ML20236E389
| ML20236E389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/28/1989 |
| From: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904170147 | |
| Download: ML20236E389 (50) | |
Text
1 p* "%,k h1buj o
y4) ;)
UNITED STATES n
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 g
g{
\\ef March 28, 1989 4
}
I MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman f
Comittee to Review Generic Requirements
[
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 158 The Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Wednesday, February 22, 1989 from 12:00-6:00 p.m.
A list of attendees for this metting is attached (Enclosure 1 ).
The following items were addressed at the meeting:
1.
R. Rcbinson (RES) and C. Johnson (RES) briefed the Comittee on the PETS 1
program (procedures for evaluating technical specifications) which is used to estimate the risks associated with proposed tech spec changes.
The briefing provided the staff's analysis of possible cumulative effects of multiple relaxations of plant technical specifications on equipment surveillance intervals and allowable outage times (consistent with the objective of reducing on-line testing). The Connittee cnmended the staff cn the quality of the briefing and the close coordination apparent among the various cognizant staff in assessing this issue, and further stated that the staff's method for tracking the cumulative effects of the tech spec improvement program appeared satisfactory.
A copy of the briefing slides used by the staff is included as Enclosure 2.
In addition, the Cummittee considered topical report WCAP-10271, Supplement 2, " Evaluation of Surveillance Frequencies and Out of Service Times for the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System," ano determined that the staff's approval was adequate and additional CRGR review was not needed.
2.
W. Minners (RES) and F. Cherny (RES) presentco for CRGR review a proposed generic letter on replacement of components constructed to ASME Section Ill requirements. The Comittee recommended in favor of issuing the proposed ger.eric letter, subject to several modifications which are to be coordinated with the CRGR staff. This matter is discussed in.
3.
R. Baer (RES) and O. Rothberg (RES) presented fer CRGR review a proposed generic letter on periodic testing and surveillance of safety-related motor-operated valves. The Committee recomended in favor of issuing the proposed generic letter, subject te several modifications which are to be coordinated with the CRGR staff. This matter is discussed in Enclosure 4.
Q M y l
om u>
i mpww>p Je r 4
r M C HLE C B T S CDPV
.J c
,2-In accordance with the ED0's' July 18, 1983 directive concerning " Feedback and Closure on' CRGR' Reviews," a written response is required from the cognizant office to report agreement or disagreement with the CRGR recommendations in'
-these minutes. The response, which is required within five working days after.
receipt of these minutes, is to be forwarded.to the CRGR Chairman and if there is disagreement with CRGR recommendations, to the ED0 for decisionmaking.
Questions concerning these meeting minutes should be referred to Jim Conran
-(492-9855).
Original SigneId BW B Q 3 miles Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Commissica(5)
SECY Office Directors Regional ' Administrators CRGR Members
. Distribution: w/o enclosures Central File PDR (NRC/CRGR).
E. Rossi R. Robinson C. Johnson-W. Minners F. Cherny..
R. Baer
- 0. Rothberg i
S. Treby W.'Little M. Lesar P. Kadambi (w/ enc.)
CRGRCF(w/ enc.)
.CRGR SF (w/ enc.)
M. Taylor (w/ enc.)
E. Jordan (w/ enc.)
l J. Heltemes (w/ enc.)
)
J. Conran (w/ enc.)
0.uSakenase(w/ enc.)
)
?
(A 0FC
- AEOD:CRGR : AEOD:DD
- C/
5.E00 :
NAME :
- cg : CJHeltemes : {J cdon DATE : 3/etf89
- 3/ /69 3/Jf89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Y.
[
ATTENDANCE LIST 4
FOR CRGR MEETING NO. 158 CRGR Members E. Jordan J Goldberg G. Arlotto (for D. Ross)
J. Sniezek R. Bernero
)
NRC Staff I
J. Heltemes J. Conran C. Sakenas 4
R. Emch M. Wohl C. E. Rossi C. E. Johnson R. Robinson 1
R. Baer W. Minners R. Bosnak' F. Cherny R. Kirkwood R. Pettis
- 0. Rothberg S. Ho R. Kiessel E. Brown Contractor W. Vesely, SAIC i
's ENCt034ME 2-o l
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (PETS)
- l s
tn N
e s
O m
c s
h e
IT m
s p
A S
i l
a p
T r
N g
m h
o o
c r
c e
E T
P c
S A
1 E
c R
e d
O p
n P
S a
NA F
h m
c a
o O
e r
t T
g n
S o
o r
r i
C o
P t
f a
I c
P s
S i
i l
O s
T p
a E
p T
B P
A Illl
S M
e A
v i
R d
y t
in n
t G
a e
u f
p O
e a
R S
v s
y i
l T
i t
l r
P c
a a
S f
n ir oT t
o S
s s
i sr t
e
)
I T
no e
a c
T r
r of e
S t s y
e i
)
n R
T (s p
l ai n
i c s r
o Ol O
a a
s u
i Aa F
pb s
m st l
t v
)
n S(
l s
e o t
r S
u ml e
r n
Tse A
a c
S c
c mf ei et i
(
yi e
e n mf Nmi f
n I
t n Sn o
ei s
r S
f c I
i i
eh Nn ui rd N
. s n
t t t
A t
i Ru qn uS Re ese a e B
4st Es nr t e e qT Egt eim 2 -
t a
e Ct ega 0nn Ct e t
nt s as o
r 1 oo Nesu e o. t Nucet a
/
Oontat Gnn O m i o gi ws a
s t
r r nni r s Eee Ceniiv o e Cdl l
t r
g ei s n Rcc Yiomtr id e
t n Fw o
t uc ue c ua Oor vt Unn Rqnl v i
st Noo Teioi ahh u e c l
l cc Sr vd sc Sast a T
A S*
U*
e a E*
=
- e O
D P
N RA I
S m
E a
r I
g T
o s
d I
r V
p o
h IT S
t T
e C
E m
)n A
P y
a l
t p
T S
i l
N T
i b
P I
E g
a S
i n
t T
l M
n e
i
(
v e
r E
o t
m n
r V
p e
e r
k O
m m
s iu i
e i
R r
q r
v P
o e
e o
f r
z r
M p
i y
I l
T mSls i
g I
t o
S u
Ta i
S
/
t o
T o
m l
t C
rdi t
d O
e m
r E
o a
A s
t P
h n
d b t
f o
gn u S
e o
S na s i
T m
t H
'n n
a ot sS l
d o
d T
n d o o
C e
Ft e
nt f i
n s
a a
o E
4r a
Ac m
n I
T 2e b
f o
i iw m
Bt 0c Yi Po r se 1 n Sk d
c Soii Ro I
vv
/o Es Tm Se Th Gc Rr S
Tr Osr ee i
E*
r
/
R C*
U*
R*
R*
U R
D R
R N
N N
N N
I l
l l
PETS OBJECTIVE DEVELOD/ DEMONSTRATE METHODOLOGIES THAT UTILIZE RISK / RELIABILITY TECHNIQUES TO EVALUATE SCOPE, DETAILED REQUIREMENTS, AND SAFETY IMPACT OF PLANT TS.
