ML20127J909
| ML20127J909 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/14/1992 |
| From: | Rothberg O NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Baer R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301250288 | |
| Download: ML20127J909 (10) | |
Text
~~~-_
, 3 l -
DEC 141992 f
Robert L. Baer, Chief MEMORANDUM FOR: Engineering Issues Branch Division of Safety Issue Resolution 2 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Reseweb Frank Cherny, SecMon Leader B THROUGH: Engineering :ssues Branch q: . g o-Division of Safety Issue Resolution E y Ofhce of Nuclear Regulatory Research 0 C ;m Owen Rothberg, Task Manager M FROM: Engineering Issues Branch . 8 (r Division of Safety Issue Resolution Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research SUBJECl:
REPORT OF MEETING WITH NUMARC AND NUCLEAR REPRESENTATIVES ON NOVEMBER 16-1B FOR THE INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE F MAINTENANCE RULE (10 CFR 50.65) members of the NRC staff attenced meetings at On November 16-18, 1992, NUMARC headquarters with representatives of NUMAR '
nuclear utilities.
on the verifi,ation and validation Previous of NUMARC's 19-21, 1992.
prop the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants."
meetings were held on August 19-20, September 29-3 November 25, 1992, respectively.
11/16 & 17 are Copies of the meeting agenda and attendance sheets (onlyWalt Smith of NUM available) are attached in enclosure 1, meeting.
Although a number of papers, program descriptions ARC byand the handouts wer provided for discussion, most of this material was re The meeting on the afternoon of November Several 16 wa various methods including probabilistic risk assessment (PRA).One basic prob methods were proposed and discussed at length.how these m and subject to variability in implementation. The discussions continued, in to determine risk significance were discussed. Several plants provided found various contexts during the meetings that followed.tbcomp
/
9301250288 921214 (0' PDR REVGP ERONUMRC PDR \\
s- .-
j l
Dt,014 n Robert L. Baer to be risk significant by various methods. In general,_the results-were
- similar for the various-methods.. The conclusion was that simplification in' the description of the methods to determine risk significance would be useful.-
Carl Johnson, NRC/RES, pointed out a potential overlap between the .
relationship of test -interval requirements specified by the ASME-Code and the technical specifications. The potential overlap is summarized _ as follows:
- -Technical specifications assign surveillance t'est intervals (STis) in order to control failure' exposure time. That is, if a failure should occur,_the degraded condition would-exist without-detection-for a period of time not longer than the test intervai. The. test interval would be ideally set so that the risk impact is acceptable. Thus, setting the test interval for a component should depend on the application; that is, the test interval should depend:on the need for the component's function with respect _to the system and plant in which the component performs its function.
The ASME Code sets test requirements to assure component: integrity and test effectiveness. In addition the ASME Code sets test-requirements to assure:ccmponent operability that-fix the' time period between tests on.a generic: basis _(e.g.,.30 days for_ pumps, 90 days for valves, etc.) may not necessarily reflect _the risk perspective. Test intervals should'be set so as to control _the fault exposure period within acceptable-limits. Such test interval limits are system or plant' specific. If test interval limits set in accordance with technical specifications' conflict
" with those set in accordance with the ASME Code,-as endorsed in 10 CFR 50, the test interval limits set in accordance with the
-ASME Code should govern. Therefore, if genericctest_ interval requirements for operability testing that appear'in the-ASME-Code are overly conservative, the excessive testing requirements would i
govern.
One reasonable approach would be:
Technical specifications should set surveillance test intervals to n assure operability. !
-The' ASME Code should specify component test requirements-(but, -
l without test intervals) to assure component integrity and. test-effectiveness-Representatives of the NRC's: Technical Specifications Branch plan 1 to attend a forthcoming ASME Code committee meeting to help i resolve this issue.
Each plant provided.a. summary of their activities and results-in trying to invoke.the NUMARC guidance document for one system _at each plant. My general L - conclusion was:that the NUMARC' guidance appeared to:be effective, although a j number of. problems were found. One general conclusion'was that_ training to l.
s l
1
. l i
DEC 141992 l Robert L. Baer invoke the guidance will be most helpful, if not essential. A number of ideas including workshops or additional guidance documents were discussed. It was decided that workshops would be most effective.
Other issues discussed are listed in the enclosed agenda.
