Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, gg T. F. Westerman, Chief Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety I,,
Attachments:
l.
Attendance List 2.
Agenda 3.
Licensee Presentations 4.
NRC Presentations cc:
Standard Licensee Lists
Meeting Summary bcc:
DHB (IE 45)
J.
L. Milhoan, DEDR (MS 17G21)
H. L. Thompson, DEDS (MS 17G21)
W. T. Russell, D/NRR (HS 12D1)
A. C. Thadani, ADT/NRR (HS 12G18)
L. A. Reyes, ADP/NRR (HS 12D9)
J.
Lieberman, D/OE (HS 7H5)
L. J. Chandler, OGC (HS 15B18)
NRR Project Managers:
T. Alexion R.
Bevan T. Bergman K. Connaughton S.
Bloom E. Baker L. Kokajko D. Wigginton W. Reckley S.
Peterson C. Trammell M. Fields J. Clifford OEDO RIV Coordinator (HS 17G21)
L. J. Callan, RA J.
M. Montgomery, DRA G.
F. Sanborn, EO C. A. Hackney, RSLO J. Gilliland, PAO, RIV T.
P.
- Gwynn, D/DRS J.
A. Hitchell, ADD/DRS T. F. Westerman H. F.
Runyan C. J.
Paulk RA Secretary DRA Secretary Carol Gordon Division Secretary L. S. Ousley RIV:C:EB*
D:DRP*
TFWesterman ABBeach D:DRS TPGwynn 06 06 94 06 06 94
- Previously concurred 06 94
Heeting Summary bcc:
DHB (IE 45)
J.
L. Hilhoan, DEDR (HS 17G21)
H. L. Thompson, DEDS (HS 17G21)
M. T. Russell, D/NRR (HS 12Dl)
A. C. Thadani, ADT/NRR (HS 12G18)
L. A. Reyes, ADP/NRR (HS 12D9)
J.
Lieberman, D/OE (HS 7HS)
L. J. Chandler, OGC (HS 15B18)
NRR Project Hanagers:
T. Alexion R.
Bevan T. Bergman K. Connaughton S.
Bloom E. Baker L. Kokajko D. Wigginton M. Reckley S. Peterson C. Trammell H. Fields J. Clifford OEDO RIV Coordinator (HS 17G21)
L. J. Callan, RA J.
H. Hontgomery, DRA G.
F. Sanborn, EO C. A. Hackney, RSLO J. Gilliland, PAO, RIV T.
P.
- Gwynn, D/DRS J.
A. Hitchell, ADD/DRS T. F. Westerman H. F.
Runyan C. J.
Paulk RA Secretary DRA Secretary Carol Gordon Division Secretary L. S. Ousley RIV:C: EB*
D:DRP*
D:DRS 06 06 94 06 06 94
- Previously concurred TFWesterman ABBeach TPGwynn 06 94
ATTACHNENT I ATTENDANCE LIST Utilities nd Contractors B. Adams, Licensing, Commonwealth Edison K. 'Almquist, Project Manager, Nebraska Public Power District H. Anderson, Engineering Supervisor, Southern California Edison Company J.
Barker, Mechanical Engineer
- Engineer, Entergy Operations, Inc.
River Bend H. Brandon, Senior Engineer, Entergy Operations, Inc. - River Bend S.
- Coppock, Engineering Supervisor, Arizona Public Service Company C. Corbin, Licensing, TU Electric M. Eades, Licensing Engineer, Washington Public Power Supply System C. Gallaway, Senior Project Manager, Nuclear Engineer Inc.
T. Gates, Licensing, Entergy Operations, Inc. - Waterford 3
L. Georgopoulor, President, EHS Inc.
R. Goel,
- Manager, Pacific Gas
& Electric Company J. Haley, Licensing, Entergy Operations, Inc.
Arkansas Nuclear One K. Herman, Design Engineering, Pacific Gas
& Electric Company H. Hershthal, Manager Nuclear Systems Engineering, Southern California Edison Company T. Hinterschos, Technical Specification, VECTRA K. Howard, Supervisor Hechanical and Civil Engineering, Detroit Edison T. Hoyle, Motor-Operated Valve Lead, Washington Public Power Supply System B. Kochanowicz, Design Engineering, Nebraska Public Power District Y. Lassere,
- Engineer, Commonwealth Edison L. Limberg, Maintenance
- Engineer, Wisconsin Public Service P. Lina II, Vent Manager, BW Nuclear Tech W. Lui, Engineer Supervisor, Arizona Public Service Company E. Malone, Supervisory Engineering, BWNT B. HcDaniel, Engineering, Pacific Gas
& Electric Company D. McKibbin, Supervisor
- Engineer, VECTRA H. Heier, Program Manager, Houston Lighting & Power Company A. Nayakwaidi, Motor-Operated Vavle Project Manager, DEW R. Osborne,
- Engineer, South Carolina Electric
& Gas S. Pohl, Senior Lead Engineer, Entergy - Arkansas Nuclear One L. Ratzlaff, Supervisor Engineering, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation J. Reilly, Manager Engineering and Construction, Southern California Edison Company S.
