ML20059A699
| ML20059A699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1990 |
| From: | Bevan R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cross J PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| GL-89-10, IEB-85-003, IEB-85-3, TAC-75729, NUDOCS 9008230179 | |
| Download: ML20059A699 (3) | |
Text
_ __
DOCd'N
', E[,
g I UMTED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
s wAsMGTON, D. C. 20004 August 17, 1990 Docket No. 50-344 l-Mr. James E. Cross Vice President, Nuclear l
l Portland General Electric Company i
121 S.W. Salmon Street i
Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Cross:
1 l
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 89-10, " SAFETY-RELATED MOTOR-OPERATEDVALVE(MOV)TESTINGANDSURVEILLANCE"(TACNO.75729)
I On June 28, 1989, theNRCissuedGenericLetter(GL)89-10requestingthe.
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.
On January 19, 1990, you submitted a response to GL 89-10, with respect to the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
Staff coments on the your submittal are provided l
below.
ItemcoftheGLrequeststhatlicenseestestMOVsinsituunderdesign-basis conditions, where practicable.
In your response to this request you state that_
l
" selective in plant differential pressure valve testing to validate diagnostic l
testing methodologies and vendor equations" will be conducted. You then indicated that the scope and schedule of additional testing and alternatives to design-basis testing will be dependent on the results of that selective' testing.
l The basis for the staff's recommendation for the performance of MOV tests in sito under design-basis conditions was the uncertainty' surrounding the analytical techniques for extrapolating test data and for applying test data from one MOV to another.
If you choose not to perform a test of an MOV under design-basis conditions when such testing is practicable, you will be expected to justify the ability of the alternative method to demonstrate that the MOV will operate under design-basis conditions.
You have also stated that a commitment cannot be made at this time to meet the recommended five-year schedule for completin; the GL program. You indicate that a-schedule will be provided following certain selective tests.
Your schedule along with technical justification for not meeting the recommended schedule should be submitted to the NRC in writing as described in the reporting L
. requirements of the GL, 3
oMM 900823o179 900917 OL DR ADOCK 0500 : 4
.Mr. James E. Cross August 17, 1990 The schedule provided in the generic letter requested that a 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, your program description need not be availabe 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 provided in Supplement 1 to the generic letter.
As your MOV program is developed, justification for any differences between your program and the generic letter exemplified by Supplement I should be incorporated into your program description.
Your program description including your positions on static testing to ensure proper switch settings and MOV problem trending schedules may be reviewed during possible further staff inspection. 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 GL, along with the technical justification for the revision.
Your program description should be retained on-site for possible further NRC staff review.
l Sincerely, t
indS O Robhihevan,lF i
Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects cc: See next page DISTRLBUTLON yi DocRen 711e.
NRC & Local PDRs PD 5 Reading JZwolinski LA RBevan OGC EJordan i
ACRS(10)
AGody
- See previous concurrence DRSP/PDV/LA*
DRSP/PDV/PM*
EMEB/BC*
(A DRSP/D:PDV DFoster RBevan:sg LBMarsh JLarkins 6/14/90 6/11/90 8/2/90
@/l7/90 d
r
_--]
Mr. James E. Cross Trojan Nuclear Plant 3
Portland General Electric Company i
Cc:
Senior Resident Inspector i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant Post Office Box 0 i
Rainier, Oregon 97048
)
' Mr. Michael J. Sykes, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Columbia County-St. Helens, Oregon 97501 t
Mr. David Stewart-Smith Oregon Department of Energy Salem, Oregon 97310 Regional Administrator, Region V s
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596
[
i (4) 4 b
i-f
. - _,,,..,,, - ~
c...
,