ML18151A086
| ML18151A086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1987 |
| From: | Chandu Patel Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, TAC-53921, TAC-53922, TAC-53943, TAC-53944, NUDOCS 8710050450 | |
| Download: ML18151A086 (5) | |
Text
September 16,* 1987 Docket Nos. 50-280/281 and 50-338/339 Mr. W. L. Stewart Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric and Power Company P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Stewart:
DISTRIBUTION D_ocket Fi-le--' *ACRS ( 10)
NRC PDR Gray Fi 1 e Local PDR LEngle PD22 Rdg SVarga Glainas DMiller CPatel OGC-Bethesda EJordan JPartlow
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO ITEM 4.2 (PARTS 3 AND 4) OF GENERIC LETTER 83-28 FOR THE SURRY AND NORTH ANNA POWER STATIONS (TAC NOS. 53921, 53922, 53943 AND 53944)
Item 4.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires licensees or applicants to describe their preventive maintenance and surveillance program for ensuring reliable reactor trip breaker operation. Parts 3 and 4 of Item 4.2 pertain to life testing of an acceptable sample size of the breakers, and periodic replacement of the breakers or components consistent with demonstrated life cycles *.
Virginia Electric and Power Company submitted a response to Item 4.2 (Parts 3 and 4) by letter dated February 8, 1985.
In order to complete our review, we need additional information as stated in the enclosure to this letter.
We request that you provide this information within 30 days or -provide us with your schedule for doing so.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping.requirements of this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, 0MB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page C/f PM:PD22 CPatel 9/ /{;/87 p~
LEngle 9/\\(o87
--c-=-~--~~
1971 oo5o4so e7o9tb * -*. * : -' * \\
\\
PDR, ADOCK 05000280.
I 1_. P*
. PDR Sincerely, Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II
C ~.-.
Mr. W. L. Stewart Virgi~ia Electric and Power Company cc:
Mr. Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams Post Office Box 1535 Rich~ond, Virginia 23213 Mr. Robert F. Saunders, Manager Surry Power Station Post Office Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 Resident Inspector Surry Power Station*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Post Office Box 166, Route 1 Surry, Virginia 23883 Mr. Sherlock Holmes, Chainnan Board of Supervisors of Surry County Surry County Courthouse Surry, Virginia 23683 W. T. Lough Virginia Corporation COfTITlission Division of Energy Regulation Post Office Box 1197 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Mr. J. T. Rhodes Senior Vice President - Power Ops.
Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 James B. Kenley, M.D., Conrnissioner Department of Health 109 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia ?.3219.
e Surry_ Power Station Attorney General Supreme Court Building 101 North 8th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219
e Mr. W. L. Stewart Virginia Electric & Power Company cc:
Richard M. Foster, Esq.
. Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton 516 Cherry Tower 920 South Cherry Street Denver, Colorado 80222 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton, Williams, Gay and Gibson P. 0. Box. 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mr*. W. T. Lough Virginia Corporation Corrmission Division of Energy Regulation P. O. Box 1197 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Hannon, Weiss and Jor~an 2001 S Street NW Washington, DC 20009 Mr. J. T. Rhodes Senior Vice President - Power Ops.
Virginia Electric and Power Co.
Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Mr. Patrick A. O'Hare Office of the Attorney General Supreme Court Building 101 North 8th Street
- Richmond, Virginia 23219 Resident Inspector/North Anna c/o U.S. NRC Senior Resident Inspector Route 2, Box 78 Mineral, Virginia 23117 e
North Anna Power Station Units 1 and?
Atanic Safety and Licensing Appea*1 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Regional Administra.tor, Region II
_ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Office of Executive Director for Operations 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr.. E. W. Harrell P.O. Box 402 Mineral, Virginia 23117 Old Dominion Electric Cooperative c/o Executive Vice President Innsbrook Corporate Center 4222 Cox Road, Suite 102 Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Mr. William C. Porter, Jr.*
County Administrator Louisa County P. 0. Box 160 Louisa, Virginia 23093 James B. Kenley, M.D., Comnissioner Department of Health 109 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 i
......'... _,.. ~ *'*'**
.-.. ~*- *", -..
O C ENCLOSURE e
RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEM 83-28 Item 4.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires licensees or applicants to describe the;r preventive maintenance and surveillance program for ensuring reliable reactor trip breaker operation. Parts 3 and 4 of Item 4.2 pertains to life testing of an acceptable sample size of the breakers, and periodic replacement of the breakers or components consistent with demonstrated life cycles. The*
licensee submitted a response to Item 4.2 (Parts 3&4) by letter dated February 8 1 1985. In that letter, the licensee referred to the life cycle testing being conducted by Westinghouse for th~ Westinghouse Owners Group, and stated that the results of that program would be factored into their maintenance, replacement and qualification programs.
West;nghouse has presented the results of cyclic testing on the DB-50 RTB in WCAP-10852, uReport of the DB-50 Reactor Trip Breaker Shunt and Undervoltage Trip Attachments Life Cycle Tests.** WCAP-10852 addresses only cyclic testing on RTB trip attachments. It neither addresses life qualification of the RTBs nor non-cyclic life-lim;ting or perfonnance-degrading phenomena (e.g., aging) for the trip attachments. Therefore, WCAP-10852 does not constitute an acceptable re-sponse to the concern of the generic letter.
If it can be demonstrated that the qualified life of the RTB exceeds the life of the plant, then the specific qualified life need not be *,identified. In a practical sense, the intent of the life testing requirement of the generic letter woula be satisfied by demonstrating that the qualified life of the breaker (for the tripping function) exceeds the expected use projected to the next refueling.
Cycle testing by the various owners groups, although it does not consider the effects of aging, may provide evidence to support continued use of the RTBs for one additional refueling cycle, provided that the individual breaker has not shown a sign of degradation based on the licensee's Parametric Trend Monitoring Program.
In this approach, the actual qualified life is not specifically identi-fied, but 1s only demonstrated to be adequate.
e Ongoing life ~testing is an acceptable alternative to fonr1al life testing for the purpose of establishing a specific qualified life for RTBs.
Ongoing life.testing will demonstrate that the qualified life, though not specifically known, is longer (in terms of cycles and time) than the integrated service that will be accumulated through t~e next refueling interval. The description of an ongoing qualification program should include the following:
(1) an estimate of the number of demands between refueling outages to which the RTB must respond, and the basis for the estimate.
(2) a definition of relevant, end-of-life rilated failures (Note that random failures occurring during the constant hazard rate portion of the abathtub curve" (plot of failure rate vs. time) are not relevant to a life test).
The licensee should (a) identify the possible failure modes, (b)' categorize each failure mode as an end-of-life type or not, and (c) present a general methodology for categorizing future failure modes that may not be included in (a).
(3) the action to be taken upon any failure.
The staff finds that the licensee has not conmitted to a life testing program.
The licensee should qualify their breakers by (a) actual lffe testing of the breakers, including aging, on an acceptable sample size or (b) establishing an ongoing life testing program. If the first alternative ;s selected, the licensee should present the results of the life testing to the staff for review. If the second alternative is selected, the licensee should describe their ongoing life testing program, including the three items identified above.
The licensee should also present for staff review a replacement program for the breaker and breaker components based on the results of their life qualif;cation program. For ongoing qualification. the licensee should describe how the ongoing qualification results will be used to establish replacement cycles and times.