ML20059H994

Summary of 931019 Meeting W/Util Re Discussions on Status of Current MOV Testing Program & NRC GL 89-10.List of Attendees & Meeting Agenda Encl

ML20059H994
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/08/1993
From:	Rinaldi F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GL-89-10, NUDOCS 9311100310
Download: ML20059H994 (38)

Text

- . -.

E y acg ,

? 7*- t UNITED STATES

-['

) ^

j y

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555W '

%(,,,! November 8, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 t LICENSEE: Philadelphia Electric Company FACILITY: Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF OCTOBER 19, 1993 MEETING REGARDING MOV TESTING .

PROGRAM AND NRC GENERIC LETTER (GL) 89-10 DIRECTIVES ,

On October 19, 1993 representatives from Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco) 1 met with the staff to discuss the status of their current motor-operated valve -

(MOV) testing program and their proposal for changes to their current M0V  !

testing program. PEco's MOV testing program has been developed and '

implemented to follow the recommendations documented in the NRC's GL 89-10,

" Safety-Related Motor-0perated Valve testing and Surveillance " Meeting attendees are listed in Enclosure 1. l The recommendations of GL 89-10 requested the development and implementation of a program that would ensure that MOVs in safety-related systems are selected. set, and maintained so that the MOVs will operate adequately during  :

design basis conditions. On February 14, 1992, the staff issued the findings  :

of Inspection Report Nos. 50-352/92-80 and 50-353/92-80 for the Limerick Generating Station (LGS). The report stated that PEco did not meet .ae intent of G'. 6-10 and its supplements, with the principal item being the failure to 1 establish a plan for design basis testing of the valves. l On March 16, 1992, PECo provided a program for testing the MOVs which was to be implemented at LGS, Units 1 and 2. The program delineated the criteria for i selecting the valves to be tested, described the selection of the test  !

conditions, provided lists identifying MOV determined to be testable at design  :

basis differential pressure and those at the highest system attainable differential pressure, identified the commitment of resources to Electric  !

Power Research Institute (EPRI) MOV Performance Prediction Program, and  ;

indicated that the completion of the testing program for LGS, Unit 1, was scheduled for June 1994.  !

The licensee proposed changes to their current MOV testing program that involved categorizing of the safety-related MOVs as either " safety significant" or "non-safety significant" based on probabilistic risk i assessment and deterministic considerations. Also, PEco proposed to focus '

their resources for implementation and closure of GL 89-10 based on the j

" safety significant" safety-related MOVs. Further, the licensee indicated that they would plan to perform static testing in an effort to periodically verify the design basis capability of the MOVs. However, the licensee did not .,

provide justification for reliance on just the static test data for the establishment of the design basis capability.

100072 q NE FILE CBfMR COPV, 9311100310 PDR ADOCK931108 05000352; T )fM p PDR n. (( (

__ l

y-r l

~s. .

f The " safety significant" safety-related MOVs would be grouped as high, medium, or low, while +' t "non-safety significant" safety-related MOVs would be  ;

classified as '-low (some of the low-low valves could be grouped with the

" safety significant" ones). The " safety significant" valves would be '

dynamically tested, either individually or in groups, while the "non-safety i significant" valves would not be dynamically tested. Also, the-testing ,

schedule would be extended for the dynamic testing of the low " safety '

significant" valves and for the static testing of all safety-related MOVs from This change in commitment would result in a June 1994 to March 1996. l significant reduction in the MOVs dynamic testing, about 50% reduction. j Further, the licensee stated that some of the torque switches settings had i been lowered based on overthrust concerns. However,.only static tests had been performed following the torque switches adjustments.

The staff indicated that the licensee's approach appeared viable. However, the lack of a plan to address the capability of "non-safety significant" i safety-related MOVs was considered a weakness in the proposed program. The ,

staff stated that the licensee should review the guidance of the proposed Supplement 6 to GL 89-10 for directions in addressing the design capability of each MOV within the GL 89-10 program, and for justifying the extension in  !

schedule. The staff noted that the proposed Supplement 6 to GL 89-10 was i published in the Federal Reaister on July 22, 1993, but has not been issued-as a final document. -

Also, the staff pointed out that lowering torque switch settings without the ,

performance of a dynamic test on an MOV can result in an inoperable system.