PETS G0AL DEVELOP PROCEDURES / TOOLS THAT PROVIDE A QUANTITATIVE BASIS / STRATEGY FOR MAKING JUDGMENTS IN REVISING TS e
AND IN RESPONDING TO LICENSEE SUBMITTALS.
l l
f
d e
s s
a iT b
S k
s s
y i
T r
r O
g o
E A
n
)
t 1
a P
i l
r y
m S
u O
o g
r g
o o
B e
f C
l f
r y
o r
S g
d e
r o
o p
6s o
l t
f o
h 5n r
t d
o e
s M
e A
h m
Bm m
o f
s e
a l
t s
f e
Gr r
R e
g m
o d
s u
o i
(
G m
i e
n u
e sqs r
O b
d o
g d
eet p
l R
o e
u ur n i
i e
d t
l r
s a
a g
s e P
P a
r c
s m
n m
a i
b w
t e
i s
n i
d n
k n
h e
ct r S
s i
- i r
u i
l T
a s
o c
v e
o m
e e
eg q t
r n a e o
i E
's r
t e
et r P
e f
n f
f f
u o
d o
o Gug o o s
o n i
t t
f t
t i
s t
n n
n oet a
e n
e e
v s nt i
nie en fo m
o mis m
o a me t t i
t pm p
a ps p
i l
l w
o c
oy o
a t
ue oe ums l
e l
l l
l l
ea e
i e
e ep l
iv vS p
vn v
a vm l
ui e
e p
ea e
v cd A
ei R
D A
D D
E -
D I
no i
t d
ac e
i n
l w
p o o
pi t
n A
a l
S lA u
T t
o l
S a
i N
s n
d t
E T
s a
n a
T v
i E
l M
S n P a
1 c
r if o
t o
'e g
f n
/
i H
s d
i T
s n
t e
o y
e a
n S
t e
Mi d
m O
i n
r t
t i
I Ad s
e s
i L
l e
o e
mT b
C P
r t
I i
i T
a u
n d
h s
n l
n e
e e
S c
r q o l
t t
i i
e O
WC mt v
/
o a
i l
e T
p t
t C
S i
e S pT O
p u R a
t
)
r p
u N d C
wi n
a O AA t
l A
O e
u ms a
I t
e q od C r
s e
v oT E T
a Ai v e iA A o
s i
t c
e R c
(
f e
C M
C oR A
s e
e s
e T l
s C
s O I
A U
's s
s T
e m
d I
A T
e C f
P
&S od r
i i
u ND A i
R P A
,/
T G
o T
d G
A s
A s O wA r
r t
e n
y R
o o
O n
o Aie g
a gi F f f oi v
o a
R r
i t
f t
t o
s e
t e
e ol P
Y a
o u
l od u
t oi t
u R
y G b t
n o
o gO d
r ST Oi la c d o
e oC oTC r
t v
a e
L h
l l
E n E p s o
v S
a t
d r
i P
O o
t E
e c
a e
e i
a d mB ola N Me t
t D C s
c s
u i r I
i I
f a
p E
O e
h u
L k
u k k t
H s
s s
s e
m E k m
S d B i
m S
T R s R R M u
D u
L oC o
R s
i i i iR N OMP C U
E C
I IU M
G O
CO T
=
9..
e..
'I h
CALCULATION OF CONDITIONAL A0T RISK USE OF PRA SYSTEM, FUNCTION MODELS ASSUME MAINTAINED COMPONENT UNAVAILABILITY EQUAL
-1 MODIFY PRA-MODEL TO INCORPORATE THE IMPACT OF SYST RECONFIGURATION IDENTIFY COMPONENTS RECONFIGURE DURING MAINTENANCE
{
MODIFY THEIR FAILUJE MODES-1
' IDENTIFY AFFECTED HliMAN ERRORS 4
MODIFY-MODELS TO INCLUDE OR. EXCLUDE !!UMAN ERRORS DBTAIN MINIMAL CUT SETS' FOR RECONFIGURE STATE DURING l
MAINTENANCE i
CALCUl. ATE THE INCREASED SYSTEM, FUNCTION. UNAVAllA-BILITY, ACCIDENT SEQUENCE FREQUENCY DURING THE A0T 1
CONDITIONAL-RISK AT SEQUENCE LEVEL DURING A0T
= (INCREASED SEQUENCE FREQUENCY)x(A0T)
{
1 i
)
m_____.
i RV018 4
RV049, HV080 RV015, IIV0 35, HV026 l
-6 RV012, RV013, RV060 10 8
RV008, RV045, RVil2 1
I HV105, HV072 RV001, RV014 l
M HV005 r
1
\\
9 3
j 4
-l m
~
a 10
~
%w Yw
%oU P<
M i
w s
N
~8 "
10 E
N HV010 H
HV019 y
RV029, RV031, RV042 CSTV 124, CS7V'~125 I
o
=
RV030, RV010, AOT = 14 DAYS U
-9, RV009 10 T= 1 YEAR RV011 HVil3 HVlll HVll2 RISK IMPAdi OF PRESET AO AT CORE-MELT LEVEL
p a-F.
t NUMERICAL' GUIDELINE FOR to 10-2
^
INCREASINGLY 10-3 UNACCEPTABLE 10-4 ADDITIONAL RELIABILITY-
)
10-5 BORDERLINE ASSURANCE ACTIONS ARE NECESSARY 10-6 10 INCREASINGLY MTABE 10-8 v
i 3
-l 1
=
i
l
-6 0
x 365_
AOT - (DAYS)
=
INCREASE IN CUMULATIVE CORE-MELT FREQUENCY 1
I l
1 RV009, 010, 029, 031 4
'HV010, 041, 042, 045 019, 004 3
CSTV 124 125 10 i
i l
10 - -
1
_n
.53 RV001 3
g HV105 0
RV008, 045, 112, 012 EV012, 013 10 - -
1 I
HPCI PUMP I
i RCIC PCMP 1--
l t
AOT BASED ON A CORE-MELT LEVEL CRITERIA USING CUMULh2IVE RISK l
1 l
l 1
1 h
b
q.
