ML20100F288
| ML20100F288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1985 |
| From: | Godfrey D ENERFAB |
| To: | Baer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| REF-PT21-85-177-000 PT21-85-177, PT21-85-177-000, NUDOCS 8504040280 | |
| Download: ML20100F288 (2) | |
Text
_
g.
ar-m-m fu E
BISHOPRIC PRODUCTS /W.J. WOOLLEY ENERFAB CORPORATION. 4955 Spring Grove Avenue a Cincinnati, Ohio 45232 w*
513/6410500 telex 214494 March 29,1985 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Robert L. Baer, Chief Engineering and Generic Communications Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness & Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Subject:
W. J. Woolley Company Personnel Air Locks Seismic Qualification of Pneumatic Suppl, System Grand Gulf Nuclear Station - Unit 1
Reference:
- 1) November 28, 1984 Letter from R. L. Baer to E. Rountree (ENERFAB)
- 2) October 3,1984 Letter from L. F. Dale (M P & L) to J. P. O'Reilly (USNRC)
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request in the Reference 1) letter, please be advised that we have reviewed the design of all W. J. Woolley Company inflatable seal personnel air locks and determined that all of the units do have seismically qualified pneumatic supply systems.
The situation which existed at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (Reference
- 2) was, in fact, an isolated case; and as such, we can report that this is not a potential generic problem with the seismic qualification of pneumatic supply systems on W. J. Woolley Company inflatable seal per-sonnel air locks.
8504040280 850329 o
PDR ADOCK 05000416 7
S PDR
'fl
~~
\\
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement March 29,1985 Page 2 It should be noted that as a result of a joint effort between the Mississippi Power & Light Company, the owner's A/E, and the Wooljey Company, the pneumatic supply system for the Grand Gulf air lock; has subs % dently been seismically qualified and that this matter has, therefore, been resolved.
k As a. point of clarification, ENERFAB would like to note that the
" upgrade" referred to in Reference 2) was intended to implement tae requirements of both 10CFR 50 Appendix A and ANSI-N-271-1976.
We trust this information provides sufficient verification regtk red to support your final action on this issue.
'Very truly yours, ENERFAB CORPORATION
}'th Dwaine A. Godfrey President DAG/ sis encls: References 1) & 2) cc:
Mr. L. F. Dale, Director Mississippi Power & Light Company P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205
aneey h / PERM /CE /
s
{
LlNITED STATES
f' '. !
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nasniscrow, n.c.2osss 1
NOV 2 81984 Enerfab ATTN: Mr. E. Roundtree 4955 Spring Grove Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio.45232 Gentlemen:
,e Mississippi Power and Light Company's (HP&L) letter of April 20,-1984(Enclo-sure 1), reported a problem with the seismic qualification of pneumatic supply system to the containment personnel air lock seals at their Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1.
Since similar systems are to be used at other nuclear power sites, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement was asked to look into the potential for this being a generic issue at other facilities.
For this reason, on June 11, 1984, Mr. Richard J. Kiessel, of my staff, spoke with Mr. R. A. Maffei, then an employee of W. J. Woolley Company. Based on his assurances that the upgraded systems sold to the other facilities were seismically qualified, I concluded that there was no need for further action with respect to the generic aspects of this issue (Enclosure 2).
Subsequent to receiving a copy of my internal memorandum addressing my conclu-sions, MP&L attempted to determine why their pneumatic supply system was not handled in a manner consistent with the other facilities.
Their letter of October 3, 1984 (Enclosure 3) states their belief that there had been a misun-derstanding between Messers. Kiessel and Maffei as to the nature of the "up-grade" which had been provided to the other facilities. Thus, they concluded that the systems installed at the other facilities may not be seismically qualified.
In addition, they recommended that I should reconsider my decision with respect to the generic nature of this issue.
l During your November 14th conversation with Mr. Kiessel, you stated that 'the upgraded systems provided to the other facilities were, in fact, seismically qualified.
You also indicated that you would provide written confirmation of this, if so requested in writing.
t I.
I 1
4 4
f!@ia m B C
}
t
,t : -
NOVib1384 l
Enerfab j I
Since the public record on this issue contains written concerns raised by MP&L,
+
1 feel that it is appropriate to base our final action on this issue on a similar level of documentation. Therefore, I am accepting your offer to provide such written verification that the systems provided to the other j
nuclear facilities were seismically qualified.