An example was provided where failure to perform a dynamic' test on an MOV after the lowering of the torque switch setting resulted in the inoperability of the service . water system for several months without the licensee's knowledge. Further, the staff indicated that the verification of the operability of an MOV, which has been affected by the lowering of the torque ,

setting without subsequent dynamic testing, needs to be performed.

The viewgraphs (Enclosure 2) utilized for the presentation contained  :

information for both the Limerick and the Peach' Bottom plants. However, the discussions addressed only the data for the Limerick site. David Helwig, Vice-President for the Limerick site, expressed concern about the ability of the licensee to satisfy all of the recommendations of the proposed Supplement 6,

f 3-'-

, .o .

but agreed to consider the information-contained in Supplement 6 to GL 89-10 prior.to finalizing and submitting their final package addressing PECo' proposed changes'to their MOV testing program.

/S/ '

Frank Rinaldi, Project Manager Project Directorate'I-2 1 Division-of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Attendees

2. PECo Information cc w/ enclosures:

See next page DISTRIBUTION w/ Enclosure 1:

• Docket File SVarga 0GC AHansen *CAnderson .

• NRC & Local PDRs JCalvo EJordan JZimmerman

• PDI-2 Reading I Nicholson JNorberg ACRS(10) '

TMurley/FMiraglia M0'Brien(2) TScarbrough VMcCree JCallan *FRinaldi GJohnson *EWenzinger,R-I

• w/ Enclosure 1 & 2

" PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE -

OFFICE sLAtPDG2 PM;PSJ-2 , **C:EMEB D:PDI-[ /

hAME fhd'BR$Ek' btM)btit JNORDERG LNIkOLSON DATE l/ /193 // /f/93 11/02/93 // /f/93 / / '

0FFICIAL RECORD / COPY FILENAME: A:\LIMIG. SUM <

i i

m-j'- .-

1 .

- 3.-

but agreed to consider the information contained in Supplement 6 to GL 89-10 prior to finalizing and submitting their final package addressing PECo's proposed changes to their MOV testing program.

2 ns~/C n TA( -

Frank Rinaldi, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Attendees

2. PEco Information cc w/ enclosures:

See next page a

, Philadelphia Electric Company Limerick Generating Station,  ;

Units 1 & 2 cc: '

J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire Mr. William P. Dornsife, Director Sr. V.P. & General Counsel Bureau of Radiation Protection '

Philadelphia Electric Company PA Dept. of Environmental Resources 2301 Market Street P. O. Box 2063 3 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. Rod Krich 52A-5 Mr. James A. Muntz Philadelphia Electric Company Superintendent-Technical .

955 Chesterbrook Boulevard Limerick Generating Station '

Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-5691 P. O. Box A Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Mr. David R. Helwig, Vice President ~;

Limerick Generating Station Mr. Gil J. Madsen  ;

Post Office Box A Regulatory Engineer '

Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Limerick Generating Station P. O. Box A Mr. Robert Boyle Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Plant Manager Limerick Generating Station Library P.O. Box A US Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Region I 475 Allendale Road Regional Administrator King of Prussia, PA 19406 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I Mr. Larry Hopkins 475 Allendale Road Superintendent-Operations King of Prussia, PA 19406 Limerick Generating Station P. O. Box A ,

Mr. Thomas Kenny Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Senior Resident Inspector US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr.

P. O. Box 596 Director-Licensing, MC 52A-5 Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Philadelphia Electric Company Nuclear Group Headquarters Mr. Richard W. Dubiel Correspondence Control Desk Superintendent - Services P.O. Box 195 Limerick Generating Station Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195 P.O. Box A Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 John Doering, Chairman Nuclear Review Board '

l Philadelphia Electric Company 955 Chesterbrook Boulevard  ;

Mail Code 63C-5 Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 s l

.a

o i

.I i .

j ENCLOSURE 1 October 19, 1993  !

