ML20149D507
| ML20149D507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/05/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1632, NUDOCS 8801130014 | |
| Download: ML20149D507 (27) | |
Text
.
QCAMM3l.2, H 3.N AL U:NuED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
REACTOR OPERATIONS MEETING i
D D
U0 O
LOCATION: WASHINGTON DC PAGES:
168 - 192 DATE:
JANUARY 5, 1988 e,.....
6
[~ '
- I 4
.g t
i j J' t a a.n, ;; E. u ACHS, 0ffice cs 6
O Jtf Heritage Reporting Corporation h
Otliciel Reporters 4 Ld g 123 L Street. N,W.
't b
wa, o.C. ms 9.? g3 im2i.2ua.
O DC qP I
C,k ffh11 4 880105 T-1632 DCD I
$[d'.
(<L~1["
lc3 jgg 1
UNITED. STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3-4 In the' Matter of: )
)
5 REACTOR OPERATIONS )
6 7
Tuesday January 5,-1988 8
Room 1046 9
1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D.~C.
20555 10 11 The above entitled matter came on for further-open 12 hearing pursuant to notice, at 4:18 p.m.
()'
13 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
14 MR. JESSE C.
EBERSOLE Subcommittee Chairman 15 Retired Head Nuclear Engineer Division of Engineering Design 16 Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 17 MR. CARLYLE MICHELSON-18 Retired Principal Nuclear Engineer Tennessee Valley Authority 19 Knoxville, Tennessee, and Retired Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation 20 of Operational Data U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D. C.
22 MR. CilARLES J. WYLIE O
Retired Chief Engineer 23 Electrical Division Duke Power Company 24 Charlotte, North Carolina 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation m smee.
I f)N
?
1 ACRS COGNIZANT STAFF MEMBER:
2 HERMAN ALDERMAN 3
NRC STAFF PRSENTERS:
4 Tad Marsh Ted Sullivan 5
John Huang 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 I
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
l l
l
. w.,
h-i
.i, o 170 1
OPEN SESSION (Continued) 2 (4: 18 p.rn. )
s 3
-MR.-EBERSOLE:
Let's proceed.
4 MR. ImRSH:
Welwere talking about the INPO check 5
valve.
6 PR. MICFELSON:
I ju5t wasn't aware that there 7
was an.INPO check valve effort other than_the old SOFR that 8
they turned out but there if there is a current workings, 9
then we would like to find out about it at a future meet-10 ina.
11 So.far INPO has never been desirous of comino and 12 talking to us.
13 MR. MARSH:
The INPO agencies, as I recall, the 14 agency wrote INPO and said tag a lead on check valves and 15 SOER--
16 MR. MICHELSON:
They did?
17 MR. FMRSH:
As I recall.
18 MR. MICHELSON: The NRC wrote?
19 MR. fmRSH:
Yes.
20 MR. MICHELSON: To INPO and told them to take the 21 lead on on check valves.
22 MR. ?GPSF:
They probablv endorsed the INPO 23 approach which was to carry on as the leader in the industry 24 resolving check valve issues.
25 MR. MICHELFON:
I never saw that letter.
Heritoge Reporting Corporation
<= -
37 l
171 MR. MARSil: It was a two pace--correct me Frank.
g MR. MICIIELSON : Is that right?
2 MR. PAGE:
INPO has put on SOEO, as you just men-3
(
t )
tioned and they are about to publish or has recently published 4
a very very thick so called Application Guide on check valve 5
application and check valve designs.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
Will you see if we can aet a copy of 7
that?
8 MR. PAGE:
We have seen a draft of it.
It's quite 9
thick.
10 MR. MICFELSON:
And that is an output of this larae 3g effort--
12 g
MR. PACE: Yes.
33 MR. MICIIELSON:
--and this effort is continuing on.
g4 MR. PAGE:
Right.
They promised us the documents.
15 and I'm not sure what the overall state of it is.
16 MR. MICHELSON:
Are you aware that there is a letter 37 from the NPC to INPO that say--
18 MR. PAGE:
Yes.
