ML18047A339
| ML18047A339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1982 |
| From: | Johnson B CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8205280440 | |
| Download: ML18047A339 (2) | |
Text
consumers Power company GeneTal Offices: 1945 West Parnell Road, Jackson, Ml 49201 * (517) 788-0550 May 25, 1982 Dennis M Crutchfield, Chief Operation Reactor Branch No 5 Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR-20 PALISADES PLANT - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT - CALIBRATION Consumers Power Company submittal dated February 24, 1982 provided a re-evaluation of the rationale stated as justification for continued operation in light of the qualification deficiencies identified by the NRC.
Attached is a revised copy of page 3 of that submittal, clarifying transmitter testing as found in Note 1 of that page.
The revision is an added phrase, which is shown by being underlined.
Brian D Johnson Senior Licensing Engineer CC Administrator, Region III, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector - Palisades page 8205280L\\l\\0
~
DMCrutchfield Palisades Plant EEQ - Additional Information February 24, 1982 PLANT I.D.
TS-1856-1858, 1854 RE-1805-1808 TE-0112 CA, CB, CC, CD TE-0122 CA, DB, cc, CD TE-0111 A, B, H TE-0121 A, B,. H TE-0112 HA, HB, HC, HD TE-0122 HA, HB, HC, HD NOTE l 3
SUBMITTAL CROSS REFERENCE FRC CRITERIA
-J-48 Ts.:..1 4
J-48 RE-1 3
J-48 TE-1 Revision Attached 1,3 J-48 TE-1 Revision Attached 1,3 J-48 TE-1 Revision Attached 1,3 J-48 TE-1 Revision Attached 1,3 J-48 TE-1 Revision Attached 1,3 J-48 TE-1 Revision Attached 1,3 Extensive arguments are provided in the submittal for EMB-1 to show that the motors are fully qualified by a combination of test and analysis.
In addition to these arguments, the containment air cooling function is backed up 100%
by the qualified containment spray system.
FRC, in the TER review, expressed concerns about the aging g_ualificationof some of the equipment which is going to be replaced.
This concern was also expressed by the staff during the meet~ng. In response to these concerns as they pertain to justification for continued operation, Consumers Power Company sited several examples of how aging has been monitored in the past through various surveillance and calibration procedures and also through routine corrective and preventive maintenance.
To summarize these examples, the safety related transmitters are on the Technical Specification Surveillance Test Program which requires these transmitters to be tested and calibrated for their full range of operation on a designated interval, no longer than each refueling outage.
These transmitters are removed from their location, if necessary, and worked on in the instrument and control lab where trained technicians test and calibrate them.
They are visually inspected for signs of wear and aging and parts are replaced with like parts if necessary.
This test program receives a QA and an independant general office technical audit each year to evaluate the effectiveness of the program from a technical and documentation standpoint.
In more simple terms, the safety instrumentation is installed during plant construction and checked periodically on a scheduled interval bases thereafter.
The above example show the normal life of the transmitters.
Without going into similiar detail, it is sufficient to say that the rest of the instruments which have setpoints that can be calibrated are*treated in a similiar manner.
Equipment, like motors, which do not require calibrations are routinely checked by operators and maintenance people for proper lubrication and for signs of wear and aging such as unusual noise or vibrations.
In
- summary, REVISED - May 1982