ML20247R587
| ML20247R587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/22/1989 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2644, NUDOCS 8908080060 | |
| Download: ML20247R587 (5) | |
Text
-
s
?.
.ghp rox zwr bb u [3 d b Mb CERTIFIED COPY DATf. ISSUED: S/2?/89
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE ALRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON MECHANICAL COMPONENTS i
MA) 3, 1989, BETHESDA, MARYLAND The ACRS Subcommittee on Mechanical Components' met on May 3, 1989 to continue its review of the NRC Staff's proposal regarding a draft i
generic letter requiring that all nuclear power plant owners implement a program to establish, maintain, and periodically verify the design basis l
operability of all safety-related, motor-operated valves (M0Vs). The i
meeting was called at the request of the subcommittee Chairman, i
I Specifically, he requested that NUMARC address their views on the NRC l
staff's recommended action as delineated in the generic letter.
For the NRC staff he suggested that the significant difference in implementation costs, industry vs. staff be explained.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 1989. The schedule of items covered in the meeting and a list of handouts are kept with the office copy. There were no written or oral statements received or presented from members of the public at the meeting.
E. G. Igne was Cognizant ACRS Staff member for the meeting.
Principal Attendees i
C. Michelson, Chairman R. Kiessel NRR J. Carroll, Member-G. Weidenhamer, RES C. Wylie, Member W. Minners, RES C. Siess, Member R. Baer, RES P. Wohld, Consultant O. Rothberg, RES
.G. Q Q5,UQ R p2 85o3 e,
t
- .. A
~ 2' f
- . I EESIGNATED ORIGINAL
\\
2 Certified ?y 8008080060 890522 PDFC ACRS 2644 FDC
e g-v,
' Minutes / Mechanical Comnonents 2
Subcom. Mtg. May 3, 1989
~
Others W. Hall, NUMARC C. C611away, NUMARC H. Poerehn, Bechtel/KWU Alliance H. Knodler, Bechtel/KWU Alliance B. Curry, Philadelphia Electric-C. Guild, NUBARG.
Hinblights 1.
W. Hall, NUMARC, spotasman fur the industry stated that they agree with the NRC Staff that there is.a need to improve M0y performance and that they have.been putting in place.the initiatives and programs to bring about this improvement. He then discuss d INP0's r,rogram to upgrade M0V's performance industry-wide And EPRl's activities in provid-ing guidelines on MOVs and its program on MOV test'ng which was initi-ated in January of 1989.
t W. Hall then stated that they felt that the issuance of the generic l
letter as proposed by the staff to encompass all safety related valves is unnecessary and inappropriate. They object to the broad sweeping-scope which will divert the industry's limited resources to perform extensive te: ting and papenwrk activities on valves that may very well have absolutely no affect on the capability of a system to perform its safety function or provide any contribution to reducing to probability of core melt frequency. He further stated that'if the staff feels compelled to hsue a generic letter, the scope should be limited to-l correct identified problems for.those valves whose failure would affect '
public health and safety and not take an all encoaipassing approach to all valve problems. They are opposed to the implication of'the proposed generic letter as to the need for prototype testing of WI l
ece Minutes / Mechanical' Components
'3 t.:
Sui >com Mtg. May 3,.1989 o
safety-related MOVs. Also, they were concerned about the differential in cost between the industry projected cost and the NRC projected cost.
He stated that our costs are actual costs developed by utilities that have performed the type of testing proposed by the generic letter.
Recent data indicates that industry's MOV-performance has been improving.
Industry initiatives have been~ effective in' identifying areas where emphasis is needed to improve MOV performance and reliability. They further feel that INP0s and EPRIs activities address all of the attributes of the proposed generic letter, and meet the
' intent of the generic letter requested actions.
2.
C. Callaway, NUMARC, discussed the costs to industry in implement-ing the MOV generic letter.
He stated that the current MOV generic letter implementation cost for 150 valves is about 1.27 billion dollars as compared to the " critical valve" approach, which is based on 20 critical valvet that effect the risk of core melt frequency, is about j
17.8 million dollars.
The NRC conservative estimate provided by R. Baer I
is about 0.61 billion dollars. Comments by the subcommittee indicates that based on the assumptions used by the industry and NRC, the total
~
cost estimates is reasonable and, in fact, quite close.
I 3.
R. Baer, RES, discussed their. activities since the last 'ACRS i
r:eeting'. He stated that cost figures have been updated by BNL and NRC.
He further stated that the generic letter was transmitted by E.
Beckjord, RES, to T. Murley, NRR, on April 26, 1989, for release and implementation.
W. Minners added that the letter is being' held in NRR I
_9
q j
.c.
.f Minutes / Mechanical Components 4
Subcom. Mtg. May 3, 1989 l
for concurrence..The NRC staff stated that they want ACRS comments.
R.
- l Baer's comments on M0V safety significance was as presented at the last -
ACRS meeting; that the best estimate MOV failure rate is about 8.7 percent. This value which is based on M0 VATS data, 85-03 results, and 2
additional M0V tests by some licensees.
i 4
O. Rothberg, RES, clarified the MOV generic letter.
He stated the following requirements with respect to design basis flow / pressure testing:
1)' needs to be performed only 06:e, 2) not performed when plant conditions preclude or otherwise not practical, 3) never performed in plant to simulate line-break conditions, 4) prototype testing is an alternative to design basis testing in-situ and 5).many safety-related MOVs can be reasonably subjected to design basis tests using in-plant pumps.
He further stated that sufficient flexibility is built into the generic letter to allow diagnostic testing and abbreviated diagnostic testing after initial testing or prototype testing.
i 5.
A brief overview of the Bechtel/KWU Alliance program to exchange European MOV experience and technology were presented by H. Pomrehn and H. Knodler.
KWU has been working on MOV problems for 10 years. They
-l have 60-80 valve engineers supporting their activities with another
.I 20-30 in laboratories. They have experienced similar valve unreliability problems and want to share their experiences with indus-tries in the U.S.
A full-blown presentation will be heard during our next Mechanical Components Subcommittee meeting on valves.
)
l l
.1
- Minutes / Mechanical Components >
5 r.s,,
Subcom. Mtg. May 3, 1989 Subcommittee Action A presentation by the NRC stef1 and industry is planned at the May 3-6, 1989 ACRS meeting. A letter on the proposed generic. letter on_MOV is planned-to be completed during the May meeting.
NOTE:
A transcript of the meeting is available at the NRC P' blic u
Document, Gelman Bldg., 2120 "L" St. NW, Washington, D.C.,
Telephone (202) 634-3383 or can be purchased ~from. Heritage
' Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, NW., Washington, D.?
20005, Telephone (202) 628-4888.
1
)
'l i
i
?
l l