ML20151R009
| ML20151R009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/02/1988 |
| From: | Kiessel R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Berlinger C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808120021 | |
| Download: ML20151R009 (5) | |
Text
$ e
/
- UNITED STATES
['
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- .p
\ .* /%*
AUG 2 1988 MEMORANDlM FOR: Carl H. Berlinger, Chief Generic Comunications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Richard J. Kiessel, Senior Reactor Engineer (Nuclear)
Generic Comunications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT - JUNE 21 & 22, 1988, M0 VATS USERS GROUP MEETING This was the first meeting of the users group. The purpose of the users group is to assist the industry in addressing generic regulatory and industry initi-ated issues related to motor-operated valves and check valves. Since this effort is aimed at the plant maintenance level, I do not believe that it conflicts with, or duplicates, the other industry activities. Rather it enhances them my making sure that the people actually working on the valves are kept abreast of the latest issues and developments.
Because of my background with the agency's activities associated with Bulletin 85-03, "Motor-Operated Valve Comon Mode Failures During Plant Transients Due to Improper Switch Settings," I was asked to attend the meeting for the purpose of discussing (1) the status of the final responses to the bulletin, (2) the recently issued supplement, and (3) the staff's proposed generic letter to extend the bulletin to include the valves in all safety related system!.. The discussion during and following my presentation brought out the following points which fell into three broad categories:
- a. Those which I am in general agreement with are:
- 1. They recomended that a draft of the generic letter be forwarded to the industry, including the users group, for coment prior to issu-ance. They noted that this had been done with the bulletin and that delay in issuance could be minimized by requiring a timely response by the industry.
\
CONTACT: Richard J. Kiessel, NRR pI I
492-1154 8808120021 8808o2 p FF*3 PDR ORG NRRB d i i PDC g
1 AUG 2 1988 ;
l
- Carl H. Berlinger i
- 2. Refueling outages which begin within the first few months following issuance of the generic letter probably can not be used to perform meaningful valve adjustment and testing because of the lack of time to perform the required pretest engineering.
Therefore, they recommended that refueling outages which begin within the first three or four months following issuance of the generic letter not be considered in determining the time limit for completion of the generic letter activities.
- 3. The shear number of valves involved in the generic letter activities (150 to'250 per plant -- approximately a ten fold increase over the number addressed in the bulletin) makes it highly unlikely that they can all be completed within the two refueling outage time limit.
Therefore, they recomended extending the time limit for completion of the generic letter activities by at least one refueling outage.
To ensure that steady progress is made toward completion of the generic letter activities, they also recommended having the initial response contain. target figures for completion during each refueling outage and the addition of a requirement to submit status reports following each refueling outage.
- b. Those which I have no particular position on, but which I indicated I would address to the person responsible for developing the generic letter:
- 1. The systems for performing routine and post-maintenance testing of motor operators are not developed sufficiently to permit reliable and easy trendir.g of the motor operator's characteristics. Thus, the only reliable method is to perform the time consuming full signature analysis of the motor operator.
Therefore, they recomended delaying the implementation of the routine and post-naintenance testing portions of the generic letter (action item d.) until simpler systems have been developed and fully tested.
- 2. As a result of their activities on the generic letter, the licensees will have developed a great deal of information on their particular motor-operated valve assemblies. However, this will not help the industry, as a whole, as the information will only be available at each licensee.
Therefore, they recommended requiring the licensees to include information on the problems uncovered by their generic letter activi-ties. This information could then be consolidated by NRC and pub-lished in the generic letter closecut NUREG.
- c. Those which I generally do not agree with, but which I indicated I would address to the person responsible for developing the generic letter:
t
AUG 2 1988
. l Carl H. Berlinger 1. They noted that the large number of valves included in the generic letter required a systematic approach and guidance as to which valves should be completed first and which could be deferred to the end of the program.
Therefore, they recommended that the systems should be prioritized in the generic letter to ensure that those in the systems with the greatest safety significance would be addressed first.
I noted that the concept of system prioritization on a safety basis was highly complex and plant specific and that we would probably not do this for the generic letter. However, I indicated that we would have no objections to the licensees, either singularly or by owners group, doing such a prioritization.
- 2. They noted that there is a great deal of controversy with respect to exactly how the valve and, in particular, the switches on the motor operators should be set. For instance, during how much of the valve's stroke should the torque switch be bypassed? Or, what thermal overload should be used?
Therefore, they recommended that the generic letter be more prescrip-tive in defining exactly how the valve and motor operator should be set.
I noted that it was this lack of industry agreement and the highly plant-specific nature of the problem that would prevent us from being more prescriptive. I also noted that it is our general policy to define basic safety goals and not to be prescriptive in our bulletins and generic letters
- 3. In continuing with the general concept of being more prescriptive in the generic letter, they recommended that the requirements be phased in as industry agreement is nbtained on more prescriptive criteria.
I noted that I doubted that industry agreement could be obtained on any but the most trivial of issues and that such an action would, in rcality, simply delay any meaningful actions.
I have discussed these issues, in general, with the person developing the generic letter and intend to raise them, formally, when NRR is given the opportunity to comment on the generic letter.
During the organizational portion of the meeting, which was the real purpose of the meeting, it was decided that there should be three to four meetings per year. In addition, the need for the establishment of'the following committees was identified: a steering committee consisting of the chairman, vice chaiman, program director (from M0 VATS) and the individual committee chairmen; a com-mittee on regulatory / industry issues; a comittee on operations and testing
, AUG 2 1988 [
Carl H. Berlinger with likely subcommittees on thrust calculations, spring pack gap, and hydrau-lic lockup; and a committee on maintenance. The final structure will be worked out over the next several meetings.
[ s\
l Richard J. ,iessel, Senior Reactor
! Engineer (Nuclear)
Generic Comunications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION JHSniezek, NRR TTMartin, NRR CERossi, NRR CHBerlinger, NRR RJKiessel, NRR WDLanning, NRR EJSullvian, Jr. , NRR JMTaylor, E00 EJBrown, AE00 00Rothberg, RES PDR Central' Files ' "
DCS' DOEA R/F 0GCB R/F RKiessel P,/F i
l
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES g)
- 0GCB:00EA:NRR C/0G B:DOEA:NRR RJKiessel CHBerlinger 07/14/88 of/0//88
-h.
s Carl H. Berlinger subcommittees on thrust calculations, spring pack gap, and hydraulic lockup; and a committee on maintenance. The final structure will be worked out over the next several meetings.
Richard J. Kiessel, Senior Reactor
. Engineer (Nuclear)
Generic Communications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION JHSniezek, NRR TTMartin, NRR CERossi, NRR CHBerlinger, NRR RJKiessel, NRR WDLanning, NRR EJSullvian, Jr. , NRR JMTaylor, ED0 EJBrown, AE0D 00Rothberg, RES PDR Central Files DCS D0EA R/F 0GCB R/F
'RKiessel R/F I
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES l *0GCB: D0EA: C/0GCB:D0EA:NRR RJKiessel CHBerlinger l 07/14/88 07/ /88 L i