- Resch, Special Services
- Engineer, Omaha Public Power District R. Ridge, Engineer II, VECTRA W. Rogers, Design Engineer Supervisor, Entergy Operations, Inc.
Arkansas Nuclear One W. Ross, Maintenance
- Engineer, TU Electric C. Rowland, Motor-Operated Valve Technical Coordinator, Houston Lighting 8
Power Company S.
Scow, Senior Engineer, Arizona Public Service Company C. Sellers, Vice President, ERIN Engineering E. Simbles, Supervisor, ERIN Engineering B. Simko, Manager, Arizona Public Service Company
4
P. Stanton, Design Engineer, Entergy Operations, Inc. - Waterford 3
P. Taiwan, Consulting Engineer, Houston Lighting 8
Power Company K. Van Le, Maintenance Engineering, Entergy Operations, Inc.
Waterford J.
Warren, Project Manager, Gilbert/Commonwealth S. Waters, Design Motor-Operated Valve Engineer, Arizona Public Service Company T. Yackle, Manager NEDO N/H, Southern California Edison Company G. Youngwirth, Electrical Supervisor, Wisconsin Public Service Nuclea Re ulator Commission T. Alexion, Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation C. Casto, Engineering Branch Chief, Division of Reactor Safety, Region II P.
Gwynn, Division Director, Division of Reactor Safety, Region IV H. Huber, Division of. Reactor Safety, Region III G. Johnson, Section Chief, Mechanical Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation E. Kelly, Chief, Division of Reactor Safety Systems, Region I H. Khanna, Mechanical
- Engineer, Mechanical Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation J.
Hontgomery, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV C. Hyers, Reactor Inspector, Division of Reactor Safety, Region IV C. Paulk, Reactor Inspector, Division of Reactor Safety, Region IV H. Runyan, Reactor Inspector, Division of Reactor Safety, Region IV T. Scarbrough, Senior Mechnical
- Engineer, Mechanical Engineering
- Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation T. Westerman, Engineering Branch Chief, Division of Reactor Safety, Region IV
ATTACHNENT 2 AGENDA Agenda for May 17.
1994 Motor Operated Valve Meeting 8:00 a.m.':15
- 10:00 a.m.
10:00 - 10:30 a,m.
10:30 - 12:00 p.m.
12:00 - 1:30 p.m.
1:30
- 4:00 p.m.
Welcome and Opening Remarks by Region IV Regional Administrator Utility Presentations on Generic Letter 89-10 Closure Break NRC Staff Presentations Lunch NRC Staff Panel to Respond to Generic Letter 89-10 Closure questions
ATTACHMENT 3 LICENSEE PRESENTATIONS
6 E MERIC LETTER 89-1 0 CLOSURE PRESENTATION BY BILL R. BLACK, P.E.
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION AT THE MAY 17, 1994 ARLINGTON, TEXAS USNRC PUBLIC MEETING TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.1
4
'4.
GENERIC LETTER 89-10 INTENT:
PROVIDE ASSURANCE OF OPERABILITY UNDER DESIGN BASIS CONDITIONS FOR MOVs AFFECTING PLANT SAFETY.
CLOSURE:
DEMONSTRATE THIS INTENT IS MET.
TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.2
4
GENERIC LETTER 89-10 RECOIVIENDED ACTIONS 4 MAJOR ACTIONS:
A. DESIGN BASIS REVIEW L DOCUMENTATION.
B. PROGRAM FOR SELECTING 8a SETTING SWITCHES.
C. STATIC R DP TESTING WHERE PRACTICABLE.
D. PROGRAM TQ MAINTAINCORRECT SWITCH SETTINGS.
TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.3
S 0
0 i
~ 0 0
~
0
~
~
~
S
~
~
~
~
~
)
x k
~
~
~ t'e I ~ 'o 0
~
~ ~ '
~ $
~
~
0 g
s
~ +
~
~ ~
ITEM A OF GENERIC LETTER 89-10
-VALVETYPE, SIZE, L PRESSURE CLASS IS APPROPRIATE.
-PLANT SCENARIOS REQUIRING MOTION 5 CORRESPONDING PIPING SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS, PRESSURES, FLUID TEMPERATURES, AND FLOW RATES.
-IVIOV CONTROL LOGIC IS APPROPRIATE.
-WHEN CALLED UPON TO OPERATE:
IVIINIMUMAVAILABLEVOLTAGE.
