ML20058Q252
| ML20058Q252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/14/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Pate Z INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008210197 | |
| Download: ML20058Q252 (18) | |
Text
.
)
]
\\
\\
J AUQ 14 1915
?
i I
I i
l Mr. Zack T. Pate. President Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Suite 1500 1100 Circle 75 Parkway l
Atlanta, GA 30339-3064 l
Dear Mr. Pate:
l This letter documents the coordination meeting held between INPO and the NRC i
on June 5, 1990. Although you could not attend this meeting, it was still very useful and served to improve the working relationship between our two organizations.
The enclosed meeting minutes document the discussions and will be placed in the NRC public document room in accordance with the INP0/NRC Memorandum of Agreement dated October 20, 1988.
The following is a summary of 1
the agreements for follow-up actions made during the meeting:
i 1.
NRC (NRR) will )rovide INP0 with the data showing inspection hours for each plant in tie US.
(COMPLETED - T. Murley, NRR, to W. Kindley, INPO, letter of June 8,1990) 2.
NRC (NRR) and INP0 will meet to discuss mutual areas of-concern with the I
INP0 Training Accreditation Process and NRC Requalification Exam Program.
i 3.
NRC (NRR) and INP0 will meet to discuss activities in the area of maintenance.
j 4.
NRC (NRR) and INPO will meet to discuss ongoing activities in the area of check valve maintenance, testing and design.
l Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments concerning this report.
Sincerely, l
Original Signed By:
l James M. Taylot Jamn M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated cc: W. Kindley, INP0 t
c1 i
j 9008210197 900814 p
PDR ORG EPSINPO
- I "hCMEggiaCDP s.a
~
j i
Distribution:
J. Taylor
- 1 J. Sniezek
)
H. Thompson i
J. Blaha t
J. Dyer T. Martin, RI S. Ebneter, RII B. Davis, R!!!
R. Martin, RIV I
J. Martin, RV T. Murley, NRR i
R. Bernero NMSS E. Beckjord, RES E. Jordan, AE00 E. Halman, ADM P. Norry, IRM 1
R. Scroggins, OC P. Bird OP B. Hayes, O!
W. Kerr, SDBU/CR F
J. Lieberman, OE M. Springer, CONS J. Richardson, NRR L. Marsh, NRR E. Merschoff, RII T. Scarbrough, NRR EDO r/f -
~
OEDO DEDR E
[
J0ye JSniezek J
or 8/f/90 8/ /90 8/g /90 i
. - ~..
y
INP0/NRC Coordination Meeting Minutes Atlanta. GA June 5. 1990 On June 5, 1990, members of the NRC staff met with members of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) at the INPO office in Atlenta, GA. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for the exchange of information as described in the INP0/NRC Memorandum of Agreement dated October 20. 1988.
i A similar meeting last took place on December 11, 1989. A list of the meeting i
attendees is provided as Attachment 1 to this report. The following topics j
were discussed:
1.
Regulatory Impact Survey Results i
The NRC provided INPO with a summary of the results from the Regulatory Impact Survey. There are three major areas where regulatory changes should be considered.
l (1)
NRC should better account for the cumulative effect of generic j
requirements.
(2)
NRC should improve scheduling of site activities, especially team 1
inspections and visits.
(3)
NRC should improve the professionalism of its personnel inspecting and visiting sites.
The discussion then focused on the area of inspection scheduling where'INPO and the NRC have a mutual interest. The NRC is initiating actions to improve the management of team inspections and visits to sites.
These actions include arojecting licensee schedules 6 months in advance and reflecting 6 months 11 story, establishing maximum targets for team visits and inspections to sites, coordinating all site visits through the regions and focusing all headquarters visits and inspections-through the NRR project manager.
INP0
}
currently provides the NRC a schedule of activities planned for the sites that
~
covers one year in advance, but the dates are not confirmed with the utility until 4-6 months before the evaluation occurs.
INPO will~ attempt.to confirm-their evaluation schedules as far in advance as possible to support coordination of scheduling.
INP0 also stated that NRC Requalification Exams and INPO Evaluations should not be scheduled for the same time period.
INPO stated that reports they have seen indicate that the amount of inspection l
that a particular plant receives does not correlate with the SALP grades.
NRC l
stated that there is a general correlation of increased inspection hours and poorer operating performance.
NRR would provide INP0 with the data on inspection hours per plant which shows this general correlation.