Sincerely, j-bert L. Baer, Chief Engineering and Generic Communications Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1) MP&L letter to NRC Region II dated April 20, 1984
- 2) My memorandum to Richard C. Lewis dated June 12, 1984
- 3) MP&L letter to NRC Region II dated October 3, 1984
)'
8
N8FEnENM 1
^
- n.. -d '
M F!!
L MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY L}
Helping Build Mississippi
' W P. O. B O X 16 4 0, J AC K S O N, MI S SIS S IP PI 3 9 2 05 October 3, M8&C T 5 p j *. 2 h muctuo uce=uno a susiv ormmswr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta St., N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Attention:
Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
SUBJECT:
Grand Culf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-416 and 50-417
( License No. NPF-13 File: 0260/15525/15526 PRD-84/08 Containment and Dryvell Personnel Air Lock Seismic Qualification AECM-84/0456 B
References:
(1)
AECM-84/0237, 4/20/84 (2)
AECM-84/2-0010,6/8/84 (3)
AECM-84/0337,6/21/84 (4)' June 12, 1984, Letter from R. L. Baer to R. C. Lewis Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L) provided a final report for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (CCNS) Units 1 and 2 for a Reportable Deficiency identified as PRD-84/08 in Reference (3). The deficiency. concerned a failure of the vendor W. J. Woolley Co., to seismically qualify the personnel air
'As stated in Reference (3) the air lock and locka' pneumatic supply system.
its associated components were specified to be seismically qualified by the supplier per CCNS Specification 9645-C-153.0. However, contrary to the specification, it was determined that the personnel air locks pneumatic supply sytem (tubing, supports, and instrumentation) between the check valve upstream of the accumulators and the seals had not been qualified.
MP&L recently receive'd a copy of the NRC internal correspondence of It concerned the potentially generic problem at Grand Gulf Reference (4).
regarding the seismic qualification of the containment and drywell personnel air locks.
The NRC internal correspondence indicated per conversations with W. J. Woolley Company personnel that Grand Gulf was the last site to upgrade their air lock air system to seismic qualifications.
Af ter receiving the NRC internal correspondence, MP&L requested the CCNS Architect-Engineer (A/E) to investigate the reason why the deficiency concerning the seismic design of the airlock air system had not been handled consistent with other nuclear plants. As a result of this investigation, it appears that there has been a misunderstanding based on the communications between the NRC and W. J. Woolley concerning the CCNS Part 21 report (Reference 3) and the " upgrade" of the air lock air system referred to in the NRC internal correspondence.
,m ),,, g 7 3 3 Tlg,
ii,io.7
/*
AECM-84/0456 "U"
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY The " upgrade" Woolley refers to was presented to our A/E in 1978, not to meet seismic requirements but as a "new design" which simplified the previous design and incorporated the requirements of ANSI-N-271-1976 " Containment Incistion Provisions for Fluid Systems," which was not required for Grand Culf.
Our A/E rejected the proposal and chose to retain the issued contract and specification (9645-C-153.0) requirements which has always specified seismically qualified air locks.
Conversations between our A/E and Mr. R. A. Maf fei (now with Danley Manuf acturing Co.) concerning his discussion with the NRC resulted in some confusion on Mr. Maffei's part as to how this " upgrade" was presented to the various projects and the reason for it.
Mr. Maf fei indicated that his recounting of the situation was somewhat hampered by his lack of access to past Woolley records.
MP&L and our A/E feel that the NRC should consider a reevaluation of the Part 21 report submitted by MP&L for potential generic effects on other plants.
Installation of the modified system does not insure that the air lock systems installed at other plants were seismically qualified.
The deficiency reported by MP&L was caused by the failure of the vendor to supply seismically l
qualified equipment as specified, not by our A/E's rejection of the " upgraded" or " modified" system.
This letter also serves to document a September 20, 1984 telephone conversation between S. H. Hobbs and E. B. Shingleton of MP&L and Mr. R. E.
Carroll of the-NRC.
Yours truly, L. F. Dale Director EBS/SHH:rg cc:
Mr. J. B. Richard Mr. R. B. McGehee Mr. N. S. Reynolds Mr. G. B. Taylor Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 1
Imme ummamimmuu muss i is eii