ML20117P719
Text
. -. - -...
l j$f h
C
- w
,a j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
%*****/9ft j
E, wAsmwoTow.o. c.nossa EAY 14 INT i
i j
i i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
William F. Kane, Director
]
Division of Reactor Pro.iects, RI William V. Johnston, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety, RT FROM:
Carl H. Berlinger, Chief Generic Communications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF IEB 85-03 REVIEW FOR REGION I PLANTS Section 05.01 of IE Manual Temporary Instruction 2515/73, " Inspection Require-ments for IE Bulletin 85-03, ' Motor-0perated Valve Common Mode Failures During i
Plant Transients Due to Improper Switch Settings,'" requires that a semiannual status report be issued on the review activities associated with IEB 85-03. provides the status of plants in Region I as of May 1,1987, listing the most recent utility response and NRC correspondence. Enclosure 2 provides definitions of the terms used to describe the status. Enclosure 3 provides addi-tional notes and a listing of relevant cor:espondence beyond that indicated in.
Not specifically mentioned in the enclosures is the fact that our contractor has completed their review of the General Electric and Westinghouse Owners' Group reports.
In both instances there were points which needed additional clarification. Copies of Edward L. Jordan's January 30, 1987 letters to the two owners' groups were forwarded to you when they were issued. You will be kept advised of our actions with respect to our review of their responses as they b ome available.
The first utility's response reviewed was for the Callaway plant. It is our understanding that a number of other utilities plan on referencing the valve program (developed by M0 VATS) in their individual programs. Our contractor has recently completed his review of the Callaway revised response to the bulletin.
Unfortunately, several minor points still remain to be resolved and have resulted in a second request for additional information. You will be advised when we have completed our review and have accepted their program.
&' k ll CONTACT: Richard J Kiessel, NRR 49-29605 ss en B705190179 h 4
N N h.:
k em V
I O
O W. F. Kane/W. V. Johnston 2
MAY 14 SF I would also like to remind you that TI 2515/73 requested that you send. copies of all inspection reports pertaining to IEB 85-03. to Robert L. Baer.. B i
of the reorganization, it is reovested that these inspection reports no.acause w be sent to me.
To assist you in detemining if I have received all of the applicable inspection reports Enclosure 4 identifies all of the inspection reports which we have received to date. Please fomard copies of any inspection reports which' we have not previously received.
Carl H. Berifnger, Chief Generic Communications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
States of IEB 85-03 for Region I Plants, Sunnary by Plant Name as of May 1,1987 2.
Definition of Status Tems 3.
Status of IEB 85-03 for Region I Plants.
Summary of Comments as of May 1,1987 4.
Inspection Report Status of IEB 85-03 for Region I, Summary of Inspection Report Comunents as of May 1,1987 Distribution R5tarosteckt. NRR CERossi, NRR CHBerlinger, NRR RJKiessel, NRR TKoshy, RI RJSummers, RI i
BClayton, EDO DCS D0EA Reading File OGCB Reading File RJKiessel Reading File OGCB:DOEAp/K OY C:0GCB:00EA RJKiessel CHBerlinger 5//J/87 5/ g /87 m
-____m_
_m_-____
i l
f".
- e e
I
~
w/
Plan No.
1 Ehflosure 1
,l 05/01/87 REVIEW STATUS OF 1Eb Gb-03 FOR hEG10N 1
SUMMARY
LY PLANT NAhE Ab UF HAv 1.