~
~
=
S
~
T
~
u H
T I
m W
m DE T
A f
o IC s
w O
r I
S e
d
=
S r
w o
A) 8 S T e
v E
K N i
1 7
f m
S A
'w E
r u
L s
e o
1 IR P v
~
l iT o
e w
D1 S
b5 o
y l
n E
sE e
=
T O 5
r 8
a n1 b
v o
=
CN 1
ie t
t i
EA d
s v
f u
P(
n n
o e
b a
o ib n
x X
i r a e
t t
s u
b E
T nk b
F O
os k
i ir ci s5 A
r t
i-O-
~
n eT rE 0
o v
c aO e1 T
1 N
hA ve 1
av k
E s
se h o fo M
Tl b
ir g
s n
e On Ta S
o d
Ai Se d
S e
s i
u v
t t
f f
E a
ci of o a t
S u
en o
h S
a pg u
l v
xa 0
3 A
x 0
4 E
Em 8
5 1
1 a
a
~-
~
i;' '
i I
E.
50 CAT.I 10-5 t o 10~ #
C AT. 2 10 to 10 40
~7 C AT. 3 10 to 10~ 6 33 #*
C AT. 4 10- 8 to 10~ 7 E
-8 29 */.
30
/
f CAT.5 less than 10 i
20
$ h h 2 h~
0 CAT.i C AT. 2 C AT.3 CAT.4 C AT.5 SINGLE A0T RISK IMPACT Single A0T risk impact for ANO-1 maintainable components l
?>0
-5 CAT.I 10 to 10~ #
-6
~0 C AT. 2 10 to 10 g 40 C AT. 3 10- 7 to 10 37 *#*
-8 C AT 4 10 to 10~ 7
-8 30 C AT. 5 10~' t o 10- 8
~
27 '/.
[
CAT.6 less than 10~'
20
]
/
[/
g 5
/
15 9.
e u 2v.
/
[7? /
E lo 9 */.
{
O C AT.1 CAT.2 CAT.3 C AT.4 CAT.5 CAT.6 YEARLY AOT RISK IMPACT j
Yearly A0T risk impact of ANO-1 maintainable components
50 C AT.1 10~ 0 t o 10~ 4 40 C AT. 2 10 t o 10- 0
-6
~7
-6 C AT. 3 10 to 10 3
CAT. 4 10- e t o 10- 7
-0 29*/.
30 CAT.5 tess then 10 21 %
20 w
10 %
/
CAT.I C AT. 2 C AT. 3 C AT.4 CAT.5 SINGLE A0T RISK IMPACT Single A0T risk impact for ANO-1 maintainable components 5c' CAT.i10-5 to10-4 c AT. 2 10- 6 to 10- 5 40 C AT. 3 10- 7 to 10-6 j
m C AT. 4 10- 0 tolO"7 j
-8 CAT.5 fess than 10 2 8 '/.
r V
o
)
f[
'-j' 20 %
20 %
/
7 73
/,
/
10--
I o
CAT.I CAT. 2 C AT. 3 C AT. 4 CAT.5 J
SINGLE AOT RISK IMPACT l
Single A01 risk impact for a factor of two increase in A0Ts of components with yearly A0T risk impact belcw 10 7.
l l
1 l
{
MAINTAINABLE COMPONENTS 50
-5
-4 CAT,I 10 to 10
[293
~6
~
C AT. 2 10 to 10 (29) 40
-7
-e 37 %
l N
C AT. 3 10 to IO (25) y//
i
_0
_7 z
CAT.4 10 to 10 o
(31)
/
1 g 30 C AT. 5 10~ 9 to 10-8 27*/o i
CAT.6 less ihan 10 '
~
[1g]
[
(19)
E193 20
/'
/
g (13)
/
15 %
/
g 12 %
/f 10 9 /*
l
/
9 f
/
V f
\\
0%
/
O C AT. I C AT.2 C AT.3 C AT.4 CAT.5 CAT.6 AOT RISK IMPACT
()
CHANGE WITH A FACTOR OF TWO INCREASE IN THE A0TS OF COMPONENTS WITH RISK IMPACT BELOW 10-8
[. }
CHANGE'WITH A FACTOR OF TWO INCREASE IN THE A0TS OF l
COMPONENTS WITH RISK IMPACT BELOW 10'7 1
I i
l u_
__i
50 i
-0 CAT.I 10 to 10"#
C AT. 2 10 to 10~0 40 CAT. 3 10 to 10~6
~7 C AT.4 10 ~ 8 to 10
~7 y,
H
[ 30 CAT.5 less than 10-0 e
o w
h 20 3 9 /*
I' 18 */.
' l 4 */.
15 %
W 10
/
9
/
CAT.I CAT. 2 CAT. 3 C AT. 4 C AT. 5 SURVEILLANCE TEST RISK IMPACT l
Risk Impact of ANO-1 Surveillance Test Requirements 50 CAT.1 10 to 10'#
k
-5 4
40 C AT. 2 10 to 10 C AT. 3 10-7 te10-6 35 %
C, C AT. 4 10- a to 10-7 u
" 30 CAT. 5 less than 10-0 ci t-2 2 */.
' 20 E
15 %
15 %
g 4.f, 10 I
O CAT.I C AT. 2 C AT. 3 CAT.4 C AT.5 SURVEILLANCE TEST RISK IMPACT Change in risk impact of sur"eillance test requirements with a factor of two crease in the STIs of tests with risk impact below 10-'
90
-8
~4 CAT. I 10 to 10 4
4-40 C AT. 2 10 to 10 C AT. 3 10- 7 to 10-6 35 %
i C AT. 4 10- 8 to 10~7 30 C AT. 5 less than 10-8 a
/
t-22 %
9
,/
/
F 20 15 %
15 %
, 4.f, CAT.I C AT.2 C AT. 3 CAT.4 CAT.5 SURVEILLANCE TEST RISK IMPACT Change in risk impact of surveillance test requirements l
withafactoroftwojncreaseintheSTisoftests_with risk impact below 10-50 C AT. ! 10- 5 to 10-4
~8
-5 4g C AT. 2 50 to 10 C AT. 3 10- 7 to 10~8 g
CAT. 4 10- 6 'o 10-7 h30 CAT. 5 less than 10~8 b
2 4 */.
23 %
20 C AT.1 C AY. 2 C AT. 3 CAT 4 C AT. 5 SURVEILLANCE TEST RISK IMPACT Change in risk impact of surveillance test requi remen t s with a factor of four increase in the STIs of tests oith risk impact below 10 7 i
l i
v RISK IMPACT OF ANO -I SURVEILLANCE TEST REQUIREMENTS 50
~0
~#
CAT.I10 to 10
~8
-5 C AT. 2 10 to 10 40 C AT. 3 10 to lo-e
[251
~7
-7 5 '/.
C AT.4 10- 8 to 10 m
H CAT.5 less thon 10-8 H 30
[231.
[241 u.
O e
(22)
(15) h20 I 9 /*
18 %
15 %
14*/olh I d
L
~
~
CAT.I C AT. 2 C AT. 3 C AT.4 CAT.5 SURVEILLANCE TEST RISK IMPACT
( ) CHANGE WITH A FACTOR OF TWO INCREASE IN THE STIS OF TESTS WITH RISK IMPACT BELOW 10-7
[ } CHANGE WITH A FACTOR OF FOUR INCREASE l
l
Selected Surveillance Tests With Low Risk Impact TEST RISK TEST TYPE OF TEST F,REQUENCY IMPACT j
1.
