ML20043D524
| ML20043D524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1990 |
| From: | Colburn T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lyster M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| References | |
| GL-89-10, TAC-75700, NUDOCS 9006080172 | |
| Download: ML20043D524 (5) | |
Text
.
- . ' e#em og'o, j
UNITED STATES l'
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
WA$HtNGTON, D. C 70%$
. o, June 6, 1990 j
Docket No. 50-440 Mr. Michael Lyster, Vice President Nuclear Group The Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company 10 Center Road i
Perry, Ohio 44081
Dear Mr. Lyster:
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 89-10, ' SAFETY-RELATED MOTOR-0PERATED VALVE (MOV)TESTINGANDSURVEILLANCE"(TACNO.75700)
On June 28, 1989, theNRCissuedGenericLetter(GL)89-10requestingthe establishment of a program to ensure the operability of all safety related l
MOVs under design basis conditions. The program in GL 89-10 significantly expands the scope of the program outlined in NRC Edlletin 85-03 and its l
supplement.
In accordance with the schedule provided in the GL, a description of your MOV program should be available for review by June 28,1990, or the first l
refueling outage after December 28, 1989, whichever is later.
Information that should be contained in your program description was discussed during l
the workshops held in September 1989. The staff positions on questions l
presented during the workshops will be issued in the form of a supplement to the GL. As your program is developed, justification for any differences t
between your program and the GL exemplified by the workshop connents should I
be incorporated into your program description.
i On December 28, 1989, you submitted a response to GL 89-10, regarding the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The staff is providing several comments on your response below.
In the cover letter to your response, you state that, based on your experience, the majority of problems encountered with MOVs could be eliminated by implemen-tation of effective programs for preventive and corrective maintenance, >ersonnel training, and root-cause evaluation of MOV problems. The staff agrees ttat a large portion of the MOV problems could be prevented in this manner. At this time, however, a significant concern exists regarding the capability of MOVs to perform their safety functions under design-basis conditions as a result of inadequate design and qualification.
In parallel with the efforts recommended in GL 89-10, the staff will work with industry to improve other activities that affect MOV performance.
I 1
i 9006090172 900606 PDR ADOCK 05000440
\\
P PDC
i Mr. Michael Lyster 2
June 6, 1990 in your response to item h of the generic letter, you state that only " valid" MOV failures will be subject to documentation and trending.
You should provide an explanation of " valid" failures in your program description.
Additionally, you are reminded that, as discussed in the reporting requirements of GL 89-10, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), you are required to advise the NRC, L
in writing, of any significant revision to your commitment to meet the generic letter along with the technical justification for the revision.
Where you cannot meet the schedule in the GL we recommend that you consider the two-stage approach as discussed in the GL and its supplement.
Your program description should be retained on-site for possible further NRC staff review.
Sincerely,
/S/
Timothy G. Colburn, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 111-3 Division of Reactor Projects !!!,
IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION N
NRC & Local PDRs JZwolinski PKreutzer TColburn AGody, Jr.
PD33 Gray File Region 111, DRSP EdwardG.Greenman
- See Previous Concurrence W
Office:
PD33 LA PD33:PM
- EMEB P
- D Surname:
P5g zer TColburn/bj LBMarsh Hannon Date:
'c/ G /90 6/f/90 05/29/90
/h/90 DOCUMENT NAME: 75700 RESPONSE
1
)
Mr. Michael Lyster 2
June 6, 1990 l
In your response to Item h of the generic letter, you state that only ' valid" MOV failures will be subject to documentation and trending.
You should provide an explanation of " valid" failures in your program description.
Additionally, you are remained that, as discussed in the reperting requirements of GL 89-10, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), you are required to advise the NRC in writing, of any significant revision to your comitment to meet the generic letter along with the technical justification for the revision.
Where you cannot meet the schedular requirements of the GL we recomend that you consider the two-stage approach as discussed in the GL and the meeting minutes.
Your program description should be retain.ed on-site for possible further NRC staff review.
Sincerely,
/S/
Timothy G. Colburn, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 111-3 Division of Reactor Projects Ill, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC & Local PDRs JZwolinski PKreutzer l
TColburn l
AGody, Jr.
PD33 Gray File Region-Ill, DRSP Edward G. Greenman
)nD K
Ed f
Office:
PD33: LA PD33:PM EMEB PD33:D Surname:
PKieut.zer
$/7/ urn /bj 6/p/90
/ /90 TColb LBMarsh JHannon Date:
5 /;3 /90
/90 DOCUMENT NAME: 75700 RESPONSE
Mr. Michael Lyster 2
June 6, 1990 In yo',r response to item h of the generic letter, you state that only " valid" MOV failures will be subject to documentation and trending. You should provide an explanation of " valid" failures in your program description.
Additionally, you are reminded that, as discussed in the reporting requirements of GL 89-10, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), you are required to advise the NRC, in writing, of any significant revision to your commitment to meet the generic letter along with the technical justification for the revision.
Where you cannot meet the schedule in the GL we recommend that you consider the two-stage approach as discussed in the GL and its supplement.
Your program description should be retained on-site for possible further NRC staff review.
Sincerely, f=OY Timothy G. Cobrn/9
, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 111-3 Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page l
l l
1 l
I Mr. Michael D. Lyster Perry Nuclear Power Plant The Cleveland Electric Unit 1 4
Illuminating Company Jay E. Silberg,Potts & Trowbridge Mr. James W. Harris, Director I
Esq.
cc:
Shaw, Pittman, Division of Power Generation 2300 N Street, N.W.
Ohio Department of Industrial Washington, D.C.
20037 Relations P. O. Box 825 David E. Burke Columbus, Ohio 43216 The Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company The Honorable Lawrence Logan P.O. Box 5000 Mayor, Village of Perry Cleveland, Ohio 44101 4203 Har>er Street Perry, 0110 44081 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable Robert V. Orosz Parmly at Center Road Mayor, Village of North Perry Perry, Ohio 44081 North Perry Village Hall 4778 Lockwood Road Regional Administrator, Region III North Perry Village, Ohio 44081 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Attorney General Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Department of Attorney General 30 East Broad Street Frank P. Weiss. Esq.
Columbus, Ohio 43216 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 Main Street Radiological Health Program Lake County Administration Center Ohio Department of Health Painesville, Ohio 44077 1224 Kinnear Road Columbus, Ohio 43212 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative Ohio Environmental Protection 8275 Munson Agency Mentor, Ohio 44060 DERR--Compliance Unit PO Box 1049 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
1800 Watermark Drive 618 N. Michigan Street ATTN: Zack A. Clayton i
Suite 105 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 Toledo,Ohiv 43624 Mr. Phillip S. Haskell, Chairman John G. Cardinal Esq.
Perry Township Board of Trustees Prosecutirg Attorney Box 65 Ashtabula County Courthouse 4171 Main Street Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Perry, Ohio 44081 Robert A. Newkirk State of Ohio Cleveland Electric Public Utilities Commission Illuminating Company 180 East Broad Street Perry Nuclear Power Plant Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 P. O. Box 97 E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081
.--