MAXIMUMROOM TEMPERATURE.
-MINIMUM5. MAXIMUMALLOWABLE STROKE TIMES.
-SEISMICALLYQUALIFIED STEM LOADS.
-ACTUATOR STRUCTURAL THRUST 8K TORQUE RATINGS.
-VALVEASSEMBLY STRUCTURAL LOAD LIMITS.
TU Electric May 1 7, 1 994 pg. 5
ITEMS B Bc C OF GENERIC LETTER 89-10 TEST DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS:
-INCORPORATED INTO ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS.
-ALL MOVs IN EACH GROUP TREATED THE SAME.
VALVEGROUP:
NOMINALLYIDENTICALVALVEBODY.
ACTUATOR GROUP:
SAME TYPE, SIZE, WORM/WORM GEAR RATIO, MOTOR RPM 5 RATING TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.6
ASSUIVIPTIONS VERIFIED:
-VALVEFACTORS {OPEN AND CLOSE).
-RUNNING THRUSTS.
-RATE-OF-LOADING FACTORS:
TORQUE SWITCH CLOSED L LIMITSWITCH CLOSED.
-STEM FACTORS.
-ACTUATOR CAPABILITYTO DELIVER TORQUE TO THE VALVESTEM.
-REPEATABILITYOF THRUST AT CLOSE LIMITSWITCH TRIP.
-UNWEDGING THRUST UNDER STATIC AND DP CONDITIONS.
TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.7
GROUPING:
ONE WAY {SMALLERGROUPS):
SAIVIE VALVE 8c SAME OPERATING CONDITIONS SECOND WAY {LARGER GROUPS):
SAME VALVE 8c SEVERAL OPERATING CONDITIONS THE SECOND WAY IS MORE GENERAL:
-ANALYSIS RESULTS APPLICABLE TO SEVERAL OF THE SMALLER GROUPS.
-ANALYSIS RESULTS POTENTIALLY MORE CONSERVATIVE.
-FEWER GROUPS TO DEAL WITH.
TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.8
MOVs NOT DP TESTED:
{PG 1 QF 2}
. -PLANT DATA FOR DP TESTED VALVES ARE APPLIED.
-RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH INDUSTRY DATA.
-ALLGROUPS HAVE AT LEAST 2 DP TESTED MOVs.
-ALL BUT TWO GATE VALVEGROUPS HAVE ) 30% DP TESTED.
TU Electric May 1 7, 1 994 pg. 9
MOVs NOT DP TESTED:
{PG 2 OF 2) 1st GROUP: WESTINGHOUSE 14" DIRECTION 4 DP TESTED DESIGN BASIS DP CLOSE" OPEN Oof8 4 of 8 52 psi 450psi
+APPLY BOUNDING RESULTS FOR ELEVEN 10" TESTED AT 50-270 PSI.
2nd GROUP: BORG-WARNER 16 INCH+"
4 WITH DESIGN BASIS DP OF 22 PSI.
4 WITH DESIGN BASIS DP OF 62 PSI.
4 WITH DESIGN BASIS DP OF 295 PSI.
+APPLY BOUNDING RESULTS FOR 2 OF 12 DP TESTED AT 295 PSI.
TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.10
ITEM D OF GENERIC LETTER 89-10 PERFORMANCE IVIONITORING 5.
PERIODIC VERIFICATION OF OPERABILITY PERFORMANCE MONITORING:
-DETECT CHANGE IN PERFORMANCE INDICATINGDEGRADATION.
-ASSESS NEED TQ TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION, AND WHEN.
PERIODIC VERIFICATION:
-BY IN SITU DIAGNOSTIC TESTING UNDER STATIC CONDITIONS.
-NUMBER OF CYCLES BETWEEN TESTS IS BASED ON:
PRA (IMPORTANCE TO PLANT SAFETY).
+ IVlAINTENANCEHISTORY.
AS-BUILT OPERATING IVIARGINS.
TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.11
ON-GOING ACTIVITIES AFTER JUNE 1994 CONFIRM SOME ASSUIVIPTIONS IN ENGINEERING CALCULATIONL FINALIZE RELATED DESIGN DOCUMENTS.
FURTHER REVIEW OF PRESSURE LOCKING AND THERMAL BINDING ISSUE.
IMPROVE LONG-TERM PROGRAM AS EXPERIENCE SUGGESTS.
TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.12
SUMMARY
TESTING HAS CONFIRMED MOvs ARE OPERABLE.
DOCUIVIENTATIONIS BEING FINALIZED.
MODIFICATIONSARE BEING IMPLEMENTED TO INCREASE DESIGN IVIARGINS:
UNIT 1 FALL 1993 UNIT 2 FALL 1994 GREATER DESIGN MARGINS FACILITATELONG TERM PROGRAM GOALS.
