ML20133G136
| ML20133G136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/14/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G137 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-96-261-C, NUDOCS 9701150174 | |
| Download: ML20133G136 (2) | |
Text
b._
~. -. -
r f
m van 4
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 e
t, * * * * *,o January 14, 1997 l
OFFICE OF THE j
SECRETARY l
j.
l COMMISSION VOTING RECORD DECISION ITEM:
SECY-96-261 TITLE:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN i
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMSSION FOR COOPERATION IN SUPPORT OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES The Commission approved the subject paper as recorded in the l
Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of January 14, 1997 l
This Record contains a summary of voting on this matter together with the individual vote sheets of the Chairman and Commissioners and the SRM of Jar.uary 14, 1997.
i 9
n C. Hople I
Secr ry of the Commission Attachments:
- 1. Voting Summary
- 2. Commissioner Vote Sheets
- 3. Final SRM Of h
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus l
l Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan j
j OGC EDO PDR DCS qafs[UKL 150107 9701150174 970114 l
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
I VOTING
SUMMARY
- SECY-96-261 RECORDED VOTES l
NOT APRVD DISAPRVD ABSTAIN PARTICIP COMMENTS DATE CHRM. JACKSON X
1/8/97 COMR. ROGERS X
1/8/97 COMR. DICUS X
1/10/97 COMR. DIAZ X
X 1/8/97 COMR. McGAFFIGAN X 1/8/97 COMMENT RESOLUTION In their vote sheets, all Commissioners approved the staff's recommendation and Commiccioner Diaz provided an additional comment.
Subsequently, the comments of the majority of the l
Commission were incorporated into the guidance to staff as reflected in the SRM issued on January 14, 1997 l
.j i
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE i
Immediate Corrective Actions 1
I i
l Current Operability of MOVs e Operability Evaluation e Core Deluge Valve Modifications j
e Additional Modifications e
Interim Design Control l
i RG&E O
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Immediate Corrective Actions l
l Actuator Capability In-Situ Testing j
i e Inertia v Inertia not a Significant Factor v Thrust Measured at CST v Some Tests Went to Stall Conditions v Margin Available before Stall e Test Direction Applicable i
i I
I 11/1 /%
RG&E
m-MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Immediate Corrective Actions 1
I
[
Operability Evaluation Previous RG&E Program Altran/Kalsi Review e GL 89-10 & 95-07 Scope e Scope Correct
~
e System Criteria e Criteria Acceptable e Testing Program o Testing Practices Acceptable e GL 89-10 Calculations e Independent GL 89-10 Cales v Limitorque Vf v EPRI Friction Coefficients v Orifice Diameters v Mean Seat Diameters v Flow Velocity e Altran PL/TB Calcs e Comed PL/TB Methodology 1
e No Butterfly Calcs e Butterfly Analysis Performed
==
Conclusion:==
==
Conclusion:==
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Immediate Corrective Actions l
l Core Deluge Valve Modifications e
Replaced Motor e
Changed Gear Ratio e
Replaced Cabling e
Drill Wedge during 1999 Core Offload e Revise Control Scheme Current Operability Based on Bounding Valve Factors & Comed PLTB 11/1 /%
RG&E
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Immediate Corrective Actions
[
I i
Interim Design Control l
e Kalsi/Altran Reviews e Management Review of Calculations II I RG&E IS
i MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Immediate Corrective Actions l
l I
Additional Modifications e Current Outage Actions v MOV 857A,B, & C
~
v MOV 9704A l
v MOV 4008 l
11 13/ %
RG&E i
e s ?
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Corrective Actions Flow Chart i
I Internal i
External
,._._._._._._._._,_.___._.___._._._,_._._._._._._._p._.___._._._._.___._._._.c._._._._._.__,
i l
l HPESi CATS i QA i
Technical
, Peer i
Reviews & Assessments i
V F m. d m.gs l
i
% */
i i
Root auses t
h I
I I
Long Term Corrective Actions 1 " > =6 RG&E 16
I l
i MOV ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Immediate Corrective Actions l
I l
RG&E Initiated Self-Assessment i
e Internal
~
v Human Performance Enhancement System f
v XRC Commitment Review (CATS) v-Quality Assurance Review i
e External j
v Technical Consultants v Peer Review n';;'96
-s