ML20205J355

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re GL 95-05, Periodic Verification of Motor-Operated Valves

ML20205J355
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	03/16/1999
From:	Thadani M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
GL-95-05, GL-95-5, TAC-M97083, TAC-M97084, NUDOCS 9904120020
Download: ML20205J355 (4)

Text

m 3 March 16,1999

' MEMORANDUM TO: Docket File FROM: Mohan C. Thadani, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects l/il '

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation r

SUBJECT:

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, RELATED TO GENERIC LETTER 95-05, PERIODIC VERIFICATION OF MOTOR-OPERATED j VALVES (TAC NOS. M9708AND M97084) j l

The attached request for additional information (RAI) was transmitted by facsimile on M&rch 16,1999 to Mr. John Hufnagel of PECO Energy Company. Review of the RAI would allow the licensee to determine and agree upon a schedule to respond to the RAl. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request forinformation or represent i

an NRC staff position. original signed by M.Thadani l

Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278 )

Attachment:

Draft Request for Additional Information CC; Facsimile: John Hufnagel l

9904120020 990316 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P PDR DISTRIBUTION Docket File PUBLIC EAdensam .

MThadani //

OFFICE P NAME Thadani DATE 3 /lb OFFICIAL RECORD COPY g hhhk bbb DOCUMEN AME: G:\PBM97083 '

ang1 x i

ka Rtc

• $ ~+ UNITED STATES j j NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 4 o 9.....g March 16,1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Docket File ,

FROM: Mohan C. Thadani, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, RELATED TO GENERIC LETTER 95-05, PERIODIC VERIFICATION OF MOTOR-OPERATED VALVES [ TAC NOS. M97083 AND M97084]

The attached request for additional information (RAl) was transmitted by facsimile on March 16,1999 to Mr. John Hufnagel of PECO Energy Company. Review of the RAI would allow the licensee to determine and agree upon a schedule to respond to the RAl. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request for information or represent j an NRC staff position

• Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278

Attachment:

Draft Request for Additional Information CC: Facsimile: John Hufnagel I

l j

i i

r

. l i

interim MOV static diagnostic test program. As Peach Bottom is a boiling water reactor (BWR) nuclear plant, is the licensee applying the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) methodology for ranking MOVs based on their safety significance as described in BWROG Topical P.eport NEDC 52264 and the NRC safety evaluation

{

dated February 27,19967_ If not, the licensee should describe the methodology used 1 for risk ranking MOVs at Peach Bottom in more detail. I

4. The JOG program focuses on the potential age-related increase in the thrust or torque required to operate valves under their design-basis conditions. In the NRC safety evaluation dated October 30,1997, on the JOG program, the NRC staff specified that i licensees are responsible for cidressing the thrust or torque delivered by the MOV motor actuator and its potentiu degradation. The licensee should describe the plan at j Peach Bottom for ensuring adequate ac and de MOV motor actuator output capability, including consideration of recent guidance in Limitorque Technical Update 98-01 and its Supplement 1.

I

)

i i

q l.

?

DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON RESPONSE OF PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STAllON TO GENERIC LETTER 96-05

1. In NRC Inspection Report No. 50-277 & 278/97-07, the NRC staff closed its review of the motor-operated valve (MOV) program implemented at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom) in response to Generic Letter (GL) 89-10

" Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance." in the inspection report, the NRC staff discussed aspects of the licensee's MOV program to be

andressed over the long term, including the licensee's plans to implement a margin improvement program to increase the thrust capability of more than 30 MOVs. The licensee should describe the actions taken to address this long-term aspect of the MOV

. program at Peach Bottom that was noted in the NRC inspection report.

2. In GL 96-05, the NRC staff discussed the scope of the program with respect to safety-related MOVs that are 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 function; and the system (or train) is not declared inoperable when the MOVs are in their nonsafety position. In a letter dated March 14,1997, the licensee indicated that such MOVs are not included in the GL 96-05 program at Peach Bottom, but that operability is demonstrated through routine plant operation. However, NRC Inspection Report No. 50-277 & 278/97-07 (dated December 16,1997) noted that (1) the licensee had revised Peach Bottom's GL 89-10 program scope to include 12 of the 16 MOVs that were originally considered to have a passive safety function; and (2) the systems / trains associated with the remaining four MOVs are declared inoperable when they are out of their safety positions in accordance with the plant Technical Specifications. Therefore, the licensee should clarify its position by identifying if the referenced 12 MOVs are. included in the. Peach Bottom GL 96-05 program scope. If not, the licensee should address its plans for maintaining torque switch settings and the feedback of industry operating experience and data. Further, the Peach Bottom licensee should discuss the manner in which its approach will provide confidence that these MOVs will be capable of retuming to their safety position, including (1) plans for performing required switch setting adjustments promptly, (2) any specified MOV a~ operation under dynamic conditions,'or (3) any future diagnostic testing. The Peach Bottom licensee should describe the bases for its confidence that (1) these MOVs will continue to be capable of retuming to their safety position, (2) any degradation in MOV performance will be identified prior to causing the MOVs to be incapable of retuming to their safety position, and (3) any action necessary to ensure MOV capability will be taken in a timely manner.  ;

j

3. In a letter dated May 14,1998, the licensee updated its commitment to implement the .;

-Joint Owners Group (JOG) Program on MOV Periodic Verification in response to 4 GL 96-05. The JOG program specifies that the methodology and discrimination criteria  ;

. for ranking MOVs according to their safety significance are the responsibility of each participating licensee, in a previous letter dated March 14,1997, the licensee had generally described the risk ranking of MOVs at Peach Bottom for application of the i