ATTENDANCE LIST MEETING W/PECo - MOV TESTING (GL 89-10)

ILAME ORGANIZATION / POSITION

1. Frank Rinaldi NRC/NRR/DRPE/PDI-2-Project Manager

2. Larry Nicholson NRC/NRR/DRPE/PDI-2-Project Director

3. James Norberg NRC/NRR/DE/EMEB-Chief EMEB

4. Thomas Scarbrough NRC/NRR/DE/EMEB-Sr. Mech. Eng.

5. Tom Niessen PEco/ Director Eng./PBAPS I

6. Greg Cranston PEco/ Director Eng.

7. Dave Helwig PEco/VP Limerick

8. Rod Krich PECo/Manao , Licensing

9. Garey Stathes PEco/Mecha scal Eng. Branch-Branch Mgr.

10. Greg Krueger PEco/Reliabiilty & Risk Assessment

11. Dave Cronomiz PECo/GL 89-10 Program Manager

12. Brian Curvy PECo/ Mech. Eng. Branch-Eng.

13. Ken Graff PEco/ Licensing (PBAPS)  :

14. Douglas Groves PECo/ Mechanical Eng. Branch - Eng.

15. Craig D. Sellers Erin Engineering / Consultant to PECo

16. George Johnson NRC/NRR/DE/EMEB-Section Chief

17. Allen Hansen NRC/NRR/DRPW-Lead PM

18. Jake Zimmerman NRC/NRR/DRPE/PDI-2-Project Engineer

19. Tony Pietrangelo NUMARC-Sr. Project Manager

20. Warren J. Hall NUPARC-Manager, OMSS  ;

21. Bob Maiers PADER/BRP-Nuclear Engineer i

l l

l l

EAQoSukt E GRADED APPROACH TO GL 89-10 PROGRAM TESTING PRESENTATION TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OCTOBER 19,1993 9+ M/4e

'%c ,f

1.

ci i

$$$NDS i

o INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES- l 1

r o SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE RANKING j i

i l

o MOV FAMILY GROUPING j i

i 1

o GRADED APPROACH TO MOV TESTING i

-1 o PLANNED COMMITMENT CHANGES  !

l o CLOSING REMARKS .

i 4

i 4*

p =-- ..,

-t L-  ;

^ :

,1 i

cj i

@VMRVD&W@F RG81RUCVVJRG@ --,

l RPPR@hCN 1' l

i GL 8910 PROGRAM SCOPING  :

STATIC BASELINE MOV RANKING &

TESTING (ALL) PRIORITIZATION ll i

, MOV FAMILY GROUPING I

REPRESENTATIVE INDUSTRY {

- SAMPLE INFORMATION -

IN SITU DYNAMIC EPRI PERFORMANCE TEST (SAMPLE) PREDICTION PROGRAM {

.l TWO STAGE )

APPROACH )

I PERIODIC 'l VERIFICATION 4

L_

NED1019032

CURRMMTPM@@ @L BM@ '

PR@BRAMD 87&183 l o CURRENT PROGRAM SCOPING IDENTIFIED 405 MOVs AT LIMERICK 1&2 AND 178 MOVs AT PEACH BOTTOM 2&3 o INITIAL STATIC BASELINE TESTING ON ALL SAFETY-RELATED MOVs AT LIMERICK &  ;

PEACH BOTTOM COMPLETED BETWEEN 1984 AND 1989 USING MOVATS DIAGNOSTIC TEST EQUIPMENT o RE-PERFORMANCE OF STATIC BASELINE TESTING USING VOTES TEST EQUIPMENT WELL UNDERWAY,64% COMPLETE AT LIMERICK AND 90% COMPLETE AT PEACH BOTTOM o DYNAMIC TESTING PROGRAM ON SCHEDULE TO MEET COMMITMENT DATE l

NEC101923 3

I a PMC@ @@JMCRVMB  ;

o FOCUS RESOURCES FOR GL 89-10 l IMPLEMENTATION & CLOSURE BASED ON  :

SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE  :

o ESTABLISH PRIORITY FOR DYNAMIC  :

TESTING SAFETY-SIGNIFICANT MOVs  ;

o ESTABLISH TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GL 89-10 l COMMITMENT CHANGE i

o ESTABLISH TECHNICAL BASIS FOR PERIODIC VERIFICATION TEST FREQUENCIES o NO REDUCTION OF GL 89-10 MOV SCOPE BASED ON SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE I

th%  !

