ML20062D944

Summary of 781018 & 19 Meeting Re 770817 & 0930 Licensee Submittals on Inservice Insp & Testing of Pumps,Valves, Component Pressure Boundaries,Conflicts Between Code & Safety Requirements & Concerning Pressure Isolation Valves

ML20062D944
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/20/1978
From:	Zwetzig G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7812010140
Download: ML20062D944 (7)

Text

. - . .

~

f DR MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION ORBd4 gpl#

Mr. J. G. Herbein Vice President Metropolitan Edison Company P. O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 CD66etFile)

NRC PDR V. Noonan L PDR P. Check ORBd4 Rdg G. Lainas NRR Rdg G. Knighton H. Denton Project Manager, G. Zwetzig E. G. Case OELD Y. Stello OI&E(3)

B. Grimes R. Ingram T. Carter R. Fraley, ACRS(16)

D. Eisenhut TERA A. Schwencer . J. Buchanan D. Ziemann Meeting Summary File T. Ippolito Program Support Branch R. Reid NRC Participants i

V. Nerses A. Wang G. Johnson -

H. Cobb 7812010/f6 C w e- - , , . m- , . - - - - - e->-- 4- <y-,- .

• - D "'"

8 Na UNITED STATES

[w 'k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMise.cN 3... M j ) WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g 4,j

'% , , , [ *' ,

November 20, 1978 Docket No. 50-289 LICENSEE: Metropolitan Edi:;or. Company, et al FACILITY: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (TMI-1)

SUBJECT:

SumARY OF MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 18 AND 19,1978 TO DISCUSS LICENSEE'S SUBMITTAL ON INSERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.55a(g)

I The meeting was held at the Comission's offices in Bethesda, Maryland.

A list of attendees is given in attachment 1.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of the meeting was to obtain clarification of the proposed inservice inspection and testing program for TMI-1 as containedrin the licensee's submittals of August 17 and September 30, 1977. '" -

SUMMARY

7.-

e

1. Inservice Testing of Pumps -

The staff indicated that except for measuring pump flow rates, there appearedby relief requested toMetropolitan be adequateEdison basis Company for granting (most of theMetEd) with respect to inservice testing of pumps. The staff noted that the primary basis for granting relief is that a measurement or inspection is impractical. The staff also expressed its view that the fact that a pump circuit did not presently include instrumentation for measuring flow did not make flow measurements impracticable within the meaning of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) unless the installation of such flow instrumentation was impractical.

The staff did, however, express its opinion that relief probably could be granted in the case of the Screen Wash pumps (SW-P1A/B) in that visual confimation of the effectiveness of the screen wash spray was a valid and functional alternative to quantitative flow measurement. ,

2pOKMo

I

2. Inservice-Testino of Valves On the basis of information previously supplied by Meted and information provided at the meeting, the staff requested that Meted review a number of matters dealing with inservice testing of valves and revise their submittal accordingly. These matters are identified in detail in Attachment 2.

3. Inservice Inspection of Class 1. 2 and 3 Component Pressure Boundaries Meted described the " focused" approach used in the preparation of their proposed ISI program for Class I canpanents. Using the focused approach, inspections are concentrated in those areas having the highest calculated stresses and, as proposed by Meted, the number of areas inspected is greatly reduced. This offers the benefit of reduced radiation exposure of ISI personnel.

Meted stated that this approach had been discussed previously with certain technical members of the staff and based on the generally positive reaction, Meted based its submittal on this approach.

The staff responded that while its technical members favored the general concept of the focused approach, it had not yet been endorsed by Section XI of the ASME Code and therefore could not be approved at this time. Meted was also advised that because we cannot presently approve the focused approach, if they needed any relief from the present Code requirements for Class I components, they should revise their submittal accordingly and provide full justification for the relief requested.

With regard to Class 2 and 3 components, the staff stated that Meted's submittal covering Class 2 components appeared acceptable, but that the staff was still reviewing the relief requested for the Class 3 Decay Heat River Water pipes.