There was one or two mernos that wen g
ut.
One said sort of hate to leave, which was a follow up, 20 I think, on a meetina that oriainally the FDO chaired to cet 21 them started.
n.o.
p MR. MICIIELSON : Could vou send us a copy of those memos--
MR. PAGE:
Yes, we can get 'fou a chronoloay on that.
25 Acme Reporting Company j
..m,
d
..o La
.172 1
1 We have commented on one or two drafts of the document.
2 MR. MICHELSON:
We ought to be able to get some L
3 cooperation out of INPO to come and talk to us then.-
4 So, we'11 get.the memo form you all.and we'11 put them on the agenda.
5 They always act like they're really not doing much 6
and don't really want to talk to us about it.
7 MR. MARCH:
In addition to those actions the NRC g
is either taking or considering-is a variety of actions the 9
industry could be taking too, and this slide is going to talk
-10 about some of those.
33 One of the most important parts is to improve the 12
"" "*^"*" '"'
""d O
'3 t
technically defensible testing.
14 Now, I have got here frecuency, but I don't just mear t
15 i
frecuency, I mean anythina without has to make them technicallv l
3g t
defensible.
37 They could have or still could, form owners groups ig to address generic problems with IST.
It sounds like in some 39 respects that's beino done if INPO is leadina it.
20 With NEM1 ARK or another high profile industry 21 group, there is work to increase the awareness or IST problems
.o.n.
and commitments to improve.
This is not iust--IST is iust one g
f area if maintenace.
We have already talked about that and if 21 i
there is plant life extension that is goina on, there is 25 Acme Reporting Company
- i. a i
a 173 1
other incentives, this is a.neriod that could~be integrated 2
to the industry's advantace and save us all'from--
3 We've already talked a little bit about better O
- rporeee c - rdineeien in 1sT proprems.
1e is ee1d ehee een 4
5 you go to utility and it has a. variety of. plants, - and they al:
6 have different philosophies, some good, some bad, that is a.ba:1 state of affairs and we have seen that and the industry can 7
8 just individually 'or collectively improve their programs, thei:-
submittals and their timeliness.
We run into a variety of 9
situations where we send out our questions and they're trying 10 to get programs approved and feet are dragged because it's not it
^
in their interest, it's not in the best interest of the indust:ry.
12 In conclusion, there are the current problems with 13 IST.
Fe have talked about all of them.
We talked about 34 15 technical, the legal, the administrative, the resource and the enforcement.
They're very resource intensive and they are 16 results of a lack of -- a past lack of industry and NRC commit 17 ment.
It's a coupled problem.
It's not just not just us and
~
18 it's not just them, it's state of affairs that's reflective 39 on where we have been.
20 MR. MICHELSON: Is there a focal point in your effort,
21 in working with industry?
Is NEWMARK the focal point cr is on O
~~
23 MR. MARSH:
At this point, our foxal point is the 24 code, O&M.
25 i
Acme Reporting Company g
40 174 MR. MICHELSON:
So you're going to the Code 2
Committee as your entre into the industry?
3 MR PARSH:
That's right.
That's where we are now.
4 Many of the needed' improvements, they're significant, they're 5
not small and they're not going to'be quick.
They can't be 6
ouick.
They got to be carefully construed, especially with the 7
rule making, if it should happen, it's coing to have to be 8
carefully thoucht out, noticed and commented on because it's 9
a big change, and we need your comments and support and indust cy 10 cooperation too.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: Fell, I'm encouraced by what you're 12 doing.
I'm much interested in cetting that base that I 13 referred to repeatedly., before we start inproving and Q
14 maintaining eauipment, we know where it is in the first place.
15 Do you interface any or examine the aircraft 16 maintenance industry?
17 MR. PARSH :
We have dealt some we can, we know 18 about some of their procrams, not extensively thouch.
It's an area that we could get some useful information from.
19 20 MR. MICHELSON:
From your vantane point, when vou 21 have a valve guestion or problems where, vdthin the NRC, do you 22 think the focal points for valves is.