>q  !

NED1019934

_ :1

. y

t .

1 W10VRAMw]NsRPPR@AcM l o All GL 89-10 MOVs RANKED "ti l

o' PROBABILISTIC & DETERMINISTIC - l EVALUATIONS AND CRITERIA USED o SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE RANKED BY PSA, IF i APPLICABLE ,

I o All MOV FAILURE-TO-STROKE MODES j ADDRESSED j o DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION AND CRITERIA- j USED WHERE PSA NOT APPLICABLE  !

i

~

o APPROACH CONSISTENT WITH NUMARC GUIDANCE  ;

i i

o APPROACH CONSISTENT WITH PROPOSED :l GL 89-10 SUPPLEMENT 6 l 1

i

<> l

.- , i i,

tr .. - -

o .s i

i OVERALL MOV  !

PRIORITIZATION APPROACH -

1 t

.I STEP 1 Review GL 89-10 Program ',

and Prepare PSA Models .;

Problem l Scopmg ,,  ;

identify Functional Failure Modes  ;

i t

,r STEP 2 \

Modeled y Risk Based Probabilistic in PSA Significance * -

Safety Evaluation  ? ,

P A  ?

STEP 3 '

Deterministic

. Screening -

Deterministic Evaluation i j

Prioritize i Valves j STEP 4  :

I Prioritization and l I

{

Test Scheduling l t

Safety Non-Safety  :

Significant Significant .  !

'Most limiting of core dama0s frequency or large release ranking .f i

1- 1 l

4 i

~

LGB 98R BU@) DER?f -

o CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY 4.1x10-S/rx-yr o LARGE RELEASE FREQUENCY 2.6x10-8/rx-yr o TRUNCATION LIMIT 1x10 "

o ASSUMED MOV FAILURE RATE 1.2x1 g2 7 ,,,,,,

I O4 NED1019937

, q

-i '

Psa nannus ovenvasw 1 o PSA MODEL PROVIDES OBJECTIVE TOOL zi l

FOR ASSESSING SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE l i

j o DIRECT COMPARISON 0F PSA FAILURE j i

MODES AND GL 89-10 MOV FUNCTIONS 1 L

o EXPLICIT TREATMENT OF POTENTIAL j

.i COMMON CAUSE FAILURES AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS  ;

.i

. l o USE OF RISK ' ACHIEVEMENT WORTH (RAW), l CRITERIA CONSISTENT WITH NUMARC- l t

MAINTENANCE RULE GUIDANCE. .

i o BOTH LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 (LARGE l i

RELEASE) PSA MODELS USED I NED1019e3 8 -

~

l l

Psa manocus cairsoomus .

SAFETY SIGNIFICANT ,

HIGH - INDIVIDUAL MOVs WITH MODERATE OR GREATER RISK IMPACT MEDIUM - GROUPED MOVs WITH MODERATE RISK IMPACT LOW - GROUPED MOVs WITH Sh'ALL RISK IMPACT NON-SAFETY SIGNIFICANT LOW-LOW - INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE RISK IMPACT EVEN WHEN ALL FAILED TOGETHER 8A

1. v.

e NED101DB3 9

.1 ,

1 I

PBA RANK 0NGPR@CMBB i

i FOR ALL GL 89-10 FUNCTIONAL l, FAILURE MODES MODELED IN PSA l-l IDENTIFY HIGH PRIORITY MOVs; INDIVIDUAL RAW g 2.0 IDENTIFY LOW-LOW PRIORITY MOVs; CUMULATIVE RAW < 2.0 l

IDENTIFY MEDIUM PRIORITY MOVs; .

i CCF OF FUNCTIONAL GROUP WITH INCREASED FAILURE RATE RAW g 2.0  ;

IDENTIFY LOW PRIORITY MOVS;'

REMAINING MOVs FOR ALL GL 89-10 FFMs NOT MODELED IN PSA, PERFORM DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION PE.D10199310