2.
Principles for Management Oversight This agenda item was a followup issue from the December 1989 meeting between INP0 and NRC senior managers.
INPO was to provide the NRC with their guidance for evaluating management related issues.
INP0 has not finished development i
4 i
of their principles for guiding the evaluation process to minimize intrusion j
into utility line management prerogatives.
INP0 did discuss the major principles which included evaluation of performance instead of style, using the checks and balances within the team to ensure that findings are not individual interpretations of the standards and are consistent among utility evaluations, adequate preparation for management interviews to ensure effective use of utility manager's time, adequate communication of potential findings to the utility before the exit to allow for their response, and not unneccessarily communicating findings to third parties. The NRC stated that the INPO principles were similar to the guidance provided in the NRC i
fundamentals of Inspection Course which were being used to develop the NRC guidance. The NRC stated that inspection team leader training was being planned and this topic was to be covered.
Both the NRC and INPO will independently continue development of their guidance documents and share
)
information when the documents are sufficiently developed.
3.
Risk During Shutdown Operations Recent events at Vogtle and other plants coupled with the results of the l
French Probablistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Studies have raised NRC concerns about risk management during outage situations at nuclear plants.
INPO has also identified several instances of poor risk management during equipment outages.
Some utilities rely solely on their Technical Specifications to identify proper defense in depth for an outage situation and fail to take advantage of other alternatives not discussed in the Technical Specifications that can be implemented to improve the margin of safety. Both INP0 and the NRC have issued several generic communication documents to the industry concerning problems encountered during outage conditions, but these documents have not been synthesized into a coherent package by either the industry or the NRC. The NRC has made this topic an Emerging Technical Issue and will further focus its attention on outage operations in the future.
INPO typically does not conduct plant evaluations during outages; however, its maintenance area evaluations do address proper risk management.
l 4.
Training issues lhe NRC updated INP0 on its ap)eal of the DC Circuit Court decision in Public Citizen vs NRC, No. 89-1017, w11ch concluded that Section 306 of the Nuclear t
I Waste Policy Act required the NRC to establish binding rules governing nuclear training instead of the NRC policy statement urging compliance with an INP0 administered training accreditation program.
INP0 provided data to show that, since the initiation of their training efforts, significant training l
improvements have occurred. The NRC agreed that the quality of current l
nuclear training is much better than it was in 1983.
l Information was $o exchanged concerning the NRC Requalification Examination Inspections and the INP0 Accreditation Program.
Parallel grading of requalification exams has been consistent between the licensee and the NRC evaluators. Of the nine licensee requalification programs declared unsatisfactory by the NRC, INPO identified weaknesses with three of the programs and six of the programs were considered good.
INPO stated that a major difference between the NRC and INP0 assessments of licensed operator performance was that INP0 does not evaluate the performance of staff licensed operators and the NRC evaluates staff licensed operators by allcwing
. ~ - -
r j
l facilities to mix them into an operating shift.
In some cases this results in crews that are not used to working together as a team. The NRC stated that it was reviewing the impact of staff licenses on the requalification program inspection results.
The NRC was concerned about the recent Brunswick Requalification Program failures and the impact of previous training on a simulator with goor plant fidelity.
INPO stated that their evaluat. ions indicate that t1is could be a problem at several plants.
INPO and the NRC will independently review the results of their o>erator training programs and meet at a working level within the next few montis to discuss the results of the review.
5.
Shift Supervisor Project
)
INPO provided the NRC with an update on the Shift Supervisor Project developed to improve the management and leadership skills of Senior Reactor Operators who will serve as Shift Supervisors and act in the Plant Manager's absence.
The job review is complete and approximately 300 1 earning objectives have been identified.
INPO has identified 11 attributes for acting in the plant manager's absence.
These attributes can be used for selection of candidates for Shift Supervisor. Training guidelines will be issued by the end of 1990 and the Shift Supervisor Project will be implemented in early 1992 as a separate program for accreditation.
INP0 stated that some utilities want the training conducted by outside facilitators and possibly as a group of utilities. An initial pilot course will be conducted on existing Shift Supervisors to get feedback on the quality of the materials developed.
The NRR staff was briefed on this project on May 31, 1990.
3 6.
Maintenance Topics The NRC reviewed the four criteria to be used in determining when industry progress in the area of maintenance would be sufficient to obviate a need for rulemaling.
