ML20149F797

Discusses Evaluation of motor-operated Valves,Including Overall Industry Effort to Respond to EDO Request to NUMARC Consisting of Recommendations in AEOD Rept C603.Findings, Conclusions &/Or Recommendations Will Be Provided

ML20149F797
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	02/11/1988
From:	Ellen Brown NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
To:	Rosenthal J NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
References
NUDOCS 8802170367
Download: ML20149F797 (3)

Text

s-4 E(p2 Mcoq),

UNITED L 7ATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,

(

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\.,,,/

FEB 11 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Jack E. Posenthal, Chief Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Division of Safety Programs, AE00 FROM:

Earl J. Brown Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Division of Safety Programs, AE0D

SUBJECT:

OBSERVER WITH THE INPO MOTOR OPERATED VALVE EVALUATION AT CLINTON POWER STATION In December 1986, the ED0 requested that NUMARC take the industry initiative to address motor operated valve (MOV) performance and reliability problems. This industry program is coordinated by NUMARC with technical effort conducted by INP0 and the EPRI Nuclear Maintenance Center (NMAC). One portion of the INP0 program was to provide increased emphasis of MOVs during INP0 Plant Evaluation and Assistance visits. The purpose for my participation in the INP0 Evaluation at Clinton Power Station was to observe the INPO evaluation process within the context of the overall industry effort to respond to the ED0 rc. quest to NUMARC which included the recommendations in AE00 report C603.

The M0V portion of the INP0 evaluation at Clinton Power Station was conducted on January 20, 21, and 22,1988. The evaluation included an approximate 30 minute INPO debriefing with cognizant Clinton Power Staff which I attended.

In addition, the INP0 team usually has a meeting each day for a group discussion of observations in the various areas (Operations, Maintenance, etc.) that the l

team is evaluating.

I attended the team meeting on Thursday, January 21, 1988.

The INP0 MOV evaluation was conducted by one INPO staff member.

I accompanied him during all discussions for the.three days at Clinton. This process also involved our cwn discussions concerning observations, perceptions, technical issues, or other subject areas that were pertinent for review with the staff.

The initial MOV effort was attendance at a short meeting between Clinton Power Station Staff and a vendor concerning possible approaches and equipment to use for trending plant MOV performance. This meeting also served as an introduction to many of the individuals we would meet for. subsequent interviews.

l The primary mode of investigation was an interview with one or more people who l

had a specific area of M0V responsibility.

Discussions with plant staff (all l

levels) addressed several different areas including M0V reliability, design, signature trace evaluation, spare parts, use of operating experience, elec-I trical maintenance, maintenance programs, and maintenance work planning. We had planned to observe maintenance work on an MOV but the necessary preparation l

(maintenance work request and tags) was not completed for the shifts we were 8902170367 880211 PDR ADOCK 05000464 p

PDR

'e e'

Jack'E. Rosenthal. available. _ In addition, the INPO evaluator requested copies of maintenance

^

work requests for his review. Although there was not enough time to observe.

MOV training classes, we discussed this issue with other INP0 staff who had observed a training class. When discussions involved specific MOV issues of events with possible interest or application to Clinton, information was provided to the Clinton staff in terms of a reference document or a personal contact at another plant for further investigation or followup.

This three day portion of the INP0 Evaluation was essentially the infomation gathering chase. The findings, conclusions, or recomendations are prepared separately after completion of the two week INP0 Team visit to the site.

2dJ Bn Earl J. Brown Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Division of Safety Programs, AE00 cc:

G. Peterson, INP0 J. Tills, INP0 Distribution:

$0CSA l

PDR ROAB R/F EJordan CHeltemes JPartlow, NRR TNovak VBenaroya JRosenthal l

MChiramal EBrown JJohnson, ED0 l

• SEE PREVIOUS C0iiCURREfiCES

• R0AB:DSP: AE00

• ROAB:DSP:AE0D ROAB:DSP:A i

EBrown:md MChiramal JRosenthal i

2/ /08 2/ /88 2/ll/88 l

...m

1 Jack E. Rosenthal available.

In addition, the INP0 evaluator requested copies of maintenance work requests for his review. Although there was not enough time to observe MOV training classes, we discussed this issue with other INP0 staff who had observed a training class. When discussions involved specific MOV issues of events with possible interest or application to Clinton, information was provided to the Clinton staff in terms of a reference document or a personal contact at another plant for further investigation or followup.

This three day portion of the INP0 Evaluation was essentially the information gathering phase. The findings, conclusions, or recomendations are prepared separately after completion of the two week INP0 Team visit to the site.

Earl J. Brown Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Division of Safety Programs, AE0D cc:

G. Peterson, INP0 J._ Tills, INP0 r_PDR )

Distribution:

\\a CS D

4 GWidenhammer, REC R0AB R/F qM JJohnson, EDO TNovak

/

CHeltemes VBenaroya EJordan JRosenthal

< LRSpessard, DOA MChiramal e CRossi, NRR EBrown x LShao, NRR e CBerlinger, NRR

1. 1 JPartlow, NRR s RKiessel, NRR i x JRoe, NRR y LMarsh, NRR y GArlotto, RES x TSullivan, NRR

- AMasciantonio, NRR

< JStone, NRR UPotapovs, NRR s

JJacobson, NPR x

RBosnak, RES x

< RBaer, RES x FCherny, RES ORothberg, RES X

MVagins, RES x

^

WFarmer, RES 8 JVora, RES ROAB:DSP:AE0D ROAB:DSP:AE0D R0AB:DSP:AE0D CfEBrown:md MChiramal Q JRosenthal 2/g/88 2/g/88 2/ /88