1987 GGB hE6 ION UTIL11Y MEMd TO' LElfER TO FLAN 1 NAME STATUS REPLY REGION U T I L I T 's i
r bb,VER VALLE 1
UNDER REVIEW W/O PROGRAM Ob/16/b6
/
/
e
/
BEAVER VALLEY 2 UNDER REVIEW OS/13/Bo
/
/
e
/
i CALVEH1 CLIF FS 1 UNDER REVIEW W/O FROGRAM OS/15/Bo
/
/
/
/
CALVERT CLIFFS 2 UNDER REVIEW W/O PROGRAN 05/15/86
/
/
/
/
FITZPATRICE UNDER REVIEW 10/01/86
/
/
/
/
GINNA UNDER REVIEW 05/14/86
/
/
/
/
l HADDAN NECK UNDER REVIEW 06/11/86
/
/
/
/
l HOFE CREEK 1 UNDER REVIEW 05/27/8A
/
/
/
/
INDI4N POINT 2 UNDER REVIEW 08/14/86
/
/
/
/
INDIAN POINT 3 UNDER REVIEW 05/13/86
/
/
/
/
L 1 hEnl CF. 1 UNDER REVIEW 10/02/86
/
/
/
/
l LIMERICK 2 UNDER REVIEW 10/02/86
/
/
/
/
MAINE 'YANLEE UNDER REVIEW 12/22/8o
/
/
/
/
MILLSTONE 1 UNDER REVIEW 06/11/66
/
/
/
/
MILLL'(ONE 2 UNDER REVIEW 06/11/86
/
/
/
/
KILLSTONE 3 UNDER REVIEW 06/11/Bo
/
/
/
/
N]NE MILE PO3NT 1 UNDER REVIEW 09/18/86
/
/
/
/
NINE MILE POIN1 2 UNDER REVIEW O2/18/87
/
/
/
/
PEALH bOlTOM 2 UNDER hEVIEW 10/02/Bo
/
/
/
/
PEACH BOTTOM 3 UNDER REVIEW 10/02/86
/
/
/
/
PILbh1M 1 UNDER REVIEW 12/31/86
/
/
/
/
SALEN 1-UNDER REVIEW 05/27/86
/
/
/
/
SALEi-i 2 UNDER REVIEW 05/27/Bo
/
/
/
/
SEMBh00N 1 UNDER REVIEW 05/15/86
/
/
/
/
StAoRuur; 2 UNDER REVIEW 05/15/86
/
/
/
/
5HOktt lAM UNDER REVIEW 10/08/86
/
/
/
/
SUSRUEH4NNA 1 UNDER REVIEW 10/09/86
/
/
/
SU50UEnANNA 2 UNDER REVIEW 10/09/86
/
/
/
i ini 1 UNDER REVIEW 05/27/86
/
/
/
/
TM1 2 EXTENSION, OPEN ENDED 05/15/86
/
/
/
/
VERMOnn YANhEE UNDER hiVIEW W/O PRC6 HAM 05/14/86
/
/
/
s v'ANKEE-ROWE UNDER REVIEW - UNIQUE 05/14/86
/
/
/
/
i l
I
e i
losure 2 s
i l
. ~-
DEFINITIONS OF STATUS TERMS I
Extension, Open Ended - The licensee has responded requ, sting an e
extension without specifying a date.
The facilities in this category are those whose construction has been delayed.
No Response - No response has been recesved from the licensee.
l The facilities in this category have licenses, but are in a i
long term shut down.
RAI Letter Sent - The region has forwarded a request for additional information to the licensee.
The date of the letter is listed in the column headed " Region Letter to Utility."
The letter is based on an NRR memorandum to the region listed in the column headed "GCB Memo to Region."
The memorandum is based on our contractor's review of the licensee's response listed in the column headed " Utility Reply."
Second RAI Memo Sent - The GCB had forwarded to the region a second memorandum reauesting additional information.
The date of the memorandum is listed in the column headed "GCB Memo to Region."
The memorandum is based on our con tractor's review of the licensee's response issted in the column neaced " Utility Reply."
The response is in reply to our original reauest for additional,information which is identified in enclosure 3.
Under Review - Tne licensee's response is currently uncer review by our c sn tr ac ter.
The cate of tne licensee's response is listed in the column headed "Utiletv Reply."
Under Review w/o Program - The licensee's response is currently under review by our contractor.