O 23 For instance, do you think you are the focal point or do you think somebody else and if so vho, where is the fc. cal 24 25 point for two things, valves and then for pumps?
5 Heritage Reporting Corpo.:* tan l
cnn =mie
r. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ -
//f j
'j
'(I ;,
17,5
,a MR. MARSH:
For design, for pumps and valves, 3
hydraulic performance of ther, that's going to be system re-2 l
lated and the categories within the' branch are related, so
.3
,)
we're talkina about NRR.
]
4 If there is some long rance--I can't.cive you.a real i
clean ~ answer, but if there is some area that bears a more 6
detailed look see and a more lonaer time _ frame, that's a 7
research incentive, if there's an area that involves lookina g
9 at data and analysis of LERs or 5072's, we're talkino AEOD.
I would like to think that the focal point of'in 10 service testing of pumps and valves is here with the branch gg and NRR because we're charced with that responsibility.
lee 12 have to do the reviews.
10e have been selling that approach--
f]
13 that's a change, I want you to understand, that's a bic chance.
g4 The last orcanization had 3 branches that were 15 responsible for it.
The previous organization had that 16 responsibility but frankly thev didn't have the manacement 37 commitr'ent, so they may have had the responsibility, but they 18 couldn't implement that.
g9 MR. MICHELSON:
Let me ask then, you point out that NRR 20 NRR ought to be the focal point or is the focal coint for ds-21 sign and hydraulic perforrance and so forth.
Where within 22 O
NRR, more explicitly, is this focal point then for valves and 23 f r pumps, the sane place, different, who is it?
24 PR. MARSF:
That's a tough ane to answer.
25 Heritoge Reporting Corporation (302) endett
7 x
.+
.k &
f
/ ii-l p
^
17G -
3 Operational problems, as they come uo, may easilv'come into
-2 Federal Inspection Branch or to the plant who reviewed them and--
3 Ob MR. MICHELSON:
I'm gettino down to more basic 4
fundamentals than that.
5 MR. RICHARDSON:
It's clearly Tad.
6 MR. MICHF:LSON:
Yes, but he's only assumed the 7
8 in service test thing.
MR. MARSH:
No, no, no, I have other valve problems 9
and pump problems too.
-10 MR. MICHELSON:
Then this cuestion of how are we going gg to determine and what is our program.
I'm assuring that we know 12 how these components will function under their two excellent 13 loadings.
Who do I talk to to find out what is the status of g4 15 all of that, if any, if any and who is in charge, if anybody?
MR. MARSH:
There probably isn't. To be honest, this 16 i
is a cuestion that we hadn't thought of before.
37 MR. MICHELSON:
What else has been discussed.
I hav e 18 discussed this repeatedly with Orlotto and he seems to take g,
responsibility for talking about a test procram, the research 20 program of some part, but in terms of what their plans ought t o 21 be, you know, from the regulatory viewpoint, and so forth, he 22 O
always seems to kind of fade away.
23 MR. RICHARDSON: That's clearly us--that's clearly p
us.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
<=nw
f/$ -
i i i,'
177 t-MR. MICHELSON:
I think tha't's only in our eyes 2
and then you think it's ITI.
3 MR. RICHARDSON:
No, no, no, it's not ITI.
IST is 4
just one part of it, but the basic oualification of the valve, s
whether we think that basic qualification was adeouate, that's 6
clearly our responsibility.
7 MR. MICHELSON:
The basic philosophy that aoes into 8
whether we have an adeauate program from a to z.
In other 9
words, first of all, a has got to be, do we know the component 10 will do the job it is supposed to do at least once, sometime 1
11 maybe in a factory test.
But who is handling that end of it.
12 Is that you or is that somebody else in NRR?
13 MR. RICHARDSON:
No, it's not anyone else in NRR.
()
34 MR. MICHELSON:
So I ask you and if you don't have i
i 15 an answer, you'll eventually get an answer?
16 MR. MARSH:
I don't have an answer and I'll have to 17 get you answer, 18 MR. MICHELSON:
You're the right nerson then?
7 19 MR. MARSH :
Sounds like it.