4. Conflicts Between Code Reauirements and Safety Recuirements At the conclusion cf the meeting, V. Nerses suggested that Meted should once again review their program to assure themselves that they have included requests for relief from valve testing in all cases where the Code requirement might create an unsafe l

condition as outlined iis Enclosure 2 to the letter of November 17, 1976 from R. W. Reid to R. C. Arnold.

l

5. Valves That Perform a Pressure Isolation Function V. Nerses noted that there are several safety systems connected to the reactor coolant pressure boundary that have design pressures that are below the reactor coolant system operating pressure. Nerses indicated we have required that there be redundant isolation valves forming the interface between these high and low pressure systems to prevent the low pressure systems fran being subjected to pressures which exceed their design limits. In this role the valves are per-forming a pressure isolation function. It was noted that valves DH-VI, DH-V2, DH-V22 A/B, CF-V4 A/B, CF-V5 A/B, two of the following four: RC-V23, RC-V4, DH-V62. DH-V63; and two in each of the ~ follow-ing groups of three: MU-V16A/HU-V107A/MU-V95; MU-V16C/MU-V107C/MU-V86B; and MU-V16D/MU-V107D/MU-V86A, appear to perform a pressure isolation function.* It was noted that we consider it necessary to provide assurance that the condition of each of these valves is adequate to maintain the integrity of the pressure isolation function in order to prevent the several lower pressure systems connected to the reactor coolant pressure boundary from being subjected to pressures which exceed the design limits of these lower pressure systems. For this reason, we believe that some nethod, such as leak testing, should be used to assure their pressure isolation function. Nerses pointed out that reconcendations for resolution of this item will be discussed in our safety evaluation report (SER) of the TMI-l inservice inspection and testing program. The licensee agreed to respond to the NRC concern relative to leak testing of these valves after they receive the SER.

lla\aCd b ,

(Gerald B. etzig, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List

2. Review Items

• The groups of valves associated with MU-V16A/C/D were added subsequent to the meeting.

l l

l

ENCLOSURE NO. 1 ATTENDANCE LIST MEETING WITH MET ED ON OCTOBER 18 & 19, 1978 METROPOLITAN EDISON W. C. Ream R. J. Stevens J. R. Bashista

( MPR ASSOCIATES J. A. Gorman BNL A. Coppola .

R. Hall T. Restivo ,

NRC G. B. Zwetzig V. Nerses A. Wang G. Johnson H. Cobb

(

l i

i

ENCLOSURE NO. 2 REVIEW ITEMS REGARDING INSERVICE TESTING OF CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 VALVES THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1

1. Amend your submittal by including Category E valves on the Inservice Testing (IST) valve lists (Note: a draft list of locked position valves for Tt11-1 was shown to the staff at the meeting).

2. a. Review the Category assignment and/or proposed test procedure, if any, for the following valves and revise your submittal in accordance with your determination: BS-V21A/B, BS-V30A/B and BS-V52A/B.

b. Provide the basis for your determination.

3. Review the function of the following valves to dete'rmine if they serve a containment isolation function; if so, revise your submittal accordingly:

PP-V 101,102,133,134; NI-V 27, SA-V2, IA-V6 and WDL-V304.

Provide the bases for your determination.

4 Review the normal and emergency modes of cooling the Decay Heat River Pumps (DR-P-lA/B) and revise the valve IST list as necessary to provide assurance that valves needed in the emergency cooling mode are tested at an appropriate frequency.

5. Discuss the factors bearing on the need for inclusion of the following ,

valves on the IST valve list and revise your submittal accordingly:

i 1

1

DR-V6A/B CF-V26A/B (as Category E)

MU-V 14A/B MS-V2A/B MS-V15A/B C0-V10A/B NS-V32 HP-V1 (as Category A)

HP-V6 (as Category A)

6. Per discussions with the staff, amend your submittal relative to the IST valve list as follows:

[ Add Remove RR-V9A/B/C/D AH-VilA/B WDL-Y362

7. Per discussions with the staff, revise the IST list to indicate SF-V23 is a Category AE valve.

8. In view of the capability of testing EF-V3 using clean water from the Nuclear Services Closed Cooling Water System, it does rot appear to be impractical to test this check valve. Revise your submittal to include appropriate testing of this valve or provide further justification for the impracticality of perfoming such tests. Per discussions with the staff revise the test frequency for EF-VilA/B and EF-V13 from quarterly to the cold shutdown frequency as defined in your submittal.

i I

l l

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