ML19262C625
| ML19262C625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1980 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Anderson T WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002150056 | |
| Download: ML19262C625 (2) | |
Text
',.
I-163 MC y
o,,
UNITED STATES l ', y yj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- . 6, ",/, E W# SHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k
/./
o, e
"r. Thomas M. Anderson, Manager Nuclec Safety Department Wes tir.3 house Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Cear Mr. Anaerson:
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F WCAP-7410L Additional information is needed to complete our review of Westinghouse Electric Corporation topical report WCAP-7410L.
A supplemental report entitled " Qualification Test of ITT/Barton Transmitters, Prcduction Lot
.io. 2", transmitted by letter dated December 21, 1979 was reviewed by the staff and four.d to contain inadequate explanation of problems encountered in t1e tests.
T.'.2 additional information requested is enclosed.
71is additional infomation is needed by February 22, 1980 to meet our review schecule.
If you cannot meet this date, please infom us within
- en cays after receipt of this letter of the date you clan to submit L r response.
Sincerely,
Joh. F. Stolz, Chief t Water Reactors Branch No.1 Division of Project Management incl:sure:
- e: vest for Additional Information Mr. D. Rawlins destinchouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgn, Pennsylvania 15230 800215 o D
ENCLOSURE Request for Additional Information on WCAP-7410L Supplemental Repor "Quali fi-cation Test of ITT/Barton Transmitters, Production Lot No.
2", transmitted December 21,1979.
Section 7.0 " Summary and Conclusions" of the subject test report addresses problems encountered in the qualification of Barton Lot 2 transmitters.
However, Westinghouse did not explain why these problems should not invali-date the conclusions that the transmitters are qualified.
In order to make a judgment on the adequacy of these tests, we need responses to the following questions.
1.
The output from test unit BD-3 failed at 164 hours0.0019 days <br />0.0456 hours <br />2.71164e-4 weeks <br />6.2402e-5 months <br /> into the test because the environment caused corrosion of an apparently damaged lead wire re-sulting in an open circuit.
On what basis does Westinghouse judge.the leads wires supplied with the transmitters to be imune from similar damage in field applications and not subject to failure if subjected to harsh environmental conditions?
Further, why does this not indicate that an appropriate change would be to replace those leads with wire which would be less subject to damage?
2.
The output of test BE-3 exhibited a 20% error following cool down of the instrument after exposure tc the steam environment. When this unit was tapped with a wrench the e ror disappeared. While noting that this anomaly is under further inves-igation, Westingnouse noted this result is acceptable. On what basis coes Westinghouse conclude that this effect could not cause errors greater than 20% in transmitters of this specific type when subjected to harsh environmental conditions?
3.
Westinghouse notes that the large negative error of test unit BE-2 ex-ceeds the acceptance criteria and is under further investigation.
Westinghouse noted that it suspects that a temperature compensation problem exists within this unit. Should this be the cause, it would appear that this is a potential source for comon mode failures of these transmitters when subjected to harsn environmental conditions. Why will transmitters used in plant applications not be subject to tne same problems if temperature compensation is the :ause of the errors? Further what 6ction will be taken to qualify this instr; ment if the failure of this instrument to meet the acceptance requirements is not attributed to temperature compensation? What is the rationale for permitting plants to operate with this instrument during the time required to demonstrate acceptable qualification?
4 Throughout the Westinghouse requalification program, Westinghouse has not addressed the effect that the use of an instrument span less than that of units tested could have on the resulting errors of transmitters subjected to harsh environment. What is the basis for the ccnclusion that the test results are conservative (i.e.,
strument errors would not exceed values consistent with plant safety analysis reports) for instru-ment applications which use span settings less than those of units which have undergone testing?
.