20 MR. EBERSOLE:
As a counterpart of this, in the 21 diesel business, through all history we have been giving 22 diesels, forcing them to do 10 minute starts because it was 23 so hot inside, we would have a loss of power with a LOCA, but we weren't getting performance under duress and we were 24 tearing up the diesels while we were doing it.
25 Heritoge Reporting Corporation
<m> m a
iftl jg
] ' p-
) mi c
g So we are now developing,'I hope,-industry wide, 2.
to develope ~a more reasonable program.which is'once in awhile to see if_you can' still do'it under stress, but most of the 3
time _you just' exercise it.
4 5
MR.. RICHARDSON:.But Carl ~, you raised-a cuestion that is-similar to the size and.cualification cf electrical com-5 7
ponents that was rasied a few years ago, when we~went back and 8
made a decision that some old operating plants did not demon-9 strate that certain electrical eculpment could survive a seismic.
You raised a similar question here on nechanical go eouipment and I think the answer l's where ve are today is gg 12 that we hTve not really shown the basic assumption that the 13 design requirements that the plants were built to and the h
cualification standards to which they were cualified, are g4 is inadeauate.
I don't think that has been rasied nor are we 16 raising that.
Now there is a recent procram for the cualification 17 18 of equipment for future designs.
MR. MICHELSON:
You have to raise that auestion 39 when you start out with reference values, you have to determir te 20 that thos e reference values are the richt ones to be testing 21 22 against in the future.
O Somehow it's not a oiven, the reference values 23 are always good.
You have to establish those reference 24 values somehow.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation i=.,=
-c
~Y)
I.
.I$.i iD 3
g MR. MARSH:
The issue is--
2 MR. MICHELSON:
You have to establish those 3
reference values.somehow and the code doesn't tell you
()'
how to do it.
4 5
MR MARSH:
The' issue is almost moot when you 6'
. talk about stroke time testing--who cares.
If you' establish 7
one stroke time--
8 MR. MICHELON:
Well, we don't talk about stroke 9
time testing, we talk about Vale testing of which stroke 10 time is'one of the various thinas you do..
gg MR. MARSH:
It's the main way of testina an' active-12 component like that, not check valves--
( )-
13
-MR. MICHELSON:
Well, it's not a good wav at all--
g:
MR. MARSH :
Agreed.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
I'm thinking in a little broader 16 context of testing valves of which stroke time is one of 37 the considerations, differential pressures and other considera--
lg tions and so forth, p,
MR. MARSH:
Agreed.
The MOVs now--
20 MR. WYLIE:
The cuestion is like he said, it's more 21 fundamental as to whether or not thr appropriate desion tasis 22 for the plants were used and whether they were cualified to O
23 the "design basis" and adecuately cualified.
24 MR. MARSH:
And in many cases we know they weren't.
25 MR. WYLIES:
That's a bigger issue and more funda-Heritage Reporting Corporation m.
l
t{(/ '
=
-o
.1 it 180 l
I mental, if that's a valid concern, 2
. 'R. EBERSOLE:. Well there's something repugnant 3
about havino an elaborate and beautiful testing program.for 4
something that never did have the characteristics you should 5
have tested in the first place,. it would have been better.
6 MR. MICHELSON: -You see, here's the problem 7
though.
Let's' assume for a moment,,.even I have got the 8
proper designs and built the valve and they were tested under 9
adverse operating conditions and found to be performing pro-10 perly, now I put it in the plant and now I start to maintain 33 it.
12 Now, from time to time I make adjustments to it, _
- '"e
""t* * ""$""'"*"'
' r t""'""
"" ve O
still functions properly because all it says is you have got 34 15 to stroke it for some length of time and it has to maybe even have the. full dif ferential, you micht get that built intc 16 17 it even, but it does not necessarily operate under the conditj ons 18 that it will during the accident.
In our test study, we keep repeating the test and 19 20 it works fine, but we know that initially what the require-ments were, we knew that once upon a time it worked right, 21 but these repetitive tests are not reverifyina that once upon 22 O
1 a time situation.