(1)
Licensees have effectively implemented an adequate maintenance program or are committed to and proceeding toward this goal.
(2)
Licensees exhibit a favorable trend in performance related to maintenance.
(3)
Licensees are committed to the implementation of a maintenance l
performance standard acceptable to the NRC.
(4)
Licensees have in place or are committed to an evaluation program for ensuring sustained performance in the maintenance area.
Criteria 3 and 4 involve INPO activities.
INP0 developed the industry maintenance standard transmitted to the NRC by NUMARC and the industry will utilize the INP0 evaluation program to ensure sustained performance in the maintenance area.
The NRC outlined its plans for evaluating the maintenance standard and accompanying INPO evaluation teams to review maintenance program implementation.
Future working level meetings between NRC and INPO staff will be scheduled for this area, i
I
l The NRC also reviewed the status of its trial program to develop a Maintenance Effectiveness Indicator using the INPO managed Nuclear Plant Reliability Data i
l System (NPRDS). The NRC has been examining the quality of NPRDS data and visiting sites since September 1989.
During this review, the following information was obtained:
(1)
Utilities generally consider only those activities under the direct control of the Maintenance Department as
- maintenance', while the NRC has a much brosder interpretation.
i (2)
Different utilities have inconsistent criteria for determining incipient, degraded and catastrophic failures of equipment and i
components. As a result, data between plants may not be comparable.
(3)
Some utilities would prefer to sort and analyze the data by component rather than systems because maintenance activities are often organized by type of component.
The draft report of the trial program was distributed for review. The NRC was l
awaiting the issuance of an industry report on maintenance indicators and would schedule a final meeting to discuss differences in the two reports. The NRC stated that a commission paper would be prepared providing the staff i
assessment and recommendations based on information from the two reports.
7.
Release of INPO Documents INPO was concerned that the NRC released several Seabrook INPO. reports to Congress as a result of the March 14, 1990 hearings. The NRC stated that this was not a normal situation and that the reports were requested from the licensee and released to Congress because copies had been obtained by the pubif: and the results were entered into testimony during the hearing.
The NRC has no plans to change its practices, as outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement, for obtaining INP0 reports and releasing them to the public.
8.
Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Test Results The NRC provided an overview and a handout (Attachment 2) to INPO on the results of recent MOV testing and an NRC survey of certain MOVs at several BWR plants. The results indicate that MOV torque switch settings may not be adequate even though the latest analytical techniques are used to extrapolate the expected thrust needed to shut valves across high differential pressure situations. Additionally, the tests revealed that valves tested under full flow and high differential pressure situations may be damaged during testing and not operate consistently thereafter.
The biggest problem; appears to be with BWR isolation valves. The NRC met to discuss the testing and survey-results with the BWR Owners Group on May 24, 1990. As agreed at that meeting, the BWR Owners Group has provided similar information for the applicable MOVs at the remaining BWR plants. The staff will meet again with the BWR Owners i
Group to discuss the evaluation of the MOV data.
9.
Check Valve issues The NRC stated that recent events, coupled with Maintenance Team inspection and Diagnostic Evaluation findings, have raised concerns about the
+w w -,,,
. ~..., -.., - -
- +-
+,
e
~. ~ -
+ - -
9 effectiveness of industry efforts to improve check valve performance.
INPO has been actively involved with industry efforts to improve check valve performance since 1986 and has been evaluating utility check valve programs since 1987.
INPO showed NPRDS data which indicated a 43% drop in check valve failures since 1985.
INPO also outlined its efforts for ensuring that check valve programs are properly implemented which included personal letters to utility Chief Executive Officers of those plants delaying implementation of maintenance program and design reviews.
The NRC concluded that INP0 was being aggressive in its follewup of check valve improvement programs, but that considerable improvements in check valve maintenance, testing and design implementation were still needed in the industry.
Further working level meetings should be scheduled on approximately a quarterly basis between the NRR Mechanical Engineering Branch and INPO to review check valve issues and other areas of mutual interest.
NUMARC made a presentation on additional industry activities to improve check valve performance.
