ML17292B608
| ML17292B608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1999 |
| From: | Jack Cushing NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Parrish V WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| References | |
| GL-96-05, GL-96-5, TAC-M97119, NUDOCS 9903310201 | |
| Download: ML17292B608 (5) | |
Text
March 26, 1999 Mr. J. V. Parrish Chief Executive Officer Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 (Mail Drop 1023)
Richland, Washington 99352-0968
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATIONREGARDING GENERIC LETTER 96-05 PROGRAM ATWNP-2 (TAC NO. M97119)
I
/
Dear Mr. Parrish:
On September 18, 1996, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 96-05, "Periodic Verification of Design-Basis Capability of Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valves," to request that nuclear power plant licensees establish a program, or ensure the effectiveness of the current program, to verify on a periodic basis that safety-related motor-operated valves (MOVs) continue to be capable of performing their safety functions within the current licensing basis of the facility.
By letter dated May 20, 1998, Washington Public Power Supply System submitted an updated response to GL 96-05 indicating its intent to implement the provisions of a Joint Owners Group (JOG) Program on MOV Periodic Verification for the Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2). The NRC staff has encouraged licensees to participate in the industry-wide JOG program to provide a benefit in reactor safety by sharing expertise and information on MOVperformance and to increase the efficiency of GL 96-05 activities at nuclear plants.
Licensee participation in the JOG program also minimizes the amount of information necessary for the NRC staff to review.
As a result, the NRC staff requires only limited information to complete its GL 96-05 review for WNP-2.
Enclosed is a request for additional information regarding the GL 96-05 program at WNP-2.
These questions were discussed with Mr. Paul Inserra of your staff on March 16, 1999, and it was mutually agreed that you would provide a response to this request within 60 days of receipt of this letter.
Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1424.
Sincerely, Original Signed By Jack Cushing, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Licensing Project Management
~ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-397
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
~ygO38 Document Name: A:)RAI97119.WPD DISTRIBUTION i Docket File",
PUBLIC PDIV-2 R/F WBate man E. Peyton J: Gushing OGC D. Terao T. Scarbrough L. Smith, RIV K. Brockman, RIV J. Zwolinski/S. Black OFC PDIV-2 PDIV-2 NAME DATE JCushV E~Pe o
3
/99 3 /&4/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'P9033i020i
'7'70326 PDR ADQCK 05000397 P
--aai~ J ~
Mr. J. V. Parrish March 26, 1999 cc w/encl:
Mr. Greg O. Smith (Mail Drop 927M)
Vice President, Generation Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Mr. Albert E. Mouncer (Mail Drop 1396)
Chief Counsel Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Ms. Deborah J. Ross, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council P. O. Box 43172 Olympia, Washington 98504-3172 Mr. D. W. Coleman (Mail Drop PE20)
Regulatory Affairs Manager Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Mr. Paul Inserra (Mail Drop PE20)
Manager, Licensing Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harris Tower 8 Pavilion 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 76011-8064 Chairman Benton County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 69 Prosser, Washington 99350-0190 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 69 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Mr. Rodney L. Webring (Mail Drop PE08)
Vice President, Operations Support/PIO Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Perry D. Robinson, Esq.
Winston 8 Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502
RE VEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATIONON RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 96-05 "PERIODIC VERIFICATIONOF DESIGN-BASIS CAPABILITY OF SAFETY-RELATED MOTOR-OPERATED VALVES" NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 WNP-2 DOCKET NO. 50-397 In NRC Inspection Report No. 50-397/96-04, the NRC staff closed its review of the motor-operated valve (MOV) program implemented at Washington Nuclear Project 2 (WNP-2) in response to Generic Letter (GL) 89-10, "Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance."
In the inspection report, the NRC staff discussed certain aspects of the licensee's MOV program to be addressed over the long term. For example, the inspectors noted that the licensee agreed to (1) review the NRC staff's safety evaluation of Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) MOV Performance Prediction Model (PPM); (2) revise operability determination procedures to ensure that GL 89-10 performance parameters are used; and (3) increase the torque switch setting for MOVHPCS-V-15. The licensee should address these long-term aspects of the MOV program at WNP-2 noted in the NRC inspection report.
In a letter dated March 13, 1997, the licensee committed to implement the Joint Owners Group (JOG) Program on MOV Periodic Verification in response to GL 96-05.
In this letter, the licensee states that MOVstatic diagnostic test frequencies normally exceed five years.
In the NRC safety evaluation dated October 30, 1997, on Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) Topical Report NEDC-32719 describing the JOG program, the NRC staff stated that MOVs with scheduled test frequencies beyond five years will need to be grouped with other MOVs that willbe tested on frequencies less than five years in order to validate assumptions for the longer test intervals. The NRC staff stated that this review must include both valve thrust (or torque) requirements and actuator output capability. The licensee should describe how its MOVstatic diagnostic testing program willsatisfy this condition of the NRC safety evaluation.
The licensee's MOVperiodic verification program scope was revised to include safety-related test return MOVs that are assumed to be capable of returning to their safety position when placed in a position that prevents their safety system (or train) from performing its safety function. The licensee noted that these MOVs willbe diagnostically tested after major maintenance and willbe exercised during plant surveillance tests.
The JOG MOVPeriodic Verification Program consists of three phases:
(1) the interim MOVstatic diagnostic testing program; (2) an MOVdynamic testing program over the next 5 years; and (3) the long-term periodic test program.
The NRC staff considers a licensee's commitment to the JOG program to include all three phases unless otherwise specified. Where a licensee that has committed to implement the JOG program proposes to implement a different approach, the licensee will be expected to notify the NRC and to provide justification for the proposed alternative approach.
The licensee's letter of March 13, 1997, implies that the JOG long-term program might not be followed for the test return MOVs that were added to the GL 96-05 program scope.
Further, in IR 96-04, the NRC inspectors noted that test return MOVs had not been included in the GL 89-10 program scope at WNP-2. The licensee should clarify its commitment to the JOG program or justify its long-term periodic verification program for any test return MOVs that will not followthe JOG program recommendations, including plans to demonstrate the capability of those MOVs to return to their safety position.
The licensee's MOVperiodic verification program stated that new diagnostic technologies that monitor MOVperformance at the motor control center (MCC) may be used, as appropriate.
The licensee should briefly describe its plans for the use of test data from the motor control center (MCC) including (1) correlation of new MCC test data to existing direct force measurements; (2) interpretation of changes in.MCC test data to changes in MOVthrust and torque performance; (3) consideration of system accuracies and sensitivities to MOVdegradation for both output and operating performance requirements; and (4) validation of MOVoperability using MCC testing.
The JOG program focuses on the potential age-related increase in the thrust or torque required to operate valves under their design-basis conditions.
In the NRC safety evaluation dated October 30, 1997, on the JOG program, the NRC staff specified that licensees are responsible for addressing the thrust or torque delivered by the MOV motor actuator and its potential degradation.
The licensee should describe the plan at WNP-2 for ensuring adequate ac and dc MOV motor actuator output capability, including consideration of recent guidance in Limitorque Technical Update 98-01 and its Supplement 1.