However, the licensee's description of the program to assure valve operability may lack all of the requested information.
identifies the information missing and the reason for proceeding with the review.
The date of the licensee's response is l a sted in the column headed "Util i ty Repl y. "
Under Review - Unique - The licensee's response is currently j
under review by our contractor.
However, bec ause the licensee has sited an unusual condition at his facility, a special review is required.
The unique condition is identified in enclosure 3.
The date of the licensee's response is listed in the column headed " Utility Reply."
3 P)
. U:~
s.
y,,
3 05/01/87 i
REVIEW STATUS OF IEB 85-03 FOR REBIOh i
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS ON ADDITIONAL ITEMS AS OF MAf 1.
1967 j
j j
l FLANT NAFE CDP.MENTS j
l i
EEAVER VALLEY 1 5/16/B6 reply had little program description.
Bil/06 seno sent indicating little program description.
1/14/07 telcon with LETripp (Region 1) indicated that the region s letter had not been sent.
Because the formal review is unoerway. at was agreed to not send the letter and to rely on the f ormal review for all comments.
BEAVER VALLEY 2 5/13/66 reply requested WD6 extension.
6/12/86 letter approved WOB extension reauest.
CALVEni CLIFFS 1 B/1/86 memo sent indicating that no reply could be found in headquarters prompted the region to forward their copy.
5/15/66 reply had no progran description.
9/18/66 seno sent indicating no progran description.
1 1/14/B7 telcon with LEiripp (Region 1) indicated that the region's letter had not been sent.
because the f ormal review is uncerway. at was agreed to not send the *etter and to rely on the formal review for all comments.
l FITZFATRICK 5/14/86 reply had no progras description.
6/24/06 eeso sent indicating no program description.
)
7/29/86 letter sent indicating no prograc description.
l 9/4/06 reply requested BWROS extension.
61NNA 4/14/87 reply forwarded reouested P&lDs.
HALDAh NECV 10/28/B6 reply did not acoress the bulletin f er handar Nect.
INDIAN FDINT 2 5/13/E6 reoly requesteo hD6 extension.
l l
INDIAN FDINT 3 E/1/06 memo sent indicating no response could be f ound in headouarters l
promoted the region to f orwar d their cooy.
l LibERICV 1 6/2/66 reply reouested EWR06 extension (Lieerick 1, oniv).
7/29/86 repiv ccnfirmed meeting BWR06 extension subsiittal date.
~ )
O l -
t a
v I.
^*
Fase No.
2 05/01/57 l
REVIEW STATUS OF IEE E5-05 F0h REGION i
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS ON ADDITIONAL ITEMS AS OF MAY 1, 1987 a
FLANT hAME C0hhEdTS l
LIVEE;CE 2 5/14/66 reply reauested BWR0G extension (Limerick 2, only)
MAINE YAM EE 5/21/6o repIv requested two week extension.
i 6/4/06 reply had little progras descriction.
6/24/Bo memo sent indicating little progras cescriction.
10/16/06 reply requested an extension to 12/1/56.
biLLSTONE 1 10/2E/66 reply did not andress the bulletin at Milstene Ontt 1.
VILLETONE 2 10/20/06 reply did not address the oulletin for M211stene Unit 2.
O!ulsTONE 10/25/66 reply reviseo 6/11/E6 reply.
NihE F.lLE FLINT 1 5/16/E6 reply indicateo that the hagnest pressure systee is not safety-related.
However, they d2d not consider other, lower pressure, safety-related systems.
Telcons with then indicated that they had a lower pressure safety-related system which they were utlinng to include in the pregram.
oilB/86 memo sent indicating that the 5/16/66 reply is not acceptaole.
7/9/56 letter sent indicating that the 5/16sB6 reply is not acceptatie.
blNE MILE POINT 2 B/1/86 seso sent indicating that no reply could be found in headquarters prompted the region to forware their cocy.
PEACH BOTTOM 2 e/2/B6 reply requested BWR05 extension.