ESAS Logic A110' Froper Operation Monthly 5.0 E-8 2.
CV3812 & CV3814 Valve & Interlock Quarterly 2.3 E-8 3.
EPIC Path A009 Proper Operation Monthly 1.6 E-8 4.
RPS Relay Cl Proper Operation Monthly 6.2 E-9 5.
CV2400 Stroke Quarterly 1.2 E-9 6.
Sensor PT2405 Calibration & Proper Operation Shift 8.8 E-10 7.
ESAS Logic A122 Proper Operation Monthly 3.7 E-10 8.
RPS Relay KAl Proper Operation Monthly 1.0 E-12 9.
RPS Relay KA3 Proper Operation Monthly 5.0 E-13 Surveillance Tests With Highest Risk Impact TEST RISK TEST TYPE OF TEST FREQUENCY IMPACT 1.
Room Cooler Unit A Functional Quarterly 9.3 E-5 2.
EFIC Signal Path D D2 Proper Operation Monthly 4.7 E-5 I
3.
HP Pump P36C Flow Monthly 4.4 E-5 4
Room Cooler Unit B Functional Monthly 4.3 E-5 5.
EFW Pump P7A Flow Monthly 2.9 E-5 6.
LP Pump P34B Flow Monthly 2.8 E-5 7.
SW Pump P4C Vibration & Temp. Monthly 2.5 E-5 8.
SW CV 3810 Stroke Annual 2.4 E-5 9.
EFIC Signal Path AC04-BD04 Proper Operation Monthly 2.2 E-5 10.
Diesel Generator 1 Start Monthly 1.7 E-5 11.
EFW CV2626 Stroke Quarterly 1.6 E-5 12.
EFIC Signal Path VCD2 Proper Operation Monthly 1.4 E-5 13.
LP Pump P34A Flow Monthly 1.4 E-5 14 HP Pump P36A Flow Monthly 1.36 E-5 15.
HP Pump P36B Flow Monthly 1.36 E-5 16.
RBSS Pump P35A Flow Monthly 1.3 E-5 17.
RBSS Pump P35B Flow Monthly 1.3 E-5
)
18.
SW Pump P4B Flow Monthly 1.3 E-5 19.
EFW CVY-1 Stroke Quarterly 1.2 E-5 20.
EFW CV2620 Stroke Quarte rly 1.2 E-5
(
\\
S T
D E
S S
A T
B y
k b
K s
d S
ir e
I R
l t
l n
o N
a r
t c
n n
l i
S o
w f
n in c
o E
g d
w t
U o
d is o
g d
e S
n n
r n
S y
e i
n e
i d
l I
t o
b d
i G
u t
e s
l i
t s
a t
t n
n a
n N
r o
e e
e e
e I
c r
N p
n p
m n
o o
g t
e e
IA a
p n
r o
g i
c t
n m
M n
lu s
a E
S a
o d
n g
t c
n a
n l
R T
p e
e mig e
h n
f f
c o
a l
o o
p s
s p
u t
i s
s t
m t
n t
l n
t u
s a
a e
m e
o t
o c
l t
c s
p i
tr p
o s
P A
i
S
)
E A
G R
P AT 0
U 5
1 O
s 1
F n
T o
G M
i E
C t
N a
R E
n n
U i
i N
b N
.c 0
O m
5
(
n 9
3 P
o S
t 0
I c
T n
4 M
r 1
a t
o l
O n
y P
t C
a b
ca c
n m
F i
f e
o E
i t
L n
d t
g d
o P
i is b
B IT r
L k
o h
s 8
f c
e U
s a
g S
9 i
t r
M o
e a
Pt t
y n
P n
F n
tu s
o O
Wi L
.i a
t a f
i n
SM VnM t
t n
e E
Ea i
o n
e n
n l
d t
o p
ni nMi i
i
- i a
i i
i t
et P
nP n
a l
l t
b c
pu eD eiD o
i gT g
mM 2T i
a a
m p
a t l t
l l
G!
oo o
p x
uC uDC T
C A
E OH OEH
.s d
s S
e s
T s
s e
n a
n D
o b
e v
i E
t i
k t
S g
a s
c n
u i
A r
e l
i B
s a
f s
v g
f e
e n
e
-K s
k y
S i
S s
s p
T l
a I
ir p
g R) n a
n r
d o
e d
r N
't i
t p
e o
I n
s o
t t
S i
r a
n i
o x
p r
E e
t o
U (C g
s m
n n
t S
o o
r i
S n
s o
s u
m f
I ok e
t t
G ds o
d s
i N
r n
n x
i l
l i
I S
s e
e t
N sT e
la t
I b
o A
af t
t o
t n
i M
r i
e-m on o
E t y i t b
d R
ri u
s l
ci s
a s s
b t
e h n laa t
h e
ct n
m c
ip a
m a
r e c
ar u o
e c i
gg r
l mc p
r p
o ua p
a p
r N
A P
A
[:
'O l
1 I
w
>=
U
=
Z w
eC C3 E
- C
- (.
J w
^
M
>a J
W W
m e6 W P..=.
m WE J
Q m
Q-M
)
J CP
>QW=
-W
=
vu m ea n.
CD 4 D Q E aC 88C W l
esc >
M W aut MWW to >= W W%V
)
MM,
Q anC M U MK
{
\\
W6 W ao O E
- O LD aC L1
)
g aut H
A wWJ 6-i HJ
(*
i In asC K.,
O2-w 1
cm..
W e
W EA W
Q OMW 1
.:3 3 wWMW Z
i 6
M e= Q m gIC N* M M e o 4
A6 MEMW WCD
]
I aC Q m & CE O.
E6M 1
\\
2 l
XwKw 33*
.\\
O
{
m m=>
m ss W H E
- = * > = * =
- M J". M J
]
WMM' (J
K 84' W
D >* ev e O.
en H w to M W mC aC % >
M
+
at aC H
M X
W W
W E
Q.