The NUMARC handout is provided as Attachment 3.
l l
l l
ATTACHMENT 1 i
ATTENDEES INP0/NRC COORDINATION MEETING JUNE 5, 1990 NBC l
J. M. Taylor **
r J. H. Sniezek T. E. Murley W. T. Russell E. L. Jordan J. E. Dyer J. E. Richardson *-
L. B. Marsh
- i E. W. Merschoff*
l T. G. Scarbrough*
1H20 T. Sullivan K. Strahm W. Coakley W. Kindley A. Howard D. Gillespie A. To111 son W. Green W. Subalusty J. Groth R. Eckstein*
J. Wells
- 1 NUMARC J. Colvin*
C. Calloway*
W. Hall *
- Indicates personnel participating only in ti,e MOV and Check Valve discussions.
- Mr. Taylor left before the MOV and Check Valve discussions.
i
/
ATTACHMENT 2 NRC STAFF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS ON NRC MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE RESEARCH JUNa 5, 1990 l
7 _ __. _...______._ _ _ ______..._ _ ___ __._----- _.. ____________._ _ _ _ _ _ _
(
{
l l
GENERIC SAFETY ISSUE 87 FAILURE OF HPCI STEAM LINE WITHOUT ISOLATION 1
INITIAL SCOPE:
CONTAINMENT ISOLATION MOTOR-0PERATED GATE VALVES IN HPCI AND RCIC STEAM TURBINE LINES, AND RWCU SUPPLY LINE, PHASE I i
2 SIX-INCH RWCU VALVES (ANCHOR / DARLING AND VELAN) l HIGH ENERGY HOT WATER LOADS J
PHASE II 3 SIX-INCH RWCU VALVES (ANCHOR / DARLING, VELAN, AND WALWORTH) 3 TEN-INCH HPCI VALVES (ANCHOR / DARLING, POWELL, AND VELAN)
NORMAL AND BLOWDOWN LOADS l
i e
i k
l
4 t
- l.
l V
!s Phase ll,6-in. RWCU system valve, same design as Valve B Phase I, hardfaced disc guides, line break flow, comparing
, actual versus predicted thrust.
-l Valve 2. Test 1. SteD 25.1000 DSi. 530'F (10'F Subcooled) 1 t-1 20000 i
i i
i i
i
\\
l
\\Ielan i
l
~
l 10000
\\
i i
i e
~
r
_O l
i i
e O-
'~
o m
O
~
E j
- -10000 K-V) e
~
l l
I
\\
i t
-20000 Actual Caleviated (p = 0.3) i Calculated (p = 0.S) l
....i....i....i....i....i....
-30000 O
6 10 16 20 26 30 36 j
Time (s) sreinco.
so.se l
f 1
i l -
w~-r n..
+
.,a~
-..s
4 t
L i
l
{
4
~
?!
)
i Phase II,10-In. HPCI system valve, nonhardfaced guide surfaces, l
line break flow, comparing actual versus predicted thrust.
I, 40000
, Valve 4. Test 1. SteD 25.1000 Dsi. 545'F (Steavn)
.iiii,.- _
i i
Anc. loc / Docha$
l 30000 1
l 4
1 I
20000 t
J 3 10000
.1 l
g 0-
-- =
o
~_ -
i m
O 7
l 82 -10000
?
/
- 9 l
.E l
e -20000 h
/
?
~
i 30000
?
i 40000 I
. Actual l
l Calculated (
= 0.3) 60000 Calculated (
= 0.5) i l
'""""'""""'"^""'"""" ~
60000 ~ " " " " ' " " " " ' " " " " 16 O
6 20 26 30 35' I
TNne (S) srstuso.04so.so f
l f
,,,3 w
-~.p.
c
.~-
,y e-.
. ~ -
+m.,.y-+%
-,w.
e
,___-..__m__
w.
i J
e j
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE GI-87 MOV RESEARCH I
I MORE THRUST REQUIRED THAN PREDICTED FROM-STANDARD INDUSTRY l
CALCULATIONS.
SOME VALVES INTERNALLY DAMAGED.
LOW FLOW TESTING MAY'NOT' PREDICT PERFORMANCE UNDER DESIGN-BASIS CONDITIONS.
DURING OPENING, HIGHEST LOAD NOT ALWAYS AT' UNSEATING.
PARTIAL STROKING DID NOT REVEAL REQUIRED THRUST.
TORQUE, THRUST, AND MOTOR OPERATING PARAMETERS NEEDED TO FULLY CHARACTERIZE MOV PERFORMANCE.