7/24sE6 reply confirmed seeting EwROG extension suosittal dates.
11/3/66 reply revised and updated 10/2/06 repiv.
FI 5E1M 1 5/9/66 reolv recuested BWR06 extension.
l iE;FFC'4 1 B/1/86 memo sent indicating that no reply could be found in headasarters promoted the region to f orward their copy.
l in:EEeAM 5/14/Bo r epiv reauested BWR06 extension.
EUECLEHA4N6 i E/;s5L reciv had is tile procram descraction.
l
\\
l
~4 ic temo 2odicsted little program cesciartson.
4sBe letter inoscateo little program cescriotton.
l j
f3 d
J i
Page ho.
3 i
05/01/67 REVIEW STATUS OF IEE 85-03 FOR RE510N 1 SUMMARf 0F COMMENTS ON ADDITIONAL ITEMS A5 0F MAY 1. 1967 i
' plani NAME COMMENTS l
TMI 1 9/15/86 reply contains results of MOVATS testing.
2/27/87 reply indicateo delay an f ully septementino MDV procedures.
VERMONT YANKEE 6/1/66 sere sent indicatino that ne response could be f ound in j
headquarters proepted the rgien to forward their copy.
5/14/65 reply had little program description.
9/10/06 meno sent indicating little program description.
11/12/06 telcon with WJRavsond (SRI e Vermont Yankee) agreed that because of the delay an getting the region's letter out, the marginal nature of the deficiencies, and the nearness of the formal review, no formal letter would be sent.
We will rely on the formal review for all comments.
VANLEE-ROWE 5/14/66 reply indicates that the recuired valves are locked an their croper position.
o s
I
(
t i
b
rs 5
foe'No.
i delosure4
~
05i(1/E7 IN5FECTIDN REPORT STATUS OF IEB B5-03 FOR REGION I SUMMA 6Y OF IN5PECTICN REPORT CDMMENTS A5 0F MAY 1.
1967 F6 ANT hsME COMMENT j
EEAVER s'ALLEi 2 IR Se-v6 (3/1-31/86) indicated the licensee's intent to use MOVAT5 ecungsent in tneir testanc program.
CALvERT CLIFFE 1 1R 65-34 il2/11/05 - 1/20/86), a reoional inspection report. cescrioed bulletin activities in relationship to the licensee's post maintenance test 2no oroo, ras.
CALVERT CLIFFS 2 IR 65-34 (12/11/65 - 1/20/66), a reoional n r.soection report, describec bulletan activattes in relationship to the licensee's cost s,aintenance testino program.
HA*L69 hECL 1R 6e-24 iE/15 - 9/30,'66) r eporteo timely subat ttel of the licensee. e reply-to the bulletin.
h0?E CE.EEr i IR 60-06 (1/13 - 2/9/06s. a tean inspection report, reviewed correspondence f rom Bechtel indicating that the initial resoerse will t'e on ti me.
MILLETONE 1 IR 60-17 (6/18 - 9/29/66) reported timely submittal of tne licensee 5 reply to the bulletin.
MILLST0hE 2 IR 66-19 (8/10 - 9/29/66) reported timely submittal of the licensee's reply to the bulletin.
hlLLETONE 3 IR 66-26 (B/12 - 10/6/66), a team inspectio'n report, reporteo a timely submittal of the licensee *s reply to the bulletin.
IR 66-33 (10/7 - 11/17/06) described the licensee's subeattals.
Sn0EEHAM IR 65-42 (11/1-30/66) identified the bulletin as an open itee.
SU500EnANNA 1 IR 86-11 (5/26 - 7/15/E6) did not address the bulletin for Susouenanna Unit 1.
50iOVEHaNNs 2 1R Ec-11 (5/26 - 7/15/26) described the licensee s activities witn respect te the f ailure of the RCIC our.o d:scharge valve.
vEFrCN1 i=HrEi IF 06-25 (11/4 - 12/~1r60 descrates timely response to the bulietin.