. _ _ _.______.__1 _ - _ . _ . ._. ._. _ . . _ _ _ _ . . - _ . ~

CDT3B]D2RMdDTSB Db] @2VHL@P]h3B V1MH P3R RA M 01]B PR DC2BB l o APPLICABILITY OF PSA TO MOV 89-10 FUNCTIONAL FAILURE MODES o HIDDEN MOV EVENTS o ADEQUACY OF PSA TRUNCATION LIMITS L o CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF MOV FAILURES o COMMON CAUSE FAILURE EFFECTS o NON-GL 89-10 MOVs -

1 o CONSERVATIVE DECISION CRITERIA NED10139311

xxvpsamnusor mz \

mmxas Process  !

?

e o COMPREHENSIVE MOV SCOPING j i

o CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF MOV FAILURES  !

1 ADDRESSED _

I f b i

o EXPLICIT TREATMENT OF POTENTIAL I COMMON CAUSE FAILURES  !

-i 1

I

-l I

i 4

NED10199312

, i

~

1 j

KEY FEATURES -(Cont.)

i Bl@FSC@ MMS 1 i

-l o EVALUATION OF ALL GL 89-10 MOV j FUNCTIONAL FAILURE MODES j i

j o ALL EVENTS INVOLVING MOVS IDENTIFIED (i.E., INITIATING EVENTS, HUMAN ACTIONS, l UNDEVELOPED EVENTS, ETC.) j o TRUNCATION LIMITS SET TO SUPPORT .;

RANKING & PRIORITIZATION .;

1 o METHODOLOGY ESTABLISHED TO ADD NON-SAFETY'RELATED MOVS TO CURRENT GL 89-10 PROGRAM (NONE FOUND TO BE RISK SIGNIFICANT) o DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION USED FOR LFUNCTIONAL FAILURE MODES NOT ADDRESSED BY PSA-

c. .

KEY FEATURES (Cont.) l i

cumuu nvssesovs i o TRUNCATION LIMIT CAPTURES KEY MOVs- 1 o ASSUMED FAILURE RATE REFLECTS .

TESTING. PRIORITY

]

i o COMMON CAUSE FACTOR = 1.0 WHEN  :

ASSESSING CCF OF FUNCTIONAL GROUP- l o CONSERVATIVE AND THOROUGH-l o COMBINATORIAL EFFECTS ADDRESSED o

.i

-j q

l NED10199314

4 . .

i

r. .

.lj j

?

KEY FEATURES (Cont.)

l

@@hDDDN C&UBMFRULURM l l

.I

'I o EXPLICIT TREATMENT OF POTENTIAL j COMMON CAUSE FAILURES- l

]

. o COMMON CAUSE FACTOR = 1.0 USED i l

o LOW-LOW RANK ESTABLISHED BY COMMON j CAUSE FAILURE OF. ENTIRE GROUP 1 o MEDIUM RANK ESTABLISHED BY COMMON .j CAUSE FAILURE OF FUNCTIONAL GROUP.

i o LOW RANK ESTABLISHED AFTER- ;l l

CONSIDERATION OF COMMON CAUSE j FAILURE OF FUNCTIONAL GROUPS - !

fl NED10199315 -

. - .  :. C. -.

,;,, . - , , . . . . - , - ,, ,. -. . , , - - , ... L

@2GRWDN18DC MV&LURR@N i o ADDRESSES MOV FUNCTIONAL FAILURE  :

MODES NOT MODELED IN PSA .

o ADDRESSES OTHER OPERATING  !

CONSIDERATIONS NOT ADDRESSED BY PSA- -!

i o QUANTITATIVE ACSESSMENT OF 1 DEMONSTRATED MARGIN i o QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF:MOV -;

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS & HISTORY I o SIGNIFICANT EVALUATION PROCESS i j

~

l

. PROVIDES ADDITIONAL CONSERVATISM BEYOND NUMARC GUIDANCE- I 1

r NED10199316

. i

.~ .

l i

DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION (Cont.)

i

@TFJHR @PRRRRMS CDMB]DERATJDMB  !