W
>==
3 Q
H WM W
- 8C QC H=
==e E H
Q.
e= w a b=
<E EAM g
C E3 lll3 m Q seC >
O M
cre M
W O E"*
O to *"*
W2 H e= 1 4
E O
E
- C = W <.C
=xW "MUO W>
WWW W imM W
=r M.,<
W E. M g$0 0
M DW
=
gg ogo
$E88 1
=
mm
\\
~*
-~
) t_ _ -
,42 Y
Q MW P== 4 WEM
.J O w O
est Z ::~.
u
- et W =
>== M ::e* W af, m
- W Z sQw WM ZU n.eJ LS Q: W Mm uw c.- z c WG QQEO w a:C E >=
&W 6 s
.-=e e--
i i
i i t
r O
K S
e Y
O 2
w 2
1 4
1 6
e o
R an
=
U n
s n
N p
/
F F
A U
x u
a m
na O
m 8
M M
A o
o F
C C
m m
M m
I Mi E
A A
U U
C s
I S
k O
n A
A A
o s
1 N
R A
s i
w n
E V
o i
H T
M iE tr C
C X
A 7
N E
0 A
)w A
f e
R T
O
)y i
B O
\\
)k
)k M
V rpe t
?A k
A
)k p
k e
i r
s m
N /
d h
m p
i e
)e n
p a
S m
(/
h H
l o
u m
"A (C
S C
O T
(C A
t C
C S
k f
o T
p (C
E E
h I
t A
S 7
A m
M MC M
M A
M S
o S
S F
C N
(C A
B BC B
R E
h B
P S
s, F
S O
S P
or rE r
t IF E
R F
r o
r r
V od o
f o
o i
S d
fn F
F f
M c
I C
S P
n M/
2a 2
/
/
2 J
E W
R A
S M
B p
p r
S p
pP M
p p
o uR N)k N)t P
E o
P r
u e
p p
T o
S S
f R
f u
u S
V 7
r I
1, )e 1, T S, k 6, k S
S 1
o p
3p 1
E 6
o L
1 f
S 5t Sn Jm9m7 7
1,
/,
m R
O B
8k Bo 9o 0o 0p OmO 2
2 m
1 7
O A
3m Jm J(C 3 (C 0
0 f
2 J
T W-J C
1 1
Co o
E (C CC C-C-
P-P-
m N-C I
4 D
D A
N R
B E
ED Ds Ds H
O M
C N
N-Es Et Et A
A Nt Nn Nn C
C sn n
e e
M M
o t s t
i o
d M
rt de rm dm t
C P
p s
e o
c o n om rm etpm ptom o
d n
o r
E E
R p
p pe p
o e
e R m
'I e
r bs p
p t
T R
/a R
A' i
i s
\\
e e
x
?
As A
m
/o /n
/o /n /a /n l
R E
A f
c
/o
/o oi i
7 hs n
n
/o
/a L
p h
k 7
p /n kn ho ik k
i c
S o
c pio pi pt A
T p
p o
ot o
oo t
o o
C W
T T
Tk Ta TmTu p
p tr c
o o
u
/
it t
T T
E E
Eh Eo Ec Ec e
P B
C G
CB Ch CA GA W_ W_ M I
O f.
2 X.
4 5
6
?:
8 9
T f'
q1\\l.
i i
L E
66 6
N l
g s
a Y
EE E
l N
L*
00 O
n s
l m
R*
1 1 1
a n A
i EG t
n o S
TN XX X
H s
gi RI e
it T
47 C
T Sc y
A S 1
r UE 61 8
n e
QT T
d pu V
1 0 1
G N
e iF s
O E
r r
l L
e T
e e
p r
n A
M g
n A
l ir a
N_ E g
lAT h
a k
A R
t C
S n3 s
j I
i g
U O
R o
S Q
'S >
e la P
d o
E u s Pa T
S6 6
n A
R R
c e R <.
l 1
n s e
s Y*
EE E
f y
nH n
G 00 O
O L
-W T
H i
1 1 1
o T N l
g i
t a S
I i
n s
t NT XX X
n F
E
'n A st u
O S.
it t
n b
M 94 3
s O
T d
s t
52 8
e I
e i
i ir Tg Dn xv O
1 n
t 1
L D
o EE n
eit
)i s o
hs A
E Gn yt Te t n C
T V
P Oe n
ise O
E Wt I
x ri s
.d M
G (E
e s ye l
v n e
E r
l E
G e
ia n
R n e R
A sT Dr n
U Og I
LP g
T uS T
a sa I I h
AR et l
D S
o/
at FT gS hT ns C
n MT at E
gO oo u
iM g
TY EN F h
S nA o
t o
it c
EN STM h
O s n l
t n
a ME YRC ri u-n U
SE oW P
ei O
W F
A EQ VL F*
RE PDA A T R
o o
o OR R N O I
CF TI T P
ll 1
l m
N r
,E f
I i
O s
L g
s n
E n
g ya e
i D
n nl n
am i
O o
yn O
s t
f u
i e
A. H M
i i
t n
s e
n or k
a E
pT a sh h
S s
a c
T u
t QT a
i U
Ml E
e u
r r A A
a rF o
o od C
O Ft T M
e u
r e
_e s
od g
N nh d
oT eh e
ni O
l i
t n
s i
t ui t
M a
n RWg t
n i
i o
r i
mC s
M bid 8
s s
O a
e 7
A m
r i
o 2
r o
s l
C c
e a
r s
C
/
sd E
a W
1 R
M o
R i
W r
M C
n or O
s
/a3 t
o ar R
A e
G m-r r
r E
R h
e R
uE eE p
E cW UHO f
O Nf O
u 1
t S
N n
Of n
e A
e h
O A
t p
s n
s y
i M
r o
Wey T
f op pi O
t U
r t
yi e
l m
nTb y
r H
E m
t o
e a
i S
nC t
nb l
o i
si o
bS a
a i
P mA i
st r
s n
r P s
e R
uf o
e oh H O C CA PT W
o o
o
y 3 RAC" CA_ AS 3 EC"S 0 C-As \\ E_ ~ES 4G j
o Test Procedures And Controls Make it 4
Preferable To Test All Functions in The Same Channel Rather Than All Channels For The Same Function.
Hence, A Degree Of Staggered Testing Will Normally Exist.
o Requirements For Completing And Reporting Test Results Limits Test Crew's Ability To Testing A Single Channel in One Day.
Again This Leads To A Degree Of Staggered Testing.