TU Electric May 17, 1994 pg.13
WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERA TING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION'S NRC GENERIC LETTER 89-10 CLOSURE NRC-GENERIC LETTER 89-'to CLOSURE PRESENTATION NRC REGION IVMEETING ARLINGTON,TEXAS MAY17, 1994 I.
NRC GL 89-10 REQUIREMENTS II.
WCNOC COMMITMENTS III.
ISSUE RESOLUTION AND INCORPORATION IV.
APPROACHES TAKEN V.
INDIVIDUALSTATUS AND
SUMMARY
VI.
CONCLUSION hRC Regton IVGL gg-tg CIoeeoot Neegng - hllngtnn - Noy 12 Ighee Pope 2of 12 I.
NRC GL 89-10 RE UIREMENTS Additional Su lements to the Letter.
a.
Design basis review b.
Correct torque switch settings c.
Dynamic and stroke testing d.
Procedures to ensure correct torque switch settings e.
Degraded voltage considerations f.
Alternative approaches to dynamic testing g.
GLAttachmentAproblemsandissues h.
MOVfailures, corrective actions, and trending i.
Completion within 5 years or three refueling outages j.
Program for periodic testing k.
Refueling outages within 6 months of issue I.
Notifythe NRC within 6 months of commitments m.
Notifythe NRC 30 days after completion Supplement 1 - Workshop Questions and Answers Supplement 2-Delays to Initial Program Inspections Supplement 3-BWR Containment Isolation Valves Supplement 4 - Mispositioning for BWRs Supplement 5-Diagnostic Testing Equipment Concerns Supplement 6-Further Clarification of GL 89-10 NRC Regton IVGL 20.10 Ctoeeout Neegng -AIInngton-Noy 1T, tgge Pogelof 12 NRC Regton IVGL gg. 10 Ctoseoet Neegng - AIIngton-Noy 1T, 1ISO PogeOof 12
II.
WCNOC COMMITMENTS
- Original letter committed to all aspects of the GL with no exceptions III.
ISSUE RESOLUTION AND INCORPORATION This willbe a response to each of the requirements, commitments and unresolved or open items. Each item will be presented with the applicable action taken for resolution.
- First Phase 1 Inspection, Commitments and Unresolved or Open Items
- Second Phase 1 Inspection, Commitments and Unresolved or Open Items Resolution could be via:
1.
Program document incorporation 2.
Diagnostic, dynamic, or other administrative procedure revisions
- First Phase 2 Inspection, Commitments'and Unresolved or Open Items Other Notifications to Changes in Commitments 3.
Calculation enhancements and revisions 4.
Training provided with periodic requaiification classes 5.
Design configuration documents updated or enhanced hRC Repbn IVGL 09.10 Q>>eout Meedng - klnpbn - Mey 17. 1004 Pape 5 of 12 hRC ReINon IVGL 00.10 Ck>>coot leedng -~
Mey Iy 1004 Pape 0 of 12 IV. APPROACHES TAKENATWCNOC DYNAMICAILYTested MOVs Scope of valves at WCNOC applicable to GL 8S-10 requirements are:
- Gate valves
- Butterflyvalves
- Tests at 80% design basis or greater Extrapolation justified Previous unknowns determined and other, information incorporated back Into the design basis calculation
- Permanent design and setup complete Performance monitoring and trending follows Two Classifications of MOVs 1.
Those DYNAMICALLYtested 2.
Those NOT DYNAMICALLYtested
- Tests at less than 80Yo design basis (with meaningful data)
=-
Extrapolation and/or other data (EPRI, industry, vendor, etc.) utilized to justify the ultimate design basis values Permanent de'sign and setup complete Performance monitoring and trending follows hRC Region IVGL 00 10 Ck>>eooIMeedhp-ANngion-Mey 17, 1004 Pape yof12 NRC Region IVGL 00-10 Ck>>eoef Meedng - Aflnplon-May 1Z 1994 Pape 0 of 12
NO DYNAMICTestin
- High Margin Methodology - Large margins created to excessively compensate for a combination of factors/degradation.
1.
MOVs not tested are largely gate and butterfly valves with less safety significance.
2.
DPs are generally lower than those previously-dynamically tested.
3.
Utilization of existing data:
a.
WCNOC dynamic testing results b.
EPRI Performance Prediction Program data
- c. Other industry data 4.
Specifying extremely conservative discfseat coefficients of friction 5.
Optimizing the actuator 6.
Performance monitoring and trending Impossible to test or non-meaningful data 1.
Extremely low differential pressures compared to the design basis conditions 2.
Impractical to test 3.
Conditions detrimental to safety 4.
Potential for component damage 5.
Statically set-up using diagnostics 6.
