ML19257C946
| ML19257C946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1980 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Proffitt W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257C947 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001310119 | |
| Download: ML19257C946 (7) | |
Text
'
T/6 p nnscoq ff k
UNITED STATES y j g(f[:; j, p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 t
1 /p
%, V JAN 10 1980 Docket No. 50-339 Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN: Mr. W. L. Proffitt Senior Vice President Power P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Proffitt:
SUBJECT:
Environmental Qualification of Rosemount Transmitters - North Anna Power Station, Unit 2 In the Final Safety Ar.alysis Report, you reference Rosemount Report 117415 and additional tests conducted by you as the basis for the environmental quali-fication of Rosemount transmitters for the North Anna Power Station, Unit 2.
We have reviewed the information provided by you and our evaluation of your qualification program for the Rosemount transmitters is summarized in Enclosures 1 and 2.
It is our conclusion that while these tests demonstrate that these transmitters have a high degree of tolerance to harsh environments, supplemental tests should be conducted to confirm the assumptions used in this program. Our requirements for resolution of these concerns for the North Anna Power Station, Unit 2 are presented in Enclosure 1.
~
Please inform us after receipt of this letter of your schedule for providing the information in Enclosure 1 and your intent with regard ta our requirements as stated in Enclosure 1.
Sincerely, at:r ef Light Water Reactors No. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See attached page 1844 062 8 001310 ll$
2 Mr. W. L. Proffitt cc: Mr. Anthony Gambaradella Clarence T. Xipps, Jr., Esq.
Office of the Attorney General 1700 Pennsylvani a Avenue, N.W.
11 South 12th Street - Room 308 Washington, D. C.
20006 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Carroll J. Savage, Esq.
Richard M. Foster, Esq.
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Musick, Williamson, Schwartz Washington, D. C.
20006 Leavenworth & Cope, P. C.
P. O. Box 4579 Mr. James C. Dunstan Boulder, Colorado 80306 State Corporation Comission Comonwalth of Virginia Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Blandon Building Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson Richmond, Virginia 23209 P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mrs. June Allen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 412 Owens Drive Washington, D. C.
20555
!iuntsville, Alabama 35801 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Mrs. James Torson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 501 Leroy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Socorro, New Mexico 87801 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mrs. Margaret Dietrich Dr. John H. Buck Route 2, Box 568 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Gordonsville, Virginia 22942 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 William H. Rodgers, Jr., Esq.
Georgetown University Law Center Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- , r,
600 New Jersey Avenue, N. W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20001 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Peter S. Hepp Mr. Michael S. Kidd Executive Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sun Shipping & Dry Dock Company P. O. 3ox 128 P. O. Box 540 Spotsivania, Virginia 22553 Chester, Pennsylvania 19013 Dr. Paul W. Purdon Mr. R. B. Briggs Department of Civil Engineering Associate Director Drexel University 110 Evans Lane Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 1844 063
Mr. W. L. Proffitt cc:
Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Apartment No. 51 Kenda l-a t-Longwcad Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348 Mr. Irwin B. Kroot Citizens Energy Forum P. O. Box 138 McLean, Virginia 22101 James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Potomac Alliance 1416 S Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 1844 064
ENCL 05Url
- QUALIFICATION OF ROSEMOUNT MODEL 1152 TRANSMITTER FOR NORTH ANNA UNIT 2 On November 20, 1979, we met with representatives of VEPC0 to discuss two additional tests which VEPC0 had conducted on Rosemount 1152 transmitters.
These tests are in addition to those covered by Rosemount Report 117415 and both are referenced in the North Anna 2 application as the qualification basis for safety related transmitters. VEPC0 submitted the information on the additional testing for the qualification of these units by letter dated December 19, 1979. Enclosure 2 is an evaluation of the Rosemount test report which was made based on the guidelines in NUREG-0588, " Staff Interim Position on Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment." As
's noted therein, we concluded that this information by itself does not provide ad adequate level of assurance for the qualification of these transmitters.
The objective of our meeting with VEPC0 was to determine if the additional tests conducted by VEPC0 were sufficient to resolve the concerns outstanding from our review of the Rosemount test report.
Based upon the additional information provided by VEPC0, the following concerns were partially resolved:
1.
The additional tests conducted by VEPC0 were conducted at the Westinghouse test facility and included the use of steam to obtain the initial simula-tion of the accident environment.
Based on the test results, this removes the concern that the Rosemount tests had used electrical heaters and pres-surization with air or nitrogen to simulate the initial portion of the simulated accident environment.
1844 065
2.
The maximum instrument errors were -8 percent, which are within the acceptance limits Westinghouse has established for transmitters in the Westinghouse supplemental qualification program. This in part, resolves our concerns for instrument errors. Further concerns are noted below.
0 3.
The radiation dose used 1n the Rosemount test progran was 5 x 10 Rads.
VEPC0 data indicates thatthe dose at the transmitter location will not exceed this value until 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> after a LOCA, consideration of the dose received prior to the accident.
These instruments would be used well beyond this period of time to provide important information for post accident conditions.
Thus, they should be qualified for radiation levels equivalent to the service conditions for their applications.
This concern remains an open item.
4.
The subsequent tests included a test of the electrical connection seal, therefore, this concern has been satisfied.
5.
The subsequent tests included caustic sprays, therefore, this concern has been satisfied.
Of the concerns from our review of the Rosemount test report, (Enclosure 2) all have been addressed by the additional tests conducted by VEPC0 except for the following:
1.
The thermal cycling tests included in the Rosemount test report were an attempt to address aging considerations. We find that this alone is not adequate to demonstrate that aging need not be addressed further, However, we do have an outstanding question on equipment qualifications for North Anna 2 to investigate materials which may be subject to known aging effects.
Rosemount transmitters should be considered in this response.
1844 066
. 2.
The additional steam environment tests conducted by VEPCO utilized transmitters which had not been subjected to the effects of radiation.
Although the original Rosemount tests had included exposure to radiation prior to the steam environment tests, these results gave an instrument error of approximately - 12% at 30 minutes into the test. This value by itself exceeds the acceptance criteria used in the Westinghouse supplemental qualification program. Thus, there is the concern that the additional effect of radiation could lead to greater instrument errors than shown by the additional VEPC0 tests. Westinghouse test experience with the Lot 1 Barton transmitters shows that there is such a relationship. We conclude that additional tests are required to be conducted to demonstrate that transmitters will respond within the acceptance limits for measurement errors where exposed to the combined effects of radiation and high temperatures.
3.
The Rosemount report concludes that the results conducted on one transmitter are valid for all pressure and differential pressure transmitters by similarity. While it may be valid to conclude that the instrument will not fail outright, it does not provide an acceptable basis to make conclusions with regard to instrument errors. We conclude that additional tests are required to be conducted to demonstrate that each type of transmitter used will meet the acceptance requirement when exposed to the effects of radiation and high temperatures. A further consideration with respect to instrument errors is the effect that the use of different measurement span limits may have due to the requirements of a specific application. The Rosemount tests did not address this 1844 067
. consideration. We conclude that additional tests are required to be ccaducted to denonstrate that instrument span adjustments required for specific applications do not result in measurement errors in excess of the acceptance limits when the transmitters are exposed to the effects of radiation and high temperatures.
If th.' results ;of the above confirmatory tests provide data which is consistent with the assunptions made with respect to the adequacy of environmental qualificatien of these transmitters, we would find that these transmitters are acceptable.
I844 008