o Common Mode / Human Errors Addressed By:
Sign-off Steps in Test Procedures Tech Review Of Test Results Prior To Testing Other Channels Additional Review Following Adjustments Separate Surveillance / Adjustment Crews
- Limiting Crew To Testing Two Or Less Channels
- INP0 Recommendations
a a
t p p ro AA
)p p
h s
y y
e t k B
n e
T R
g s
oe d
e '8 sl n
iMW e
h e
i t
c T (3 s
y n s
u l
n D
e1 3 d
os a
a E
T d d os Tl nh e
A C R
G ye e
t a
e n
r l
r r
n v
u n
n E
N r
l e
e r
g G
T t
g g e
D a
o i
e I
r g g et h
o i
G S
a a
a AI n
e n
sl r
n gC a
n A
E ut t iS T
T QSS t A s
e tsA x
S t
c eF Ef r
e e
s n
L TS O
oBB e
a F
E F
Tl E
T I
O N
d d g
d/
S l
i n
e eS
/i n sl l
N n
uu e
v reP T
t S
A o oo e
u gR O
e r
s WW wS E
H i
t a
t g
AT G
C n
s s
e ad A
g t
e Sd it t
B T
b s
s n
S r
A e
G e
e o
F r
i N
mTT sd eh S
e A
O l
o a
n r S E
g L
C v
e i
V r t u
g A
a f
D e
x qO Wt A
N c
t E e
S i
n R
r f
S A
g c c
oii e
O r
I L
g g o
I nF d b n
D oo s
o l
f L L u
m i
nN O
s e
o u
o 3 4 nc WN i
t e
on s
r r//
u o
a S
e i
t u22 l
a w
A g
c p
tx r
o F
r n
p i
M al S
a o
u l
i V A E L C S o
o O
o
c
. to the Minutes of Meeting No.158 Pr gosed Generic Letter on ASME Section 111 Replacements r
Tebruary 22. 1989' TOPIC F. Cheney (RES) presented for CEGR review a proposed Generic Letter to provide guidance to licensees on replacement of ruclear power plant components that were constructed in accordance with Section III of the ASME Code, but are not currently available in full compliance with the stamping and documentation requirements of the Code. Copies of briefing slides used to guide the presentation and the discussions with the Comittee at this meeting are enclosed (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND The documents submitted for review by CRGR in this matter were transmitted by memorandum dated December 21, 1989, E. S. Ceckjord to E. L. Jordan; the review package included the following documents:
- 1.
" Background Information for CRGR Review on ASME Section III Replacements."
(Provided in accordance with Section IV.C of the CRGR Charter.)
2.
Enclos>re II e Draf t Generic Letter (undated), "NRC Position en ASME Section III Replacements," and Appendix " Definitions and Footnotes" CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of their review of this matter, including the discussions with the staff at this meeting, the Comittee recommended in favor of issuing the proposed generic letter, subject to the following changes that were discussed at this meeting:
1.
The proposed letter (specifically, paragraphs 1-4 at pages 2-3) should be simplified to state taore succinctly that, for replacement of components constructed in accordance with Section III of the ASME Code where the components are no longer available in full compliance with the stamping and documentation requirements of tFe Code, all applicable requirements of the Code as endorsed by HRC regulations except the requirement for "N" j
stamping, and all other applicable requirements 10 CFR Part 50 (e.g.,
1 Appendix B QA requirements), must be met.
Thefindingrequiredby10CFRE0.55(a)(3))beingapprovedbythestaff 2.
i.e., that the " alternative" (to full compliance with Code recuirerr.ents in this generic letter provides an acceptable level of qua'lity and safety, should be added explicitly to the generic letter. As a collateral consideration, CRGR recommended that the staff should codify in the next revision of 10 CFR E0.55a the guidance provided in this
{
generic letter, end should make reference to that impending rulemaking in the generic letter.
All char.ges made to the proposed generic letter will be coordinated with the CRGR staff prior to final issuance.
I l
)
r
[.
'3RESEN'.?A'.'::0X TO CRGR FEB3UA3Y 22,1989 l
1 ASM3 SECTION ::::I I
R3PLAC3MEY S j
I l
i 3ESPONSIB] ORGANIZN' ION:
EI3/DSIR/RES M
A 1
S3NIOR "ASI YAXAG33:
- 3. IIRKWOOD, IB i
S3C'.?':0X LEADER:
F. CHERSY, IIB i
1 i
i i
3 RANCH CHIEF:
R. BA33, 3IB i
h VVucl,me n h ko En c /c su r e J
7- -
- i-...-
b k
l 1
i
- o PURPOSE - PROVIDE GUIDANCE
{
TO' LICENSEES WHO REQUIRn' l
' COMPONENT REPLACEMENTS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED TO SECTION III 0F THE ASME CODE BUT ARE NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE STAMPING AND DOCUMENTATION 1
L REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE i
i sutt :
'j'
~
r.:
I i
REPLACEMENTS REPLACEMENTS ARE DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH IYA-7110 0F ARTICLE ITA-7000,
.SECTION XI 0F THE CODE AS FOLLOWS:
" REPLACEMENTS ARE DEFINED AS SPARE AND RENEWAL COMP 0hTNTS, APPURTENANCES, AND SUBASSEMBLIES OR PARTS OF A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM. REPLACEMENT ALSO INCLITJES THE ADDITION OF COMP 0NENTS, SUCH AS VALVES, AND SYSTEM CHANGES, SUCH AS REROUTING 0F PIPING, WITHIN TIIE SCOPE OF THIS DIVISION. THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT PROVIDE RULES FOR THE ADDITION E COMPLETE SYSTEMS."
I CONSTRUCTED-
._ CONSTRUCTED, AS USED HEREIN, IS AN ALL-INCLUSIVE TERM COMPRISING
{
MATERIALS, DESIGN FABRICATION, EXAMINATION, TESTING, INSPECTION, AND CERTIFICATION REQUIRED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND INSTALLATION OF ITEMS.
l I
i BMS En__________..._________--.--_.
NRC REGUIATORY REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE FOR SAFETY-REIATED COMPONENTS o
GDC 1 - QUAIJTY STANDARDS AND RECORDS o
10CFR50.55a - CODES AND STANDARDS o
RG 1.26 - QUAllTY GROUP CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS 53E4
. _ ~, - - _ _ _ _ _. _ - - _ _ - - -. - -. - _. - _ _ _ _ - _
mu:
HISTORICAL
SUMMARY
o DECREASE IN NUMBER OF VENDORS AUTHORIZED TO BUILD ASME SECTION III COMPONENTS o
LICENSEE REllEF REQUESTS FOR ASME SECTION III COMPONENT REPLACEMENTS RECEIVED FROM APPR0XIMATELY 1984
)
o EACH REQUEST REYlENED ON CASE BY CASE BASIS
)
l o
MEETING BETWEEN NRR STAFF AND IE STAFF ON OCTOBER 17, 1985 4
i o
NRR/MEB STAFF AND IE/VPB JOINTLY DEVELOPED DRAFT POSITION PAPER ON SUBJECT
)
o ASME SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSERVICE INFPECTION CONSIDERED DEVELOPING CODE CASE TO ADDRESS idSUE o
ISSUE DROPPFD BY ASME SUBCOMETITEE AFTER 1-1/2 - 2 YEARS EFFORT sm s
7 1
I I
HISTORICAL
SUMMARY
(CONTINUED) o MEETING BETWEEN RES STAFF AND NRR ON NOVEMBER 23,1987 o RES/EIB STAFF AND NRR/RVIB STAFF JOINTLY DEVELOPED NRC STAFF POSITION FOR DRAFT GENERIC LETTER' l.