23 MR. MARCll:
They may be verifying only one particular 24 25 part of the once upon a time.
i Heritage Reporting Corporation j
m m-j
Ifi i
181 4
3 MR. MARSil: It may include parts of it, but not l
2 other parts.
3 MR. EBERSOLE:
It's hardly any different from the 4
Salem planning, you know, that the margin of force trad to 5
cover the ignorant--the ignorance factor you're referring to 6
'and that is an'in. built design characteristic that you don't 7
really te$t'except at rare intervals..
8 MR. MICHELSON: Wh'at these te ts should be doing 9
though is tellin,g me that when mv ace ~connonent has reached to the point it needs'to be replaced--
Il MR. EVERSOLE:
There should be some study predictive 12 of--
13 MR. MICHELSON:
But if I don't challenge the con-14 ponent at all, if I don't really load it at all, it may last 15 throughout life, but it doesn't mean that it would be operable i
16 if called upon.
17 How do we get that kind of a test built into our 18 program without first of all understanding and getting built in the head end test that verified that once upon a time it 19 20 did work right.
(
21 MR. EBERSOLE: Not unless you put funnv brakes on the 1
22 valves and they ain't going do it.
.O 23 MR. MICHELSON:
It may require that, I don't know.
I think there certainly some things that we can do better, l,
24 25 for instance, differential pressure testing where we can Heritoge Reporting Corporation j
mem=.
w
Ub
~
$82 s
.c 1
ought to always be a part, even-if we have to put a pump on it 2
and pump it up a ways, it ought to be applied.
We ought to 3
require that sort of th ing.
4' MR. EBERSOLE: It's like testing an airplane wing, 5
for goodness sake, they put them through horrible duress to 6
test them.but subsequently they don't ever test them.
They 7
ride on the margin'they obtained in the original test.
8 MR. MICHELSON: 'And maybe that's acod enough if-we did our head end' testing right.
9 1
30 MR. EBERSOLE:
Well it provided the degredation.
11 MR. MICHELSOM:
But, we shouldn't fit ourselves with 12 these periodic tests thinkina that that proves that everything 13 is still okay because ti doesn't.
l
()
14 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's the PRA logic.
15 MR. MICHELSON:
That's--I don't know who it is.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
You got to do in service testing 17 of the right part.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
And a testing of the right kind on 4
19 the right parts.
t 20 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's right.
t 21 MR. MICHELSON:
And then that's your job to try and f
define the right kinds of tests, but you can't do that with-22
- (:)
some understanding of the head in test that you presumably 23 out 24 are just reverifyino, i
MP. RICHARDSON:
But unless there is some fatal 25 Heritoge Reporting Corporation m.-
L
^
tl4
. ? l,4
~ j 83.
i flaw discovered, I don't think you're ever going to be able 2
to develop a rule or a regulatory authority'and recuire plants 3
to take out valves and essntially cualifying them.
_4 MR. EBERSOLE:
No, I don't think you ought to.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
No, it's--
6 MR. RICHARDSON:
You're dealing with a population of 7
operating plants, you're in such.a condition.
How then you 8
would best devise'the IST procran to give us some assurances 9
given that your baseline testing may not have been what you 10 wanted it to be, what can we, do with'the IST program--
33 MR. MARSH:
You have to reverify it to make sure i
12 it's continuing.
13 MR. RICHARDSON:
--to try to get this confidence, j
(])
1 34 how do you ever get to the level that's ideal?
15 MR. MICHELSON: But it doesn't--I don't sense that's 16 the approach that the code used.
17 MR. MARS!!:
No.
18 MR. RICHARDSON:
No.
[9 MR. MICHELSON:
And I'm not sure I got the feeling 20 today that's the approach you were going to use either, as 21 to figure out how to test these things right insitu.
22 MR. RICHARDSON:
But I think it's beainning throuah O
23 the development of the Red Dog and the rule, there's where we are going to be doing thining along these lines of what is 24 25 missing in the code, what is the code not doing, what is--
Heritage Reporting Corporation
< = > =
($ ) -
1 I^d I'$
1 f.l l
1 MR. MICHELSON: What could you do and would it be 2
worthwhile to do it?
