ML18058B686
| ML18058B686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1993 |
| From: | Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| IEB-90-001, IEB-90-1, NUDOCS 9303090069 | |
| Download: ML18058B686 (4) | |
Text
,,..
consumers Power POW ERIN&
MICHlliAN"S PROliRESS Palisades* Nuclear Plant:
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway,.Coven. Ml 49043 March 5, 1993 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Documerit Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 GB Slade General Manager DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR-20 --PALISADES PLANT - RESPONSE TO NRC BULLETIN.
90-01, SUPPLEMENT* 1: LOSS OF FILL-OIL IN TRANSMITTERS MANUFACTURED BY ROSEMOUNT On March*9, 1990, the NRC issued Bulletin 90-01, "Loss Of Fill~Oil In Transmitters Manufa~tured By Rosemount," which requested that licensees
- .promptly identify and take appropriate corrective actions for specific lots of Model 1153 Series B, Model 1153 Series D and Model 1154 transmitters manufactured by Rosemount before July 11, 1989, as they may have the potential for leaking fill-oil.
Consumers Power Company's (CPCo) July 17, 1990, letter, responded to the Bulletin by stating that we had not identified any transmitters from the lots identified by Rosemount built before July 11, 1989, that were installed at the Palisades plant.
We had identified twenty other of the same model Rosemount transmitters that were being utilized in safety related systems but these transmitters were not from the suspect manufacturing lots. During 1990, *e~en though they were not from the s~spect manufacturing lots, all twenty of these tr*nsmitters either had their sensor modules replaced or.they were replaced with new transmitters manufactured after July 11, 1989.
The completion of the upgrade or replacement of these transmitters was the subject of CPCo's January 10, 1991 letter to the NRC.
A July 26, 1991 NRC letter acknowledged that our actions for Bulletin 90-01 had been completed.
Supplement 1 to Bulletin 90-01, dated December 22, 1992 requested that additional actions regarding *the suspect model Rosemourit transmitters manufactu_red before July 11, 1989 be taken, as appropriate, and that licensees 080193 9303090069 6~&5&~55.
. ~DR ADOCK PDR.
A CMS" ENERGY COMPANY
provide a response to the supplement within 60 days after rece.ipt of the Bulletin.
W~ have reviewed the Bulletin supplement a~d find th~t~ because of the previous actions we have taken in respon~e to the original Bulletin, no additional actions are necessary for the Palisades plant.
For clarity, the following specific responses to the reporting requiremehts requested in Supplement 1 are provided.
NRC Request
- 1. A statement whether the licensee wi71 take the a,ctions requested
- above (i.e., in.the supplement).*
CPCo Response None of the actions requested in Supplement 1 to Bulletin 90-01 are required to be taken for the Palisades Plant.
. NRC Request
- 2. With regard to the actions requested abov~ (i.e., in the supplement) that the licensee is taking:
- a. A list of the specific actions that.the licensee wi71 complete to meet item 1 of requested actions for Operating Reactors provided.in the supplement, including justification as appropriate.
- b. The schedule for completing licensee actions to meet Item 1 of Requested Actions provided in this supplement.
- c. When completed, a statement confirming that items* 1 and 2 of Requested Actions for Operating Reactors provided in this supplement have been completed.
CPCo Response
.None of.the actions requested in Supplement 1 to Bulletin 90-01 ~re required to be completed for the Palisades plant.
y*
NRC Request
- 3. A st_atement identifying those actions requested by the NRC that the licensee is *nbt taking and an evaluation which provides the ba$eS for not taking the requested actions.
- CPCo Response The NRC requested that the licensee review plant records and identify any Rbsemount Model 1153 Series 8, Model 1153 Series D, and Model 1154 tra~smitters manufactured before July 11, lg89, that are used or may be.
used in the future in either safety-related systems or systems installed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.62 (the ATWS rule), and then take specific actions for these identified transmitters. tPCo does not have any of these suspect transmitters installed in the plant. This has bee~
.previously documented in letters to the NRC dated July 17, 1990 and January 10, 1991.
Therefor~, none of these actions need to be taken.
The NRC also requested an evaluation of the enhanced surveillance monitoring program that wa~ put in place to assure that degradation of suspect transformers can be readily identified.
CPCo has no enhanced surveillance program in-place as there are no suspect transmitters installed at the Palisades plant.
In our original response to Bulletin 90-01, we identified that an enhanced surveillance program to monitor the suspect model of transmitter was unnecessary because we did not have any of the potential problem transmitters~ And, as ~n add~d precaution~
~e replaced the sensor modules or the ent~re transmitt~rs for those Rosemount transmitters that were not on the suspect list, but were manufactured prior t6 July 11, 1989, we replaced the sensor modul~s or the enttre transmitters.
. x5.L/P~
Gerald B Slade G*enera 1 Manager CC: Administrator Regiona III, USNRC Resident Inspector, Palisades
.CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY To the best of. my knowledge, information and belief, the contents of this submittal are truthful and complete.
By ~ol?.
- David P Hoffman, Vic~P-_.
Nuclear Operations Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~day of ?Jz.~
1993.
a~*
[SEAL]
BEVERLY.A. AVERY NOTARY PU3LIC STATE Or MICHIGAN
- J!1CKSON COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXP. DEC..3,1996
--~,