STAFF AGREEMENT THAT RES/EIB DEVELOP FINAL POSITION o
ON ASME SECTION III REPLACEMENTS INCLUDING PROPOSED i
GENERIC LETTER AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
.q STAFF AGREEMENT THAT NRR/EMEB IMPLEMENT FINAL o
STAFF POSITION j
SUDE 6 L__
g-1 l
ASME CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT OF SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS o ASlfE SECTION XI - RULES FOR INSERVICE INSPECTION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COMPGNENTS o
IWA-7000 - REPLACEMENT - REQUIRES COMPONENT BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EDITION OF ASME SECTION III TO WHICH ORIG)NAL COMPONENT OR PART WAS CONSTRUCTED OR LATER CODE EDITIONS t
IM$
t-
i NRC STAFF POSITION ON ASME SECTION III REPLACEMENTS WHEN SECTION III CODE STAMPED REPLACEMENT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE i
o INTENT OF STAFF POSITION IN PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER IS TO ASSURE THAT A REPLACEMENT'S LEVEL OF QUALITY IS AT LEAST EQUlVALENT TO THE ORIGINAL SECTION III CONSTRUCTION o
APPIlE3 TO REPLACEMENTS THAT YERE ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED TO SECTION III, CLASSES 1, 2, OR 3 0F THE ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 5:JD18
3 Enchsure 4 to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No.158 Proposed Generic Letter on Motor-Operatec Valves Fet,ruary 22,19T9 TOPIC R. Baer (RES) and O. Rothberg (RES) presented for CRGR review a (revised) proposed generic letter to provide guidance to licensees on periodic testing and surveillance of safety-related motor-operated valves (MOVs) and position-changeable MOVs.
(CRGR considered an earlier version of this proposed letter at Meeting No. 148.) Copies of the briefing slides used by the staff to guide the staff's presentation and the discussions with the Committee at this meeting are enclosed (Attachment 1).
BACKGR00hD i
The documents submitted for CRGR review in this matter were transmitted by memorondum dated fiarch 9, 1989, R. W. Houston to E. L. Jordan; the review package included the following documents:
1.
Revised draf t Generic Letter (undated), " Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valve T9 sting and Surveillance," and enclosure:
Attachment A
" Summary of Comon Motor-0perated Valve Deficiencies, 11isadjustments, and Degraded Conditions" C0t!CLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of their review of this matter including the discussions with the staf f at Meeting Nos.148 ano 158, the Committee recommended in favor of 1
issuing the revicea generic letter, subject to the following additional changes discussed at tMs meeting:
1 1.
For improved clarity and ease of reading, divide the proposed letter into three main sections (e.g., Background or Discussion, Requested or Recommended Actions, and Required Actions or Reporting Requirements),
j
)
and move the long explanatory narrative at page 5 of the letter into the new Background or Discussion :,ection.
2.
At page 1 of the proposed letter, in tt) next to last sentence of the first paragraph, change the word " rust" to "should."
3.
Revise the paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 1 of the generic letter and contirmes on page T to indicate more clearly that, althcugh Section XI stroke and stroke-timing tests alone are not sufficient to provide assurtnce of M0V operability at design basis conditions, as j
required by the regulations, (a) they are a useful tool to complement i
other tests to provide verification of f10V operability; (b) they can i
provide indication of volve degradation; and (c) they provide valve l
exercise and some measure of on-demand reliability M0V operability.
l l
L
(
-2 4.
Move the second paragraph on page 2 to follow the paragraph beginning with the words " Surveillance, adjustment, maintenance and repair of safety-related MOVs...", and combine with that paragraph.
Change the last i
sentence of the resulting (combined) paragraph to read as follows:
"The results of these efforts may be useful...in developing an effective program."
Revise the second sentence of the new combined paragraph to read as follows:
"The following recommended actions are intended to be consistent with NRC's Maintenance Policy Statement as published..., which indicates that maintenance should be applied to other MOVs commensurate with their importance to safe operation of the facility."
Finally, delete the lone sentence that follows the second paragraph on page 2, as originally written.
1 5.
Delete footnote 3 at the bottom of page 2 of the proposed generic letter.
6.
At page 3 of the proposed generic letter, revise the last sentence of the first paragraph to end with the words "..such as the FSAR."
7.
In the second sentence of paragraph c. on page 3 of the proposed letter, replace the words "...if practical..." with the phrase "...unless precluded by existing plant configuration...".
J 8.
Delete the last two sentences on page 3 (and the carryover to the top of page 4) of the proposed letter.
9.
Modify the third sentence of the second paragraph on page 4 of the proposed letter for consistency with the wording revisions in item 3 above-10.
Delete paragraph f on page 4 of the proposed letter.
11.
End the sentence in paragraph 9 of the proposed letter after the words
...for the M0V."
- 12. Hove the second and third sentences in peragraph g (at the bottom of page 4 of the proposed letter) to paragraph c, and modify as necessary to blend with '. hat paragraph.
- 13. At page 6 of the proposed letter under paragraph h, modify to read as follows:
"The program developed by the licensee should allow for identifi-cation to the extent practical of such conditions, if present."
- 14. Modify and simplify the proposed documentation requirements in paragraphs i and j en page 6 of the proposed letter.
State the documentation requirements in a more "results oriented" format that more clearly conveys NRC's expectations as to when the various phases of the overall l
licensee effort are to be started and completed.
)
l i
- 15. Move the last sentence-(about licensees sharing information) in paragraph j of the proposed letter to the Background or Discussion section of the final revised form of the letter, and.expagd on the thought involved by reorienting it toward licensee use of the liPRDS data base. AEOD will l
assist NRR in developing the revised wording.
In the wording at the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 of the proposed letter, remove references to alternative schedules.
- 16. Combine paragraphs k and 1 of the proposed letter, and modify the
. ording to place emphasis on' Mcensees getting started with the actions w
recommended in this generic letter (e.g., require demonstration of an ongoing program within one year).
- 17. 14 eve paragraph n of the proposed letter into the new Background or Discussion section of the final the letter ttat is issued.
-18.
In the first sentence of paragraph o in the pmposed letter, replace the word "whether" with the word "that."
Insert the word " technical" in front of the word " explanation" in the second sentence of that paragraph.
I 19.
In the second paragraph on page 8 of the proposed letter, change the first sentence to read:
"This generic letter supersedes the recommendations contained in Bulletin 85-03 and its supplement."
' Also, modify the beginning of the third sentence to read:
"The information which was or would have been submitted to NRC..."
-20.
Delete paragraph p on page 8 of the proposed letter, j
All chcages to the proposed letter are to be coordinated with the CRGR staff prior to final issuance of the revised generic letter.