Performance monitoring and trending This category of MOVs is considered not practicable to test because plant conditions would not be favorable, the test results would not be meaningful, and/or there is risk to plant equipment.
hRC Rayon IVGL 09-10~ lIeepng-ANngion-liay 1T, 1994 Pape 0 of12 hRC Region IVGL 09.10 Ckeeoot Meolhp-Adhpbn-lay 1T. Ilgwu Pape 10 of 12 V.
INDIVIDUALSTATUS AND
SUMMARY
Each valve or familyof valves willbe discussed as to the current status:
- Approach taken (dynamically tested or not)
- Current status in relation to the set-up in the field compared to the design basis 1.
Open margin 2.
Close margin
- Continuing activities or changes in process Future activities or enhancements planned VI.
CONCLUSION The conclusion to the closeout letter willprovide:
Information for future activities and enhancements planned 2.
Plans for permanent tracking and trending of these components for the life of the plant 3.
A"bottom line" ofwhere WCNOC stands in relation to GL 89-10 and its supplements (Stage 1 and Stage 2) hRC Region IVGL 00.10 CioeeooI Meegng-Agngion-lIay 1T, 1004 Page 11 of12 pm'egion IVGL 00.10 Cloaeoot Qeetfnp - Agngion - hiay 1T, 1004 Pape 12 of 12
Generic Letter 89-10:
A Plan for Closure M. Steve Coppock Palo. Verde Nuclear Generating Station May 17, 1994 Presentation Outline
~
Implementation plan
~
Results of the program
~
Plans for closure Implementation Plan Results ofthe Program
~
Initiallywritten to comply with the June 28, 1990 response date
~
Covered oll Gl. 89-10 recommendations
~
Established plans for differential pressure (DP) testing all MOVS that were practical lo lest
~
Established a single group (Valve Services Engineering) as the project leod
~
Revised twice and remains as the guiding document for the project
~
117 MOVs per unit were identified within the sco pe of the program
~
85 MOVs per Unit were identified that coukl be tested with DP
~
To date, 240 MOVs have been tested at least once
~
Allof these MOVs were as-found tested and rebuilt prior to DP testing
Results ofthe Program, cont Results ofthe Program, cont
~
24 hlOVs were determined to have not been able to fullyfunction under design bases requirements as identified by the GL 89 $0 in the askwnd condition
~
Several anomalies were discovered
~ gear ratios that were different thon the nameplate
~
geors that did not mesh
~
higher thon expected bearing torques for some butterfly valves higher valve factors fof some gate valves
~
higher thnnt requirements for some globe volves
~
ttttproved confidence in MOVperformance
~ Ve'y high human ond economic impact
~
Decreased MOVfailure rate as reported to INPO
~
Established MOV program for long term M@A Engineering and Maintenance that fits well with the PVNGS plans for implementing the Maintenance Rule Plans for Closure Plans for Closure, cont
~
Scope
~
Completed the review of all PVNGS MOVs and determined that 117 MOVs per unit are to be included in the GL 89-10 scope
~
Plan to remove ot least four MOVs per unit from this scope by conversion to manual valves prior to closure
~
Design bases reviews
~
initial design bases reviews complete
~
Determined that worst case design bases for most MOVs is determined by our operations procedures and not the automatic safety function
~
Cunent design bases review willbe converted to formol engineering cokulation after closure
Plans for Closure, cont Plans for Closure, cont
~
Cakulations
~
Cakukltions for all MOVsetpoints are compkte
~
MOV set points have been adjusted up to refkct the best available data
~
best available data represents the results of our testing program and abo other credible sources
~
cutoff of 6 months prior to the last outage esloblished in the implemenlotion plan for evaluation of the "best data
~
Design bases testing
~
AN ALOVs that were procticoble lo lest have been tested in Unit 3 presenting 8S DP tests
~
For those HOVs not procticoble lo lest, or where the test was at fess than design bases DP, we ore documenting the hoses for the set up throvgh on anolyticvl evolvotion
~
Evaluation of industry dato, such os EPRI, wiN continue after cknvre lust as industry data is evolvoted for any other equipment
~ Incopoalion of DP test results into the MOV setpoints from the last refvegng outoge prior lo closure willoccur ofter closure Plans for Closure, cont Plans for Closure, cont
~
Periodic verifkation
~
Stem lubrication, limitswitch venpication, grease inspection, and fnnctional lesting, every outage l18 mo)
~
Static diognostic lesting lo verify Ihe MOVthrust ond/or torque setpoints, every other outoge (3b mo)
~
Rebvild the octurnor, every 4th refueling fy2 mo)
~
Periodic DP lesNng vng be evaluated ofter comptetion of the EPRI lest program ond on cuiolyticol evolvation of oN the PYNGS lest data
~ the periodx DP lest evolvation willbe corn phited outside of f~Wt ~bi
~
Performance and Failure Trending
~
Estoblished the perfonnonce pmameters lo be trended
~
Developed a computer program lo onotyte ond Ifend lhe performance pansmeters
~
In Ihe pnxess of comp4ting Ihe administrative pnxedures lo conlrol Ihe perfornscmce trending progrom
~ WiNrely on the existing root cause onolysis and cnrective action prognun for fmtvre analysis ond trending
Plans for Closure, cont
~
Schedule
~
Unit 1; Summer of 1995
~
Unit 2; Summer of 1994
~
Unit 3; Summer of 1994
ATTACHNENT 4 NRC PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS GENERIC LETTER 89-10, "SAFETY-RELATED MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE TESTING AND SURVEILLANCE" REGION IV OFFICE MAY 17, 1994 THOMAS G.