3 MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes, yes, we would'be doing that.
4 MR. MARSH:
I don't think we're going to be able to s
go back re-base line.
6 MR. MICHELSON:
No.
It's going to be a tough job 7
for you because the base line was necessarily--wasn't neces-sarily ever estab'lished.
8 9
MR. RICHARDSON:
That's riaht.
l t
to MR. EBERSOLE: Carl--
Il MR. MCIHELSON:
Now you have got to do some kind of 12 test--for instance, _these HPSI steam lines is a good example, 13 auxilliary feed water steam line, another good example of wher e, l
.(])
if the line breaks down stream of the valve, those valves had 34 P
is better get closed or you're in deep trouble.
In some cases, r
reactor water cleaning is non cuaid, non seismic and so forth 16 1
17 and it depends upon those two isolation valves to block you 17 off or you're in trouble.
J Now what kind of test ought you to do on those two 39 20 isolation valves?
That ought to beyour approach, what all could 21 I do, maybe even with some difficulty, what could I do with l
2 j
22 what I already got because I know darn good and well I better l
k(
23 be assured that those valve close.
I i
24 MR. EBERSOLE:
You could T in a line and open it i
l 25 through the outside discharge.
i Heritoge Reporting Corporation l
t= =
\\
i
) $fy s.)
1 MR. MICHELSON:
You know, you would do a little 2
brain storming and figure out what you could do and then you 3
get back to the real world.
4 MR. MARSH:
We're not going to be able to install 5
big test devices on those things.
6 MR.-EBERSOLE:
No, no, but you could certainly do 7
a one shot test to find out, my God, where was I all these 8
years.
9 MR. MICHELSON: What are you going to do, for instanc e, 1
to to assure that' if somebody does a good test and decides that i
11 a certain torque ratino is recuired, in other words, a cer-12 tain torcue switch adjustment, unfortunately it's only good 13 on that switch.. You change the switch and it's a whole new
()
i 14 game again.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
Right.
l 16 MR. MICHELSON:
But how do you factor those kind of I
17 things into a test progran because you see now you can do 18 certain tests, but you can do other inspections such as is the I
19 torcue switch adjusted properly.
You take the cover off and j
i 20 you look.
t 21 MR. MARSH:
That's part of the inspection oriented i
i 22 effort.
i O
f 5
23 MR. MICHELSON: And is that going to be part of I
24 your thinking?
25 MR MARSH:
If you nean are my procedures goino to Heritoge Reporting Corporation i
n.n u.
il/
E' I
'i I
di j 8(j i
involve looking at toroue switches and how they differ from 2
from plant to plant, I don't know.
3 MR. MICHELSON:
No, no.
Having decided where the-O.
torque switch onght to be, how do I know it's there 5 years 4
5 from now?
l 6
MR. MARSH: It ought to he part of the test.
You 7
mean about the base lining of--
_8 MR. MICHELSON:
We don't generally have tests though 9
that get torque --
10 MR. MARSH:
There are new diagnostics.
11 MR. MICHELSON:
Some of it will--
12 MR. MARSH:
Speed displacements oucht to be able to Q
13 do that.
14 MR. MICHELSON: That's what you're heading for and 15 that would be--
16 MR. MARSH:
Have standards that are endorsing that l
17 good technioue.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
You're talking about tests in this 19 context.
Tests ought to be confirmatory of analysis previous 20 done.
They ought not to be exploratory.
21 MR. MARSH:
True.
22 MR. EBERSOLEt I don't know that we have the 23 analysis to nake whatever tests we do confirmatory.
I remember in a case to the main steam line isolation valves at 24 25 Secuola, where they did relaxation analysis of the valve I
Heritoge Reporting Corporation (383) ut 4000
{ J.
e, 387 I
seats bntil they found out they would crsch up and they put, 2
as I recall, some sort of velocity limiter on the valves'that 3
limited its rate of closure. I don't know the details, but 7%
'the finding was' chat when these valves seated; they would 4
5 damage themselves.
