ML20058F564
| ML20058F564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058F548 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-90-001, IEB-90-1, NUDOCS 9312080179 | |
| Download: ML20058F564 (2) | |
Text
,.
nicu S
UNITED STATES
[
f Ii NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 ENCLOSURE 1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNITS 2 & 3 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNITS 1 & 2 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-277. 50-278. 50-352. 50-353
- 1. INTRODUCTION NRC Bulletin (NRCB) 90-01, Supplement 1, was issued by the NRC on December 22, 1992, to inform addressees of activities taken by the NRC staff and the industry in evaluating Rosemount Transmitters, and to request licensees to take actions to resolve this issue.
The Supplement requests utilities to review the information for applicability to their facilities, perform testing on the transmitter commensurate with its importance to safety and demonstrated failure rate, and modif surveillance programs. y, as appropriate, their actions and enhanced The Supplement also requested that the licensee provide a response that included a statement as to whether or not the licensee will take the actions requested, and a list of the specific actions that the licensee would complete and the schedule for completing the actions.
Additionally, when the specific actions committed to in the licensee's response were completed, the licensee was required to provide a statement confirming said completion.
If the licensee did not plan to comply with the requested actions as delineated in the Supplement, a statement'was required l
identifying those requested actions not taken, as well as an evaluation which provided the bases for those requested actions not taken.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The licensee for Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Philadelphia Electric Company, responded to NRCB 90-01, Supplement 1, in a submittal dated March 5, 1993.
The requested actions delineated in Supplement 1, asked that licensees review plant records and identify any Rosemount Model 1153 Series B, Model 1153 Series 0, and Model 1154 transmitters manufactured before July 11, 1989, 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).
Additionally, the licensee was to commit to a specified enhanced surveillance monitoring frequency that corresponded to the normal operating pressure of the transmitters identified.
Furthermore, the licensee was requested to evaluate i
their enhanced surveillance monitoring program.
The submittal identified the applicable Rosemount Transmitter models described the actions taken, and provided an evaluation of the enhanced t
surveillance monitoring program.
Furthermore, as transmitters become eligible for exclusion from the enhanced surveillance monitoring program, the licensee 93120B0179 931119 PDR ADOCK 05000277 p
l
! committed to providing justification to the NRC if exclusion is determined to be suitable for those transmitters.
A detailed evaluation of.the licensee's response is documented in the enclosed contractor's report (EG&G Idaho, Inc., published August 1993).
3.0 CONCLUSION
We have reviewed the licensee's response to NRCB 90-01, Supplement 1, and conclude that the licensee conforms to the requested actions of NRCB 90-01, Supplement 1, and has completed the reporting requirements.
Compliance and applicable Commission requirements will be the subject of NRC audits or inspections in the future.
i Principal Contributor:
D. Spaulding Date:
f l
f i
s i
i i
,-.