SCARBROUGH OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
GENERIC LETTER 89-10 SAFETY-RELATED MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE TESTING AND SURVEILLANCE (JUNE 28, 1989)
GL 89-10 REQUESTED LICENSEES TO ESTABLISH PROGRAMS TO ENSURE CAPABILITY OF ALL MOVs IN SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEMS TO PERFORM THEIR SAFETY FUNCTION.
INDIVIDUALRECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
A.
,B.
C.
D.
E.
REVIEW AND DOCUMENT THE DESIGN BASIS FOR THE OPERATION OF EACH MOV.
REVIEW AND REVISE METHODS. FOR SELECTING AND SETTING MOV SWITCHES.
TEST MOVs AT DESIGN-BASIS DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE AND FLOW CONDITIONS MHERE PRACTICABLE AND JUSTIFY ALTERNATIVES WHERE DESIGN-BASIS TESTING IS NOT PRACTICABLE.
VERIFY ADEQUATE SWITCH SETTINGS PERIODICALLY (EVERY 5 YEARS OR 3 REFUELING OUTAGES, AND FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE).-
ANALYZE EACH MOV FAILURE, JUSTIFY CORRECTIVE
- ACTION, AND TREND RESULTS (WITH REVIEW EVERY 2 YEARS).
SCHEDULE:
COMPLETE INITIALTEST PROGRAM BY JUNE 28,
- 1994, OR 3 REFUELING OUTAGES AFTER DECEMBER 28,
- 1989, WHICHEVER IS LATER.
SUPPLEMENT 1 TO GL 89-10 (JUNE 13, 1990)
PROVIDED THE RESULTS OF SEPTEMBER 1989 PUBLIC WORKSHOPS TO DISCUSS THE GENERIC LETTER AND TO ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING ITS IMPLEMENTATION.
SUPPLEMENT 2 TO GLi.,89-10 (AUGUST 3, 1990)
ALLOWED ADDITIONALTIME FOR LICENSEES TO INCORPORATE THE INFORMATION IN SUPPLEMENT 1 INTO THEIR GL 89-10 PROGRAMS.
SUPPLEMENT 3 TO GL 89-10 (OCTOBER 25, 1990)
REQUESTED BWR LICENSEES TO VERIFY THE CAPABILITY OF MOVs USED FOR CONTAINMENT ISOLATION IN THE HIGH PRESSURE COOLANT INJECTION (HPCI),
REACTOR CORE ISOLATION COOLING (RCIC),
AND REACTOR WATER CLEANUP (RWCU)
SYSTEMS IN ADVANCE OF THE OVERALL GL 89-10 SCHEDULE.
SUPPLEMENT 4 TO GL 89-10 (FEBRUARY 12, 1992)
ALLOWED BWR LICENSEES NOT TO ADDRESS INADVERTENT MOV OPERATION AS PART OF THEIR GL 89-1O PROGRAMS AS RESULT OF AN NRC-SPONSORED STUDY OF CORE MELT PROBABILITY.
SUPPLEMENT 5 TO GL 89-10 (JUNE 28, 1993)
REQUESTED LICENSEES TO.RE-EXAMINE MOV PROGRAMS AND TO IDENTIFY MEASURES TAKEN OR PLANNED TO ACCOUNT FOR UNCERTAINTIES IN MOV DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT.
LICENSEES WERE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY NRC STAFF OF THEIR DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT AND TO REPORT THEIR PLANS TO ADDRESS THE INFORMATION ON THE ACCURACY OF MOV DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE LICENSEE RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENT 5.
NRC INSPECTIONS WILL ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF LICENSEE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS MOV DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT INACCURACY.
SUPPLEMENT 6 TO GL 89-10 (MARCH 8, 1994)
REQUESTS THAT LICENSEES PLANNING TO EXTEND THEIR GL 89-10 SCHEDULES SUBMIT INFORMATION THAT JUSTIFIES SCHEDULE EXTENSION.