NUMARC is scheduled to discusses the results of their V&V effort, as wall as their plans for revision of their guidance document, in meetings with the NRC staff at NRC headquarters on December 3 and 4. NUMARC plans to have their final report of the V&V results completed by mid-Jan ' - 1993.
- 0'
~
I Owen Rothberg, Ta ger Engineering Issues Br .
Division of Safety Issue Resolution Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
As stated
't
s ?
DEC 14 ESE Robert L. Baer cc: C. Ader NLS 324 H. Alderman P 315 P. Baranowsky MNBB 9112 E. Beckjord NLS 007 K. Connaughton 0WFN 16113 R. Correia OWFN 10 D18 M. Dey NLS 169 E. Doolittle 0WFN 16 H3 T. Foley OWFN 10 A19 G. Grant 0WFN 17 G21 C. Heltemes NLS 007 D. Hickman MNBB 9112 S. Hudson NLS 007 C. Johnson NLN 316 T. King NLS 007 M. Malsch OWFN 15 B18 E. McKenna OWFN 16 GIS W. Minners NLS 007 G. Mizuno OWFN 15 B18 T. Murley OWFN 12 G18 J. Norberg OWFN 7 E23
, T. Novak MNBB 3701 P. O'Reilly MNBB 9112 J. Page NLS 302 C. Petrone 0WFN 10 A19 B. Richter NLS 129 M. Ring Region III C. Rossi OWFN 9 A3 W. Russell OWFN 12 G18 B. St Mary MNBB 7714 N. Saltos OWFN 10 E4 J. Scarborough OWFN 16 H3 A. Serkiz NLS 314 L, Shao NLS 007 B. Shelton MNBB 7714 D. Smith NUMARC J. Sniezek OWFN 17 G21 T. Stetka Region IV E. Sullivan OWFN 7 E23 M. Taylor 0WFN 17 G21 S. Treby OWFN 15 B18 D. Trimble OWFN 16 H3 A. Vietti-Cook OWFN 16 GIS J. Vora NLS 217B G. Zech OWFN 10 A19 Public Document Room y' 5000db I
u _ _ - _
. , c.
NCMQkb N k*
V
\g-aasac. g AHAC FOR V&V OF INDUSTRYMAINTENANCE GUIDELINE Meetmg Agenda November 16,17, and 1& 1902 November 16,1992 (2:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.)
. Risk Significant Sub task Sequoyah results - David Worledge Callaway results Gary Czeschin Catawba results Duncan Brewer Millstone resuits Tom Galloway Grand Gulf results Carl Johnson NRC presenta*.on Carl Johnson Proposed r. write of guideline risk significant discussion Summary conclusions and recommendations November 17,1992 (9:00 a.m. _7:00 p.m.)_
November 18,1992 (9:00 a.m. 4:00p.m.)
Summary conclusions from risk significant sub task committee Plant Reports - 20 Minutes per utility "
Verification that all guideline paragraphs have been addressed Use of qualified expert panel where PRA is incomplete Conclusions Recommendations Overview of at least oneestem
. Root cause review of NRG(LERs) and INPO problem component input -
Plant repons are requested in hardcopy and on 3.5" disk (Wordperfect 5.1) prior to the' AHAC Meeting of November - 16,1992 P
l t e
. 2. 1 l
l AHAC FOR V&V OF INDUSTRYMAINTENANCE GUIDELINE Meenng Agenda (continued)
November 1617, and 18,1992 Issues and position papers distributed Monitoring an 1 goal setting for Non risk significant repetitive failures Rick Branch Removal of SSCs from the scope of the Rule Dan Rains Need for an implementing guideline not in regulatory space and the need to expand the guideline document - Dan Rains Normalized core damage, sub-division of systems, use of multiple goals and criteria - Dwight Johnson Industrywide experience Walt Smith Application of shutdown risk considerations to maintenance guideline (NUMARC 91-M).- Jim Eaton Recommendations regarding NPRDS application to Rule implementation Status of action items Dan Rains Validation of documentation matrix (NUMARC to supply floppy discs)-
Schedule of activities to complete Preliminary NRC enfo cement guidance -
1 r ~ ' -
-r,o -,sn ,
-- n,,w e r, re m w - w w- t - - - , , - - - ww +
- e MEETING ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE / SUBCOMMITTEE: Verification and Validation AHAC DATE: November 16,1992 TIME: 2:00 p.m.
