ML20133G136
ML20133G136 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Issue date: | 01/14/1997 |
From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML20133G137 | List: |
References | |
REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-96-261-C, NUDOCS 9701150174 | |
Download: ML20133G136 (2) | |
Text
- . . . . - - - . - . - - .- . ~. - . - - _ - - - . - . . . - .
b._ .
r f
m van 4 UNITED STATES 8 n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
$ j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 e
t, * * * * * ,o January 14, 1997 <
l OFFICE OF THE j
- j. SECRETARY l l COMMISSION VOTING RECORD DECISION ITEM: SECY-96-261 :
TITLE: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN i THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMSSION FOR COOPERATION IN SUPPORT OF SIGNIFICANT ,
PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES !
The Commission approved the subject paper as recorded in the l
Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of January 14, 1997 l This Record contains a summary of voting on this matter together with the individual vote sheets of the Chairman and Commissioners
! and the SRM of Jar.uary 14, 1997.
i 9 n C. Hople I Secr ry of the Commission l
Attachments:
- 1. Voting Summary
- 2. Commissioner Vote Sheets
- 3. Final SRM Of cc: Chairman Jackson h l Commissioner Rogers I Commissioner Dicus l l Commissioner Diaz l Commissioner McGaffigan j j OGC
! qafs[UKL 150107
I VOTING
SUMMARY
- SECY-96-261 RECORDED VOTES l
NOT APRVD DISAPRVD ABSTAIN PARTICIP COMMENTS DATE CHRM. JACKSON X 1/8/97 COMR. ROGERS X 1/8/97 COMR. DICUS X 1/10/97 COMR. DIAZ X X 1/8/97 COMR. McGAFFIGAN X 1/8/97 COMMENT RESOLUTION 1 In their vote sheets, all Commissioners approved the staff's recommendation and Commiccioner Diaz provided an additional l
comment. Subsequently, the comments of the majority of the (
Commission were incorporated into the guidance to staff as l reflected in the SRM issued on January 14, 1997 l l
i l
.j MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Immediate Corrective Actions 1 I i l
Current Operability of MOVs e Operability Evaluation e Core Deluge Valve Modifications e Additional Modifications e Interim Design Control RG&E O
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE ;
Immediate Corrective Actions -
l l Actuator Capability In-Situ Testing i
e Inertia v Inertia not a Significant Factor v Thrust Measured at CST v Some Tests Went to Stall Conditions v Margin Available before Stall e Test Direction Applicable i
i I
RG&E 11/1 /%
m- .
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE ,
Immediate Corrective Actions 1 I Operability Evaluation Previous RG&E Program Altran/Kalsi Review e GL 89-10 & 95-07 Scope e Scope Correct
~
e System Criteria e Criteria Acceptable e Testing Program o Testing Practices Acceptable e GL 89-10 Calculations e Independent GL 89-10 Cales v Limitorque Vf v EPRI Friction Coefficients v Orifice Diameters v Mean Seat Diameters v Flow Velocity e Altran PL/TB Calcs e Comed PL/TB Methodology e No Butterfly Calcs e Butterfly Analysis Performed
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE Immediate Corrective Actions l l Core Deluge Valve Modifications e Replaced Motor e Changed Gear Ratio e Replaced Cabling e Drill Wedge during 1999 Core Offload e Revise Control Scheme Current Operability Based on Bounding Valve Factors & Comed PLTB 11/1 /%
RG&E
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE .
Immediate Corrective Actions .
I i Interim Design Control e Kalsi/Altran Reviews e Management Review of Calculations II I '
RG&E IS
i MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE ,
Immediate Corrective Actions l l Additional Modifications e Current Outage Actions v MOV 857A,B, & C
~ ,
v MOV 4616 -
v MOV 3505A v MOV 9704A v MOV 4008 l 11 13/ %
RG&E ,
e s ?
MOVENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE ,
Corrective Actions Flow Chart i I
- Internal i External '
,._._._._._._._._,_.___._.___._._._,_._._._._._._._p._.___._._._._.___._._._.c._._._._._.__,
l HPESi ,
CATS i , QA i Technical ,
Peer i
, i Reviews & Assessments V
F m. d m.gs i
i
% */ ;
i Root auses RG&E Long Term Corrective Actions 1 " > =6 16 -
I l .
MOV ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE '
Immediate Corrective Actions l I l
RG&E Initiated Self-Assessment e Internal v Human Performance Enhancement System
~
v XRC Commitment Review (CATS) v- Quality Assurance Review e External v Technical Consultants v Peer Review
-s n';;'96