6 MR. MARSH:
The bulletin response 8503-when we asked for how you verified that the horsepower rating is 7
a proper for these valves.
9 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's another thing.
These are,.of go course, feeding into break.
11 MR. MARSH:
Ih some cases, you' will find there was 12 a good analysis to verify horsepower rating.
13 MR. EBERSOLE: In some cases.
{}
14
..MR. MARSH': In some cases.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
Why shouIdn't that be in the ASME 16 Co/.e that this ought to be done.
17 MR. MARSH:
It's more a design reauirement than 18
- anything, MR. EBERSOLE:
Well, of course, but--
g9 20 MR. MARSH:
IT's not a Sec.icn 11 recuirement--
23 MR. EBERSO.si:
No 22 MR. MARSH:
It's a Section 2 requirement.
MR. EBERSOLE: It's a Section 2 requirement--I don't v
23 tnink it's in there.
24 MR. MARSH:
I don't know.
25 Hertfoge Reporting Corporation (342) 626 4444
. =-
188 i
MR. MICHELSON:
Are the. ventilation valves on 2
containment under Section 11 testing?
3 MR. HUANG:
Yes.
h D(N1 4
MR. MICHELSON:. That's a case where--cleaning,-
5 ventilhting'and air conditioning kind of things ~are being 6
brought in under the code, those particular valves.
This 7
is the ventilation system for containment.
8 MR. MARSH:
Okay.
9 MR.' MICHELSON:
Valves on the inlet side and to valves on the outlet side.
11 MR. MARSH:
Those are part of the program.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
Those are, so those are air handlinc
('T 13 valves that are part of'the procram.
V 14 MR. MARSH:
Right.
4 15 MR'. HUANG: They're'not under'Section 3.
16 MR.'MICHELSON: They're not under Section 3.
17 MR. HUANG:
They're under Section 11.
18 MR. MICHELSON: But Section 11 doesn't tell me'about 19 the adjustment of the air bleed rates, for instance to get 20 the proper closing rate on the butterfly valve which cenerally 21 these are butterfly valves and they go up to 6 inches and 22 some of them are very large and kept partially open during 7s
'O normal operation and have to close under accident conditions, 23 we have never put these in a wind tunnel under accident con-24 ditions to see if those valves would even close.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
<an.a
,'in lr j8Q g.
MR. MARSH:
It's a dynamic complication.
2 MR. MICHELSON:
But at any rate, how do you know 3
'what is permissible in terms of closure rates and so forth, p~(
4 -
are those described in a tech spec?
5 MR. HUANG:
We limit it to the 50 percent open 6
300--
7 MR. MICHLESON: No, no, but closure rate is also--
8 ycu bust the valve--
9 MR. HUANG:
There's a-specific aualification 10 specifically for those valves.
MR. MICHELSON:I know, but unfortunately EG&G, a 11 12 couple of years ago did some real good research on those i3 va ves ana a e cut with some different conclusions about O
whether air motion is aiding or abetting the closure of the 14 15 valves..Intsome cases it's'aidina which m-ans they'll close 16 too fast unless you have got Jsome other provisions, so what
~
is a--how are these things tested.
17 18 MR. MARSH:
I've act purge valves, safety valves, relief valves, MOVs, check valves, I cot pumps, I got 19 20 piping systems, you name it and I've got it.
21 MR. MICHELSON:
They're all being covered though 22 by this same--
MR. MARS!!:
It's a real touch situation.
We try 23 to make sure they are all there.
24 l
MR. RICIIAR7 SON :
And as we get into this develop-25 l
of the Reg Guide, you will be and are communicating with ment l
Heritage Reporting Corporation can u..
d i x ia 100 i
research but they are~ going-to require an occasionally, a 2
tactical pulse shaking' proc. ram and you have cited a couple 3-of tests that have done that and there are tests goingon in
~
4 Germany at the NHBR facility.
5 MR. MICHELSON:
On what kind of valves?