EVEN IF GL 89-1O SCHEDULE EXTENDED, LICENSEES EXPECTED TO HAVE MOVs SET UP WITH THE BEST AVAILABLE INDUSTRY DATA BY ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE ACCEPTED BY THE STAFF.
PROVIDES INFORMATION ON GROUPING OF MOVs FOR SET-UP CONDITIONS RESPONDS TO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS FROM FEBRUARY 1993
- WORKSHOP, INCLUDING USE OF PRA IN RESPONDING TO GL 89-10, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MOV TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA.
TYPES OF RECENT MOV PROBLEMS CONTINUING IDENTIFICATION OF UNDERESTIMATED TORQUE AND THRUST REQUIREMENTS AC MOTOR AMBIENT TEMPERATURE EFFECTS MOTOR BRAKE ADEQUACY VALVE YOKE CRACKING MOTOR PINION KEY CRACKING AND LOOSE-STAKING MOTOR STARTING CONTACTOR LOW VOLTAGE TORQUE SWITCH ROLL-PIN FAILURE PRESSURE LOCKING AND THERMAL BINDING CONCERNS JUSTIfICATION FOR MOTOR-ACTUATOR OUTPUT CAPABILITY FOR ac AND nc POWERED HOVs
INSPECTIONS OF GL 89-10 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION NRC STAFF INITIATED INSPECTIONS USING PART 2 OF TEMPORARY INSTRUCTION 2515/109 IN FEBRUARY 1993.
LICENSEE TESTS OF MOVs INDICATE MANY GATE VALVES, AND SOME GLOBE AND BUTTERFLY VALVES, HAVE GREATER THRUST/TORQUE REQUIREMENTS THAN PREDICTED BY VALVE VENDORS IN SIZING AND SETTING MOVs.
HOST SIGNIFICANT GL 89-10 INSPECTION CONCERNS INCLUDE (1)
STATUS OF DYNAMIC TESTING; (2)
TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA; (3) OPERABILITY/REPORTABILITYDETERMINATIONS; (4)
FEEDBACK OF TEST RESULTS; AND (5)
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR PRESSURE LOCKING AND THERMAL BINDING OF GATE VALVES.
OTHER LICENSEE ACTIVITIES NEEDING IMPROVEMENT INCLUDE (1) VALIDATIONOF ASSUMPTIONS IN MOV SIZING AND SETTING CALCULATIONS; (2) JUSTIFICATION OF MOV GROUPING FOR TESTING PURPOSES; (3) VERIFICATION OF EXTRAPOLATION METHODS FOR TEST DATA; (4)
EVALUATION OF DIAGNOSTIC TRACE ANOMALIES; (5)
INVOLVEMENT OF QA IN VERIFYING TEST DATA AND ANALYSES ACCURACY; (6) JUSTIFICATION FOR METHOD TO PERIODICALLY VERIFY DESIGN-BASIS CAPABILITY; AND (7)
CORRECTIVE ACTION IN RESPONSE TO MOV PROBLEMS.
PROCESS FOR CLOSURE OF NRC STAFF REVIEW OF GENERIC LETTER 89-10 PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(F),
GL 89-10 STATES THAT LICENSEES SHALL NOTIFY NRC IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF GL 89-10 DESIGN-BASIS VERIFICATION WHEN LICENSEE NOTIFIES NRC, NRR PROJECT MANAGER WILL SET UP DISCUSSION BETWEEN NRR TECHNICAL STAFF AND REGION STAFF TO DISCUSS CLOSURE OF NRC STAFF REVIEW OF GL '89-10 PROGRAM.
FOLLOWING THOSE DISCUSSIONS, NRR PROJECT MANAGER WILL NOTIFY LICENSEE OF ANY NECESSARY INFORMATION TO CLOSE GL 89-10 OR SET UP TELEPHONE CONFERENCE.
PM MIGHT ALSO ASSIST REGION IN SCHEDULING INSPECTION.
