ML20058M356
| ML20058M356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1990 |
| From: | Crocker L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hairston W GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-89-10, IEB-85-003, IEB-85-3, TAC-75669, TAC-75670, NUDOCS 9008100065 | |
| Download: ML20058M356 (3) | |
Text
- s-ttQ ;
W M
ge *[
- }{i UNITED STATES
- i
]
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- I WASMGTON, D, C. 20666
.5
~g.....;/
l August 8, 1990
]
Docket Nosv 50-321 50-366 3
Mr. W.'G.
Hairston, III..
l Sen'ior Vice President-Nuclear Operations
. Georgia Power Company
.P.O.~ Box 1295 Birmingham', Alabama 35201
- i
Dear Mr. Hairston:
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 89-10, " SAFETY-RELATED MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE (MOV) TESTING AND SURVEILLANCE" I
(MPA B110) (TACS 75669 AND 75670)
On. Jun 28,
- 1989, the ~NRC issued Generic Letter -(GL) 89-10 requesting the establishment of a program to ensure the operability ~
of all safety-related MOVs under design-basis conditions.
'The-program in GL 89-10 significantly expands the scope of the program outlined in NRC Bulletin 85-03 and its supplement.
p The schedule provided in the generic letter requested ' that a D
description of your MOV program be available for review by June' 28,
+
1990, or the -.first refueling outage after December 28,
- 1989,
.whichever was later.
Due'to delays in issuing Supplement 1 of the generic letter, the staff has decided to delay inspections until at least January 1,1991. Therefore,t your program' description:need not be available on site until January 1,
1991, or the first refueling after December 28, 1989, whichever is later.
Information that should be contained in your-program description was discussed during-the workshops held in September 1989 and - is provided1in Supplement 1 to the generic letter.-
As your MOV program :is developed, justification for any differences between your program and the program described in 1.he generic letter, as clarified by Supplement 1, should be incorporated into your program description.
Your response to GL 89-10, dated December 28, 1989, indicated that you. intend to meet the schedule and recommendations of the GL, with 1
the exception that only limited design-basis testing might be
' conducted.
It is important to note that the staff believes that the safety significance of this issue demands that it be resolved with a.high priority.
Equally important is the need to establish a program that provides adequate confidence in the ability of the MOVs to perform their safety functions.
As discussed in the comments
- below, static tests may not provide the required confidence in MOV capability.
f 9008100065 900803 FDR ADOCK 05000321 (j
wL PDC w
L i.
z
~ -
'Mr' W. G.
Hairston, III 2
August 8, 1990' In'your response to-Ite;n c of the GL, you state that operating switches for MOVs will be selected with the intent:of providing i
sufficient-margin to. ensure operability under design-basis-
-conditions.. You state that testing of MOVs in situ _under design-basis conditions'will be performed to the extent practical, with-documentation for cases where such testing cannot be performed.
Recent research results and operating events have revealed that, in many instances, n e le tests do not demonstrate the capability of MOVs to perform.tnsir function under design-basis conditions.
In your response to 7 tem d of the GL, you do not discuss your plans for the periodic vurification of MOV switch settings.
This
[
information, includ.ng your estimated schedule for the periodic verification, shoultl be.provided in your program description.
In your response to Item f of the GL, you note that it will not be practicable to test some MOVs in situ under design-basis conditions.
_ At the workshops, the staff discussed several alternatives when such testing is not practicable, along with the factors that should be considered if one of those alternatives is aelected.
In instances where design-basis testing in situ is not practicable and an alternative cannot be justified at this time, the staff recommends that you follow the "two stage" approach as cutlined in the GL and discussed at the workshops.
With that approach, you would select the MOV switch settings using the best a
test data available and then would work to obtain applicable test I
data as soon as possible.
As discussed during the public meeting on April 18, 1990, the latest NRC research confirms earlier research and casts further doubt on the adequacy of static tests to demonstrate the l
operability of some MOVs under design-basis conditions.
Events at operating power plants reinforce the safety significance of the 3
concern regarding MOV operability.
For these reasons, the staff:
has recommended that licensees test MOVs in situ under design-basis conditions where practicable.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/6/
Lawrence P. Crocker, Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 pivision of Reactor ProjectsI/II ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See riext page PDII-3 b:LA [ PDI -3:PM E-3 : D EMEB:C l
RIngram LCrocker atkhews LMarsh 8/' /90 B/J /90 8/
/90 8/7,/90
- u.
4
c-5qe
[!
!b.;.
,j-' i i
w-
- 8 DISTRIBUTION:, Letter =to Georgia Power Company re Response-to-
' Generic Letter 89-10 3 ^
'!DecilEBQOk NRC PDR
. Local:PDR..
PDII-3-Reading Hatch Plant File S. Varga 14-E-4
- G. Lainas 14-H-3.
R.
Ingram-9-H-3
- L. Crocker-9-H-3
-L.- Marsh 7-E-23
.A.
Gody,-Jr.
13-H-24
'E.JJordan.
MNBB-3701 L. Reyes~
Reg II-sr ACRS_(10 copies)-
OGC-(information only) i
>;7 i
>