LOCATION: NUMARC Main Conference Room ,
NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHOST kAT SM /T /4 /JJmA(2e 2o2 872./2 6 DA A) S A \(G E baal 2 Q. 202 072-12!a
- 084 L ,Q(?){tl/t '3I3) E* b '3?)
El10 0'6au.-I v A ri IAIPO Hou- 953-s175
- % sozou bsw3 3 M t_. 5, c. . zsz s es ?
PR M A8 $w rA 1%J L ylc- 2 D- HFP L/I4 2.,fu orc / fed rec. n y- n oo D m kb/ke? &ph+-wa4 m c_ ~ w~a <>. w e, h M MY d [dasv4 S/444ccs.d4.4Gr. (z/s)CKo-Csvv
/df- /hW SMr (4nd7e-nco 0ar ( c]oksn lyf c- N .7 N m ysn
l MEETING ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE / SUBCOMMITTEE: Verification and Validation AHAC DATE: November 16,1992 TIME: 2:00 p.m. -
LOCATION: NUMARC Main Conference Room " -
I l '
NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE tm A)u.sw Ait C.
d-)A /2.'f d Q [FCHLc) LA C - CALL AkMf ?fWN4 -fY)O
! DID ,ae Atc9ee E+ A I wr-ssr-2n z lddet) /4/tre46 Mim/r EDASod a G - sv6J535 i S A m v1s v YMoon ev <
E.O T ${N G &nt.ea ,- aiss
- /
l Ym NWm on &hes i, Opc
~
- GCr/US hot- 43 7-L,q u j eh bemoO [c 6. Opi-MGNS M i - 4 ~0 7 C 6 3
! DLAnCA V\ 3 (R.W CT hk(_ (CWEV 7C4 - 332 ~79C$
i l
9 m . -
1G 11EETIM,9 A1TENDANCE t.
COMM11 TEE /SUBCOMMITI'EE: Verification and Validation AHAC ,
DATE: November 17,1992 TIME: 9.00 a.m.
LOCATION: USCEA Board Room ._
NAME QRGANIZATION TELEPHOST.
)hl6 detL6pC-e (-PRI 4t(-tK-2342 (q q & UE - Wm wr-6% -W3a N
numsnl /Mib .
91-12-[27
%ta O'Sou wsw iWPo e04-953-5~rrs I d N aa c E%C s._t- GC OS /.61-437-0 53 7ao L. [ es~ C 9 k L. q sq . 5Ho 344D t&/i5ala v e u lve n O A .- & c c hi- 67,2a1
+ tar - Eder LA - Gaus &ci) 43 7-679e n
$AM M v /YIon n s v SS1 $'L' u v 0 fr . - ONS bol- 4 3 7- 2 I 65
/ / y CAeY 5 u&urJ5 . EAfrrA G Y - 4NO-/ Sol 9C1' CC 79
/wm> aMoss xawr Sysw' (3 s ) - 5 B G Ls a r 6ASoc Spo,C_ /bameAsYl.)riupr; 2w44&s?rf
/~ n V^ hlo %, ,. y,,,,,,,., N -9yy.n t fit /j)
c MEETING.ATIENDAb'CE COMMITTEE / SUBCOMMITTEE: Verification and Validation AllAC . _ _
DATE: November 17, 1992 TIME: 9:00 a.m.
I LOCATION: USCEA Board Room .. ;
NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE )
'bM 7, Bates tJ0MAM, (tot) 872.- I2So !
% k+ N%e - w n.A no -2.
' 0 %+ we h
hia" se 5hnsow I n +9 r 4 v_ h oc k & 2 (6blN W 326f l
% Act .G /d 4 dutt . J C tce hAucu cawear cups 4to 2A o % % >
k/df,$,9A, oil Ab 19/ FA 4?f
%D :TYN l<td 5 7'a 6L 6C TR /C- 2/7-99 No zu
/s'AM f G4 DUAVI T 4Rfd #
ToK4rt 2:858G-1337
~ / A Stettu Nec, I2EGroa v (Bn)2co- ez47 ktc1 b aix Ngc./Ng n. (toi) so4-f oo cj -
? E,! 7.L va k (cos)ay-n vo Car / d ok e.re N/L C 3 or +92 frys 9d <OIReiII f MO c/A 6e0 (soQe.2-m7 b d N b ag R9ce/Tes (Ab4% ?"MM
- e r G za n z n em N A>uut&? C IM d{lT-W .
- - . - - - .. - . - ._ - - . - - - - . - . .- - - - . - - _._ - - .