1 i
e x__
m ;;
PREVIOUS CRGR MEETING
^
o CRGR AGREED THAT ACTION NEEDED o
MADE A NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS MEET WITH INDUSTRY AND OBTAIN THEIR i
o COMMENTS o
STRUCTURE GENERIC LETTER TO TRACK BULLETIN REQUIREMENTS AND CLEA3LY SPECIFY. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS o
DON'T IMPLY LIST OF DEFICIENCIES IS TO BE USED AS AN INSPECTION I
CHECIE:ST
{
)
A W.d w } is E ~ lo s - s, y
= = - = - -
_ _ - _ - - - -. _ _ _ ~ -
- v., y-- -,. - -
.e I
EXTENSION OF IEB 85-03 TO ALL SAFETY RELATED VALVES l
l o
PREVIOUS CRGR MEETING 1
o MEETING WITII INDUSTRY i
o INEL TESTS o
CONTINUED MOV PROBLEMS AT OPERATING J
PLANTS I
1 o
REVISED GENERIC LETTER I
EMPIIASIZES IMPORTANCE OF DELTA P TESTING PLACES RESPONSIBILITY ON LICENSEE TO ASSURE l
l MOV OPERABIIlTY 1
I 1
,1 p
MEETING WITH INDUSTRY
]
MAJOR INDUSTRY ITEMS OF CONCERN o
DON'T YANT TO HAVE TO RED 0 ITEMS o
WANT SCHEDULE FLEXIBILITY l
o DON'T YANT GUIDANCE ON DEFICIENCIES TO BE j
USED AS AN INSPECTION CHECKLIST o
DON'T BELIEVE ALL SAFETY REIATED VALVES NEED BE COVERED o
COULDN'T PROVIDE LIST OF EXCEPTIONS o
COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE METHOD TO DETERMINE EXCEPTIONS 4
i L
IMPLICATIONS OF INEL TEST RESULTS l'
INEL TESTS o
TWO VALVES TESTED o
VALVES TO CLOSE AGAINST BREAK FL0W WITH NEAR SATURATED LIQUID UPSTREAM 0F VALVE PEER REVIEW MEETING CONCLUSIONS o
DIFFICULT TO KNOT IF INEL PRELIMINARY l
CONCLUSIONS ARE VALID FOR OTHER ' CONDITIONS AND VALVES q
o TORQUE IS NOT A PRECISE MEASURE OF THRUST o
SETTING 0F TORQUE SWITCHES BASED ON j
LOY DELTA P TESTING AND DIAGNOSTIC i
SYSTEM MEASUREMENTS MAY LEAD TO NON-CONSERVATIVE RESULTS I
i GENERIC LETTER REVISED TO EMPHASIZE j
IMPORTANCE OF TESTING AT HIGH DELTA P, WHEREEVER POSSIBLE j
1
Y
)
B E
D D
E I
L S
S
.T S
Y U S E
A D
U E
K C R T
E H
A H
T N
.T U
C F
G D
I R
Q A
A S
E T
H E
E E
K T
S S
V D
C O A
T D
A A
L R
S N
E E
O U
R T I
C N E
F T
O E
E S
E O
S S
(
I G Y B
D M
R V
A Q
N N
O E
Y V
E SS A
Y T
O I
U S
UB M
R U
M IT Q
V' D
R N
A R
O E
OU G
U S
G L
O M
S I
I.
N S
M U
T U
S N
RD Z
T E
S I
I C
I A
T N
M C
V ON D
I I
I S
L TA S
S L
I A-S E
R E
D O
RK E
M V
E C L
U O
E T
L Q
T V
A E
N P A B
U I
B R
O T
E I
O P A
Q T
O O
M C
.G C
E A
Y S
VN V
R T
E
/
D D
I F
A P
(
T OI O
P M
E R
R N
M M
D N
U I
P V
L E
I E
S O
T E
I V
S F
T M
C PO 1
O E
4 2
E N
T 1
S L
8 7
I I
A N
E U
T RI 9
R 1
8 8
N 6
O N
U N R
U 2
8 8
E L
T E
O O E
E I
T E
E N
FI C
C M
A R
C C
I T
F A
I I
A.
I E
A T
U T
T MS R
N.R O
N P
O O
E U G N
'F R
E N
N EI OM O
O M
U U C I
O O
Q A Q
I F
F F
R U ILE T
R O
N N
O AS N
R O
Q I
I I
E CA O
O T
TI D I
C C
.E C
P P
M R
R MA 9
9 8
8 8
/
8 8
TR R
E N
N I
I FG N
R I
L N
N LI 8
9 8
6 8
8 8
8
/
/
/
0 8
/
/
/
1 8
3 2
/
7 4
7 2
3
/
/
/
2 1
/
/
/
1 1
0
/
/
2 2
1 1
1 1
9 6
, -. ?,
09-05 SURRY UtilTS 3 I,2 RIDE SPREAD MOV PROBLEfiS JA!!UARY 31, 1989 PROBLEM.
HUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITil MOTOR-0PERATED VALVES CAUSE APPARENT PROGRAMMATIC DEFICIENCIES
.Sf1EETY SIGNIFICA.EE POTENTI AL COMMON MODE FAILURE OF SAFETY-RELATED VALVES
~DISCUSSI,93 1
0 ON NOVEMBER 10, 1988 THE LICENSEE REPORTED DEGRADED OR UNANALYZED CONDITIONS FOR 5 SAFETY-RELATED LIMITORCUE MOTOR-0PERATED VA(YES o ONG0ING VALVE INSPECTIONS BY TifE LICENSEE REVEALED WIDE SPREAD VALVE PROBLEMS:
- IMPROPERLY ASSEMBLED SPRING PACKS
- MISSING PARTS
- HOMEMADE PARTS
- IMPROPERLY SIZED DRIVE MOTORS (T00 SMALL)
- UNDERSIZED ACTUATIORS f
- INCORRECTLY WIRED TOROUE a LIMIT SWITCHES
{
- BROKEN GEAR TEETH
]
- PINION GEARS. INSTALLED BACKWARDS I
- METAL FILLINGS IN GREASE
{
- FAILURE TO OPERATE AGAINST RATED D/P
- FAILURE TO FULLY CLOSE f
o PRIOR TO COMBINED REGIONAL INSPECTION, THE LICENSEE HAQ NO PLANS FOR ROOT CAUSE DETERMINATIONS AND LONG TERM
{
CDRRECTIVE ACTIONS l
1 4
i b*
SURRY UNJTS 3 E 2 89-05 o, CAL WILL BE SENT 2/1/89 PLANNED RESTART FOR UNIT 1 }llLL BE DELAYED 3 TO 4 WEEKS FOR COMPLI ANCE 1lITH THE CAL i
o ABOUT 15 MONTHS AGO'SURRY INDICATED THEY COMPLIED WITH i
I BULLETIN 85-03i~SOME OF THESE VALVES ARE NOW INOPERABLE.
'o NORTH ANNA DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM
?'
FOLLOWUP c RGN II WILL RElHSPECT SURRY PRIOR TO UNIT I RESTART 0 THE LICENSEE WILL IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION s
m g-w l
i i
i
-- 9 W.
j L-----_________