')

u o GL 89-10 SUPPLEMENT 3 MOVs (GI 87, l lSLOCA)  !

)

I o PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS NOT ADDRESSED BY PSA (SUCH AS SHUTDOWN OPERATIONS) o KEY SUPPORT SYSTEM FUNCTIONS NOT EXPLICITLY MODELED IN PSA  ;

NED10198317

.- 1 I

a '

. . .j DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION (Cont.)  ;

l 52MDMBTRAT2D NRR8]M i j

i l

o DYNAMIC AS-FOUND THRUST / TORQUE l MARGIN AT CONTROL SWITCH TRIP ,

.i o STATIC AS-LEFT THRUST / TORQUE MARGIN l AT CONTROL SWITCH TRIP  !

-i o ANALYTIC AVAILABLE TORQUE MARGIN AT i REDUCED VOLTAGE 'i I

i NED10199318

t

' . g DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION (Cont.)-

-i

.i

@))DV @PMMRMB NRT@RV AND  !

CN&RRCTGRBR&B

.i i

o FREQUENT SUCCESSFUL OPERATION AT i DESIGN BASIS SERVICE CONDITIONS 6

o ADVANTAGEOUS DESIGN CONFIGURATION i

A l

l NED10?9R319 i

. c.

DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION (Cont.) -

@h7R2RN))MlBTnlC CN]il2RlR WMlKdMS WlMiWlK

^ ^

DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION VOTES TESTED MOVs MOVATS TESTED MOVs

^ < 100% < 100%

z 100% 2 100 %

GL 89-10 SUPP 3 HIGH HIGH N/A N/A SHUTDOWN OPERATIONS LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM KEY SUPPORT SYSTEMS LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM ADVANTAGEOUS DESIGN CONFIGURATION FREQUENT OPERATION - LOW-LOW LOW-LOW LOW-LOW LOW OTHER LOW-LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM NED101993 20

.._._m __ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ -_m,.

. . _ . . _ . . . . - _ . . . ~ . - _ . . . - . _ . . . . . - - . ~ . < . - , - - - - - , _ . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . _ - u. . _ _ . , _ - . _ . _ _ . . . . . . . .

'b.

L@@ UNH311 & F2 NOV R&MiGN@ -

BUNNRRY @FRMBULV3 1

RANKED MOVs RANKED MOVs RANKED TOTAL MOVs PRIORITY PROBABILISTICALLY DETERMINISTICALLY IN RANK SAFETY SIGNIFICANT MOVs HIGH 22 12 34 l l

MEDIUM 0 20 20 l

LOW 4 100 104 NON-SAFETY SIGNIFICANT MOVs LOW-LOW ' 74 " 209 " 247 TOTALS 100 " 341-" 405

36 MOVs RANKED THROUGH COMBINED PS.A & DETERMINISTIC EVALUATIONS NED101993 21

? A. .

l DJJDVFR@)))LY @R@UP0NG l 1

o APPLY RESULTS OF IN-SITU DYNAMIC MOV - i TESTS TO MOVs WHERE TESTING IS NOT 1 PRACTICABLE (PRIMARY TWO-STAGE .

APPROACH) o APPLY RESULTS OF EPRI PERFORMANCE -l

.i PREDICTION PROGRAM (SECONDARY TWO--

]

STAGE APPROACH) i o MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF EXISTING l RESOURCES  !

o CONSISTENT WITH GUIDANCE IN DRAFT l t

SUPPLEMENTS  !

~l l

.l

'l

I MOV FAMILY GROUPING (Cont.)  ;

@)]@V F&@J))LY @R@WDMG l CR07L&R00  ;

i o VALVE TYPE (GATE, GLOBE, BUTTERFLY,- j etc.)  ;

-l o VALVE MANUFACTURER j l

l o VALVE SIZE  !

o MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION j a

i o SERVICE CONDITIONS  !

l l,

'l I

NED10199323

F MOV FAMILY GROUPING (Cont.) .