6 MR. MARSH: 'Are the7 qualified under the--
7 MR. MICHELSON: This is an environmental qualifica-8 tion.
9 MR. MARSH:
No, no, this is eculpment aualifica-10 tion question, not environmental.
11 MR. MICHELSON:
Okay.
You mean they are functioning j
12 under dynamic load?
(~
13 MR. MARSH:
Under dynamic conditions.
b}
g4 MR. htICHELSON:
We need-to talk to Carlotto, I guess 15 and see what all is going on in containment valves.
16 MR. RICHARDSON:
We certainly need to continue our 17 communication with them.
18 MR. MICHELSON:
Because that could effect what kind 19 of requirement you may have.
20 MR. RICHARDSON:
Absolutely.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
As ACRS, how can we support you best 22 in this effort of yours which, I think, is overdue.
O,s 23 MR. MARSH:
I think, to support it actively by recommending to the full committee or by telling the full 24 25 committee that you heard from the staff and it sounds like Heritage Reporting Corporation (2e2) 6264000
h 291 I
there's a lot of areas-that they're working on and it's good 2
stuff they're doing and they need to think about some of the 3
basic' approaches, but we would like to hear more from them,
.,-~.
kl 4
we think the industry could do more as well and we would like 5
to hear from INPO what their check valve' things are, IST is a-6 broad area, it's one area for improvement and we want eaual 7
emphasis from the industry as well as from the NRC staff.
8 MR. RICHARDSON:
And look at the research program.
9 MR. MICHELSON: When do you think you're going to have 10 more for us to see, maybe 6 months?
l 11 MR. MARSH: I don't think it's that fare away.
12 MR. MICHELSON:
You don't?
()
13 MR. MARSH:
No, I don't think it's that far awat.
14 I think a couple of months and we can--the commission is 15 supposed to be prepared in the.next 3 months.
16 MR. EBERSOLE: Tomorrow, we're going to be talking 17 about advanced reactors. 'Can youithink of anything alona 18 this line we could present?
19 MR.. MARSH: No. I don't think they would want to 20 worry about it next--
21 MR. EBERSOIE:
We can certainly say something about c
22 what will be demanded of of valve characteristics.
23 MR. MARSH:
They need to be designed so that all I
24 the systems can be adequately tested.
25 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's right.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
< => un
. ~
i
.l T D
.j QQ I
l MR. RICHARDSON:
And a good qualification test-that 2
does represent--
3 MR. EBERSOLE: 'The nearest conditions.
s 4
MR..WYLIE: I think what you said is very important.
5' As you well know, a lot of the problems.with in service test-6 ing.is that'they weren't designed.with in service testing in 7
mind.
8 MR. MARSH:
Right.
9 MR. WYLIE:
And the other thing is that~we-propose.
go an N plus 2 so you can take out any train that.you want to and
~
11 test l'
and you have jeopardized. safety system.
I think' 12 that oughe to be a must on future. systems.
13 MR EBERSOLE:
Is there anything else?
()
34 (No esponse) 15 MR. EBERSOLE: That will conclude the subcommittee 16 meeting.
(Fhereupon the open session of the subcommitted 17 meeting was adjourned-at 4:48,p.m., January 5, 18 1978-19 20 21 l( )
23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (N2) 4M-4004
i REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2
4 3
DOCKET NUMBER:-
4 CASE TITLE:
REACTOR OPERATIONS (Open Session)
\\'
5 HEARING DATE:
Tuesday, Jajuary 5, 1988 6
LOCATION:
Washington, D.
C.
%8 7
m V
8 I hereby certify that:the proceedings and evidence 6
8' 9
herein are contained and accurately on the tapes and notes G!
10 reported by me at the hearing in the above case before N
11 5
z 12 and that this is a true and correct transcript of the case.
J
()
13 Date:
January 6, 1988 34 15
^ ~ nO
. Air - up 5
16 Official Reporter ACME REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
g g7 1220 L Street, N.
W.
y Washington, D.
C.
20005 W
18 19 20 l
21 l
l C) 22 23 l
l Acme Reporting Company i
i
'