ML20236X706
| ML20236X706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1998 |
| From: | Padovan L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Gabe Taylor SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| References | |
| GL-96-05, GL-96-5, TAC-M97106, NUDOCS 9808100193 | |
| Download: ML20236X706 (3) | |
Text
_
f I
l August 6,1998 Mr. Gary J. Taylor Vice President, Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88 Jenkinsville, South Carolina 20065
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL iNFORMATION - GENERIC LETTER 96-05, (TAC NO. M97106)
Dsar Mr. Taylor:
Generic Letter (GL) 96-05, " Periodic Verification of Design-Basis Capability of Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valves," requested licensees to establish a program, or ensure the e effectiveness of their current program, to periodically verify that safety-related motor-operated valves (MOVs) continue to be capable of performing their safety functions ?,mu the current facility licensing basis.
On March 13,1997, and April 2,1998, you submitted your MOV pogram descriptions in response to GL 96-05. You have not committed to implement the Joint Owners Group (JOG)
Program on MOV Periodic Verification as an industry-wide response to GL 96-05 with respect to valve age-related degradation. Further, you do not reference the' Westinghouse Owners Group methodology for ranking MOVs with regard to safety significance. Therefore, we need additionalinformation as discussed ir the enclosure in order to complete our review of your GL 96-05 response. Please give us this information by October 9,1998, in order to support our site inspection schedule. You can call me at (301) 415-1423 if you have any questions.
Sincerely, Original signed tyt L. Mark Padovan, Projer.t Manager Project Directorate 11-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-395
)
Enclosure:
Request for
~ ' '
^
W]h \\
(
)
AdditionalInformation cc w/ encl: See next page Distribution Docket File J. Zwolinski OGC PUBLIC L. Plisco, Ril ACRS PD 11-1 Reading R. Wessman T. Scarbrough pn a$ 0 0 0 f "1 P ~ a w n }f i
n PN3 u
x,,
- yt DOCUMENTNAME: G:\\ SUMMER \\ SUM 97016.RAI Mwe e copy of this document. Indicate in the bon: "C" = Copy without attechment/ enclosure
'E" - Copy wity ettschment/ enclosure
'N' = No pony ICE PDil 1/PM f [)
lEI PDlI+1/LA lfI l
PDll"1/U g/ [/
l NPadovan ELunnington f "Tn P.T. Kuol'l '
- 08/ 6'/98 08/ (- /98 08/f,/98 9808100193 980806 FFICIAL RECORD COPY PDR ADOCK 05000395 P
PDH
b ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO RESOLVE GL 96-05 ISSUES.
VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION
- 1. Your March 13,1997, letter states that the scope of the motor-operated valve (MOV) program at the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station in response to Generic Letter (GL) 96-05 is the same as your station program in response to GL 89-10, " Safety-Related Motor-j Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance." Your MOV periodic verification program should cover all GL 89-10 MOVs. In addition, GL 06-05 indicated you should also consider safety-related MOVs assumed to be capable of retuming to their safety position when placed in a position that prevents their safety system (or train) from performing its safety f
function. This applies if you do not declare the system (or train) inoperable when the MOVs I
are in their non-safety position. Describe how you considered any such MOVs with respect to your GL 96-05 program at V. C. Summer.
{
- 2. You state in your letter that six valves will undergo two additional dynamic tests by July 27,2005. Describe the evaluation performed to confirm that information from tests of these six valves is sufficient to determine the degradation rate for the potential increase in l
thrust (torque) requirements for all GL 96-05 MOVs at V. C. Summer. '
j l
- 3. In your letter, you do not discuss actuator output under dynamic conditions. Describe your i
' method for ensuring adequate actuator output, considering recent Limitorque guidance in l
Technical Update 98-01, and its Supplement 1. Also, describe your method for determining the degradation rate associated with aging efects that could result in a potential decrease in actuator output.
- 4. Your letter indicated that you will perform periodic static diagnostic testing on your GL 96-05 MOVs. Describe the basis for your periodic test method to identify age-related degradation affecting thrust (torque) operating requirements and actuator output for all GL 96-05 MOVs.
l
' 5. Justify any MOV grouping to share test information or minimize testing.
- 6. You state in your !etter that you will place each MOV in the GL 96-05 program in a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Group of high, medium or low risk. Describe the MOV risk-ranking methodology applied at V. C. Summer.
- 7. You indicated in your letter that you will pc"iodically test s?me MOVs at intervals longer than 5 years or three refueling outages. Describe your criteria for evaluating tost data to justify 6
these long test intervals.
W:
NF,
i l
B. Your letter states that your GL 96-05 program will provide reasonable assurance that your
.. }' '
GL 96-05 MOVs will remain operable until the next scheduled test. Describe your method
~
for ensuring that your periodic test interval (maximum of 10 years) provides continued design-basis capability of your GL 96-05 MOVs until the next scheduled test.
- 9. In NRC Inspection Report 50-395/97-01 (dated April 17,1997), we closed our V. C.
Summer GL 89-10 program review based on your actions to verify safety-related MOV design-basis capability. In the inspection report, we noted certain long-term actions that you were taking to address weaknesses in your MOV program. For example, we noted weaknesses in your assumptions for valve factor, load sensitive behavior, and stem friction coefficient in your MOV calculations. Describe the actions taken to resolve these weaknesses, the results of those actions, and any future actions.
3, o
9 i
h y
d 4
d
^
.h d
~l e
a