BURENRRY @FNOVFRM00228 R&NUM@ @YBRFCGY80GNURCRNC2 FAMILY NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF RANK OF MOV MOVs IN HIGH MOVs MEDIUM MOVs LOW MOVs LOW-LOW FAMILIES FAMILIES MOVs SAFETY SIGNIFICANT FAMILIES HIGH 9 85 34 0 4 47 MEDIUM S 38 $[

?Dishg

. a 20 14 4

^

LOW 18 182 EN ', I ??d; e TC ! ; 86 96

,: % ys m '

NON-SAFETY SIGNIFICANT FAMILIES LOW-LOW 17 100 m

' {lrg v

Y:  ;)5E w

• _ [< g;' " f , g@n 100 TOTAL 49 405- 34 20 104 247 d&%.

49 NE0101993 24

i PLANNED JMPLEMENTAT]DN OF A GRADHD APPRDACH TO GL :B9:]D MOV TEST]NG o STATIC BASELINE TESTING ALL f

o IN-SITU DYNAMIC TESTING SAMPLE o PERIODIC VERIFICATION TESTING FREQUENCIES t

i

1. 4 W l NED10tM325

==

.. -j

(-_

] i l

GRADED APPROACH (Cont.)~

i a

87&TdC BRCHLQHH TMBTdMB FDRRLL.  ;

i GL 394@ @DDVs i

i o ALL SAFETY-RELATED MOVs AT LIMERICK j

(& PEACH BOTTOM) INITIAL STATIC TESTING  ;

BETWEEN 1984 AND 1989 i

o GL 89-10 MOVs AT LIMERICK (& PEACH BOTTOM) BEING RETESTED FOR .j 1

INCREASED PRECISION  !

t 5

1

-i

O i

a*. j i

GRADED APPROACH (Cont.) l

-l 0 % B WlD D W L411]C T2 B R M B i 1:

l o PERFORMED ON REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE l OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANT MOVs WITHIN I

' FAMILY o MINIMUM 30% REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF A FAMILY TESTED o WILL CONSIDER BEST AVAILABLE PLANT &

INDUSTRY DATA NED10198327

y

y. .

t I

GRADED APPROACH (Cont.) ,

W1DV @W1Rh))C T287FRh))LGB l l

NSNX2D$Y$M MY$]@N]F]ChNCN l

l l SAFETY NUMBER OF TOTAL SAFETY TOTAL MOVs SIGNIFICANT MOV SIGNIFICANT TO BE

{

RANK FAMILIES MOVs IN DYNAMICALLY FAMILY TESTED i

HIGH 9 38 15 MEDIUM 5 34 9 LOW 18 86 27 TOTAL 32 158 51 l i

tQ,.

NED10199328

r.

GRADED APPROACH (Cont.)

GTATdC P2R]DD]C V2R]F]CRTdDM T2BTdBB FR29102MC129 o HIGH PRIORITY MOVs - 2 CYCLES j o MEDIUM PRIORITY MOVs - 5 CYCLES o LOW PRIORITY MOVs - 8 CYCLES l

o LOW-LOW PRIORITY MOVs - POST MAINTENANCE TESTING ONLY o TEST FREQUENCIES REEVALUATED BASED ON MOV RELIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE-41%

My

y..  :

l PLb3NNG@ C@%]N]NW12MT CNRNGMB l b

i i

o IN-SITU DYNAMIC TESTING

)

i o GL 89-10 SCHEDULE i l

o PERIODIC VERIFICATION TESTING ,

t l

I NED10199330

e-  ;

3 ,

f.. .

PLANNED COMMITMENT CHANGES (Cont.)- l I

GL BM@ BCNM@ULM  !

l 1

o DYNAMIC TESTING OF LGS-1 LOW PRIORITY -

MOVs EXTENDED ONE CYCLE (1RO6 - March 1996) -!

o STATIC TESTING OF LGS-1 LOW-LOW f PRIORITY MOVs ALSO EXTENDED ONE l CYCLE TO 3/96  ;

o "TWO-STAGE" APPROACH COMPLETION EXTENDED. UNTil EPRI PERFORMANCE -l PREDICTION PROGRAM RESULTS .

E INCORPORATED j a

1

~

i NED1019e3 32

. -- . . - , . --.-, - - , . . -, ~ .2',-.. . . .