ML20062B707
| ML20062B707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1990 |
| From: | Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| IEB-90-001, IEB-90-1, NUDOCS 9010260074 | |
| Download: ML20062B707 (4) | |
Text
.,
NRCB No.-9 -01 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY i
NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS 955 65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.
WAYNE. PA 19087 5691 (at s) sso sooo 3
October 16,.1990-Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 50-277 50-278 License Nos. NPF-391 NPF-85 DPR-44 DPR-56 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and.3 Supplemental Response to NRC Bulletin No. 90-01,
" Loss of Fill-Oil in Transmitters Manufactured by Rosemount" Gentlemen:
This letter is being submitted to supplement our. response to NRC Bulletin No.
90-01,." Loss of Fill-Oil in Transmitters Manufactured By Rosemount," for Limerick Generating' Station (LGS),
Units 1 and 2, and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS),' Units 2 and 3.
Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) received Bulletin No.
90-01 on March 20, 1990..By our letter dated' July 13, 1990,,PECo submitted a response to this Bulletin for LGS, Units.1 and 2, 'and PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, within 120 days of receipt as requested in Bulletin No. 90-01.
That response provided the detailstof-the program we developed to monitor and analyze the Rosemount'Model 1153, Series B and D, transmitters installed -in safety-related or Anticipated Transient Without-Scram (ATWS) applications at LGS and.
In our July 13,'1990 letter, we stated that further' analysis of' transmitter calibration records was.necessary;to (2 i:074 901016 I
{DR ADOCK 05000277 PDC I p
r[.U.' S..Nuclour Ragulctory Commic31on-Octob;r~ 16,~1990 Document Control Desk Pace 2.
determine if 30.of the 213 Rosemount-Model 1153, Series B and D, transmitters installed at LGS in safety-related or ATWS l
applications have exhibited symptoms indicative of loss of fill-oil.
We indicated that the results of this further analysis
.would be provided to the NRC in a supplemental response _by October.
s 16, 1990.
The additional calibration record analysis'for thesc 30 Rosemount Model 1153, Series B.and D, transmitters installed at' LGS L has been completed.
Based on the results of this analysis, 26 of-i the 30 transmitters show no symptoms indicative of loss of fill-oil.
However, four (4) of the 30 transmitters show l
calibration data trends which could.be indicative'of-loss of
~
fill-oil, and are identified below.--These four (4)' transmitters are installed in LGS, Unit 1.
None of the transmitters,. described below are used in-reactor protection or engineered safety fcacure actuation systems, nor are they from the manufacturing-lots t
identified by Rosemount as having a higher than-average-failure fraction due to loss of fill-oil, j
ICS, Unit 1 Transmitter System Description-
.)
PT-DO-102B Containment This transmitter ^is Atmospheric installed on the Control Hydrogen.Recombiner and monitors'drywell pressure.
LT-42-lN085B Nuclear Boiler This transmitter.is used Vessel Instrumentation-to indicate fuel zone.
. water level.inaccordance-with the guidance provided in-Regulatory-Guide.(RG) 1.97, " Instrumentation,for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear-Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and 1
Following an-Accident."
Li LT-52-140A Core Spray This transmitter is'used
[
to indicate Suppression Pool" water level in accordance with the guidance provided-in RG l
1.97.
- f.,U.S.
Nuclotr Regulctory Commiccion Octobar 16, 1990 Document Control Desk Page-3 PT-40-1N056 Main Steam Isolation This transmitter is
^
Valve Leakage Control.
installed in the Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control. System
.and monitors system pressure.
Since our analysis has determined that these four (4) transmitters have exceeded our evaluation criteri'a for-cal-ibration drift, each transmitter will undergo operability acceptance' testing _
as described in Exhibit 1, Item D, of our July 13, 1990. letter.
The operability acceptance testing will be performed during the Unit 1 Third Refueling Outage which is currently in progress.
If any of these transmitters fall to meet the established operability acceptance criteria,'the transmitter will.be considered inoperable and the appropriate actions taken in accordance with 'our.
monitoring program described in the July 13, 1990 letter.
In addition, we are submitting information on three (3)-
Rosemount Model 1153 transmitters which had been.or are presently installed in safety-related or ATWS applications ~at-PBAPS.
The transmitters described below are not from the manufacturing lots identified by Rosemount as having a-higher than average failure fraction due to loss of fill-oil.
PBAPS, Unit 3
- 1) FT-5957 and FT-5954 - These transmitters'were-inadvertently omitted and should have been included in our July 113, 1990 letter responding to Bulletin No. 90-01.:
The: transmitters were recently instal ~ led in the_ Containment Atmospheric Dilution system.
These transmitters are not used in reactor protection or engineered safety' feature actuation systems.
The transmitters have been incorporated into;in our monitoring program and will be analyzed by zero drift trending of calibration data as described in Exhibit 1 of.our July 13, 1990 letter.
Since the transmitters'were recently.
installed, and calibration data is collected once_ per fuel cycle, there is insufficient historical calibration data available to adequately determine if this transmitter is exhibiting symptoms indicative of loss of fill-cil, i
- 2) DPT-3-2-116C - Prior to the issuance of Bulletin'No.
90-01, this-transmitter failed, was replaced,'and' returned to Rosemount for failure analysis.
The transmitter: was installed in the Main Steam system to provide main steam line flow indication and was used for the actuation of the Primary Containment Isolation System, an: engineered l safety.
feature, on high steam flow.
This transmitter had exhibited symptoms which were indicative of a'failureLdue_to metal-
=
si;
l
[.*U,Si Nuc1GEr R gulEtory Commiosion Octob3r 16, 1990
' Document Control Desk
-Pace 4-filings (gross f ailure).-
However, the results;of Rosemount's failure analysis concluded that the transmitter failed as a-result of leakage of oil from the sensor by way of the glass to metal cell cup-seal.
~
In Exhibit 1, Item E (Extended Span Response Checks), of our July 13, 1990 letter, we indicated that extended span response L
checks at approximately 130% of calibrated output could not be-performed for transmitters that are reverse-calibrated (e.g.,
As a result of implementing:our j
monitoring program, we have determined _that certain other transmitters (indication only) can-not be extended' span response checked using the current surveillance. checks due to inability of some plant equipment, such as panel meters, to indicate above 100%-.
Therefore, transmitters where an output greater than 100% can not be indicated, will'also not undergo an extended span _ response
- l4 check.
If you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sin erelylyours, 7
1, A.. Hunger,,Jr.
G.
Manager i
Licensing Section Nuclear Engineering and Services cc:
T. T. Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC.
T. J. Kenny, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, LGS J. J. Lyash,.USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, PBAPS
- i l
s i
1 1