MOV DIAGNOSTICS NEED ACCURATE' EQUIPMENT AND TRAINEE PERSONNEL.
l l
l-t
...... ~
STAFF ACTION IN RESPONSE TO GI-87.RESEARCH RESULTS l
l GI-87 VALVES:
l l
SURVEY OF 6'BWR UNITS.-
l AT PUBLIC MEETING,.'BWR OWNERS' GROUP AGREED TO OBTAIN SURVEY INFORMATION FROM THE-OTHER BWR PLANTS.
t STAFF WILL CONSIDER THE GENERIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE l"
INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE BWR: OWNERS' GROUP, l
WITH RESPECT TO MOV RESEARCH RESULTS IN GENERAL:
INFORMATION NOTICE 90-40 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOTICES AND OTHER REGULATORY ACTION WILL BE CONSIDERED.
l
.ij
-l
.. _. ~ _ _ - _, - _.. _ -
.__7___
_.. _ _ _ _... _ _ ~. _
I
]
.0UICK LOOK CONCLUSIONS L
PLANv VALVE / SIZE MOTOR OPERATOR TORout SWITCH THRUST
[
(IN) lifCI UNIT 1 CRANE 10 OK MARGINAL MARGINAL l
CRANE 10 OK MARGINAL MARGINAL 1
UNIT 2 PoWELL 10 SMALL OK MARGINAL PoWELL 10 OK OK MARGINAL.
[
UNIT 3 A/D 8 SMALL MARGINAL MARGINAL
- A/D 8
-OK MARGINAL MARGINAL
- l UNIT 4 CRANE'10 OK-OK OK CRANE 10 OK-OK MARGINAL UNIT 5 CRANE 10 OK-OK OK-l CRANE 10 OK OK OK UNIT 6 A/D 10 NA OK.
OK A/D 10
.NA OK OK-I gggy UNIT 1 CRANE 6
'SMALL MARGINAL NA CRANE 6 SMALL.
MARGINAL NA UNIT 2 CRANE 6 SMALL SMALL NA CRANE 6 SMALL SMALL NA UNIT 4 CRANE 6 SMALL MARGINAL.
LOW A/D 6 SMALL MARGINAL LOW UNIT 5 CRANE 6 SMALL MARGINAL LOW A/D 6 SMALL MARGINALs LOW BCIC UNIT 6 A/D 4 NA OK.
OK-A/D 4 NA OK
' LOW A/D = ANCHOR / DARLING NA = NECESSARY INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED IN SURVEY RESPONSE I
-* THESE TORQUE SWITCHES ARE-REPORTED TO BE' BYPASSED DURING' t
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS.
.l
~
ATTACHMENT 3 OTHER INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO ENHANCE CHECK VALVE PERFORMANCE V
l 1.
EPRI APPLICATION GUIDELINES FOR CHECK VALVES IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS o
GUIDANCE TO ASSIST UTILITIES FOR COMPLETING SOER 86-03 o
PROPER APPLICATION l
o PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS-o METHODS TO DETECT DEGRADATION o
TO BE REVISED INSPECTION FOR STRESS CORROSION CRACKING (410 SS) l IMPROVEMENT OF MINIMUM VELOCITY EQUATION p
l, i
-l-a-----------------
.--------------.--.-.---------..e------
--,,,------w-m-w.a-mm
ww-,w-,--auwa
'e t
2, OM-22 " PERFORMANCE TESTING OF CHECK VALVES IN LWR POWER PLANTS" o
RECENTLY DEVELOPED OM COMMITTEE (WINTER '89) o FIRST DRAFT EXPECTED WINTER '90 3.
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY CHECK VALVE GROUP o
FORMED FEBRUARY 1989 o
NOW OVER 40 UTILITIES ARE MEMBERS o
PROVIDES A FORUM FOR DISCUSSION AND RESOLUTION OF CHECK VALVE PROBLEMS 1
l L
i
~...
3.
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY CHECK VALVE GROUP (CONTINUED)
I o
ACTIVITIES ESTABLISHING A DATA BASE WORKING WITH ASME PROVIDING INPUT TO OM-22 DEVELOPING INSTRUCTION FOR INSPECTION AND TESTING EVALUATING EPRI GUIDELINES ASSESSING CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE AVAILABLE NON-INTRUSIVE DIAGNOSTICS IDENTIFIED FOUR TECHNIQUES:
ULTRASONICS ACOUSTICS MAGNETICS RADIOGRAPHY L
COMPLETED PHASE I ' TEST (WATER)
FINAL REPORT DUE IN JUNE PHASE II/III STEAM / AIR L- -... -
. - -..