UPON SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF NRC STAFF REVIEW, NRC STAFF WILL CLOSE GL 89-10 REVIEW THROUGH LETTER FROM NRR PROJECT MANAGER OR COVER LETTER OF INSPECTION REPORT (AS DETERMINED JOINTLY BY NRR AND THE REGION)
, ~
~"
I LICENSEE CONSIDERATIONS IN COMPLETING GL 89-10 PROGRAMS JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGN-BASIS CAPABILITY FOR EACH MOV IN GL 89-10 PROGRAM PROCESS FOR OBTAINING FURTHER INFORMATION WHERE LICENSEE NOT SATISFIED WITH JUSTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN MOVS COMPLETION OF JUSTIFICATION FOR PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS, SUCH AS A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
VALVE FACTOR (INCLUDING AREA ASSUMPTION)
STEM FRICTION COEFFICIENT LOAD SENSITIVE BEHAVIOR MARGINS FOR STEM LUBRICATION DEGRADATION AND SPRINGPACK RELAXATION MOTOR PERFORMANCE FACTORS (1)
MOTOR RATING (2)
EFFICIENCIES USED IN OPEN AND CLOSE DIRECTIONS (3) APPLICATION FACTOR (4)
POWER FACTOR USED IN DEGRADED VOLTAGE CALCULATIONS BASIS FOR EXTRAPOLATION METHOD OF PARTIAL D/P THRUST MEASUREMENTS TORQUE SWITCH REPEATABILITY USE OF LIMITORQUE, KALSI, OR OTHER SOURCES FOR INCREASING THRUST AND TORQUE ALLOWABLE LIMITS EQUIPMENT ERROR POST MAINTENANCE TESTINGt ESPECIALLY VALVE PACKING ADJUSTMENTS GROUPING OF MOVS TRENDING OF MOV PROBLEMS.
LICENSEE CONSIDERATIONS IN COMPLETING GL 89-10 PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)
PLAN FOR RESPONDING TO MISPOSITIONING ISSUE WHEN NRC COMPLETES PROPOSED SUPPLEMENT 7 TO GL 89-10 CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ACTIVITIES TO RESOLVE CONCERN ABOUT PRESSURE LOCKING AND THERMAL BINDING OF GATE VALVES LONG-TERM PLAN FOR PERIODIC VERIFICATION THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT DEGRADATION OF DESIGN-BASIS CAPABILITY WILL BE IDENTIFIED.
FOR EXAMPLE, USE OF PRA STUDIES TO HELP PRIORITIZE MOVs FOR APPROPRIATE PERIODIC VERIFICATION FREQUENCY.
CURRENT NRC STAFF ACTIVITIES ON MOVs INSPECTIONS USING PART 2 OF TI 2515/109 (REV. 1)
TO EVALUATE GL 89-10 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION BEING CONDUCTED.
STAFF REVIEWING CLOSE-OUT OF GL 89-10 AS LICENSEES COMPLETE PROGRAMS.
STAFF REVIEWING GL 89-10 SCHEDULE EXTENSION JUSTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN LICENSEES.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED A STUDY OF MOV MISPOSITIONING IN PWR PLANTS AND IS PREPARING SUPPLEMENT 7 TO ADDRESS THE STAFF'S CONCLUSIONS.
STAFF IS PREPARING PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER 94-XX ON PRESSURE LOCKING AND THERMAL BINDING OF GATE VALVES.
NRC STAFF REVIEWING TOPICAL REPORT ON EPRI MOV PERFORMANCE PREDICTION PROGRAM.
SPONSORING WITH ASME A SYMPOSIUM ON VALVE AND PUMP TESTING ON JULY 18-21,
- 1994, IN WASHINGTON, DC.
,I
MOV INSPECTION RESULTS TEMPORARY INSTRUCTION (Tl}
2515/109 PART 2 FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTATIONiVERTICALSLICE
e
SCOPE Good effort to identify GL 89-10 MOVs
DESIGN-BASIS REVIEWS Overemphasis on d/p at expense of flow rate and fluid temperature Weakness in pressure locking/thermal binding evaluations Changes in design information not fully reviewed for impact
MOV SIZING AND SWITCH SETTINGS Torque and thrust limits exceeded without rigorous justification Thermal growth effects may exist without detection Torque switch repeatability not included for total thrust limits Motor actuator capability assumptions not adequately justified Application of uncertainties Underutilization of quality assurance resources
J r
0 DESIGN-BASIS VERIFICATION Many activities necessary for program closure remain unaccomplished I,,
Test conditions sometimes, fail to accurately simulate design basis Precision lacking in the marking of diagnostic traces Weaknesses in acceptance criteria Need to validate assumptions, which often started out low
PERIODIC VERIFICATIQN Anticipated use of static testing not yet justified Improvements in use of diagnostics for post-maintenance testing
J
~
~+
~
~
CORRECTIVE ACTION AND TRENDING Many significant findings and enforcement actions based on corrective action deficiencies Failure to identify degraded MOVs Trending programs still under development
Ja
t
~ ~ '
~
SCHEDULE Many licensees have not made adequate progress resolving MOV issues in accordance with the recommended schedule of GL 89-10
0
SUMMARY
GL 89-10, Part 2 inspections have revealed a pronounced improvement since the Part 1 inspections Licensees have conducted a large number of differential pressure tests Improvements noted in diagnostic testing equipment, test acceptance
- criteria, feedback of test results, database control, training and expertise, and justification for assumptions NRC believes that efforts undertaken by licensees have resulted in significant improvement in nuclear safety