ML20137D777
| ML20137D777 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136C539 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-96-485 IEB-90-01, IEB-90-1, NUDOCS 9703260303 | |
| Download: ML20137D777 (3) | |
Text
__
pn "tc UNITED STATES y~
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
wAssiwoTow, o c. roseseo gs...../
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION LOSS OF FILL-Oll IN TRANSMITTERS MANUFACTURED BY ROSEMOUNT.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) BULLETIN 90-01. SUPPLEMENT I FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE. UNITS 1 ANJ_2 DOCKET NOS.50-335. 50-389 t
- 1. INTRODUCTION NRC Bulletin 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 rdquests 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 modify as appropriate their actions and enhanced surveillance programs. The Supplement also requested that the licensee i
i provide a response that included a statement as to whether or not the licensee will take the actions requested, a list of specific actions that the licensee would complete, and the schedule for completing the actions. Additionally, I
when the specific actions committed to in the licensee's response were ATTACHMENT 1 9703260303 970301 DE 485 PDR
. completed, the licensee was required to provide a statement confirming said completion.
If the licensee did not plan to comply with all of the Requested Actions as delineated in the Supplement, a statement was required identifying those Requested Actions not taken as well as an evaluation which provided the bases for Requested Actions not taken.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The licensee for the St. Lucie plant, Florida Power and Light Company, responded to NRC Bulletin 90-01, Supplement 1 in submittals dated March 5, 1993, March 9, 1994, and August 18, 1994.
The Requested Actions delineated in Supplement I asked that licensees review plant records and identify any Rosemount Model 1153 Series B, Model 1153 Series D, 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 their enhanced surveillance monitoring program.
A detailed evaluation of the licensee's response is documented in the enclosed I
contractor's report.
l l
1
.1 )
3.0 CONCLUSION
We have reviewed the licensee's response to NRC Bulletin 90-01, Supplement I and conclude that the licensee conforms to the Requested Actions of NRC Bulletin 90-01, Supplement 1, and has completed the reporting requirements.
Compliance with applicable Commission requirements may be the subject of NRC audits or inspections in the future, j
i i
i 1
i l
. - -. ~. -.....
__ ~ _ - -. _
l l
1 EGG-DNSP-ll487 J
1
)
i m
1 I
3 J
l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT h
li Evaluation of Utility Response to Supplement 1 to l'
NRC Bulletin 90-01: St. Lucie-1/-2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
)
)
Alan C. Udy j
i Published September 1994 i
i
)
2 1
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
4 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory j
(
i I
Prepared for the U.S.. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 i
i FIN No. Ll695, Task No. Ila TAC Nos. M85446 and M85447 l
O o & J 0 v i-l l h l'-
~ -. -
l t
i i
SUMMARY
I This report documents the EG&G Idaho, Inc., review of the Florida Power and Light Company submittals that respond to Supplement I to NRC Bulletin 90-01 for Unit Nos. I and 2 of the St. Lucie Plant. This NRC Bulletin provides information regarding the loss of fill-oil in certain pressure and differential pressure transmitters manufactured by Rosa oua+, Inc.
This report finds that the licensee complies to the requested actions and the reporting requirements of the Supplement.
I l
i i
- o I
i I
I FIN No. Ll695, Task No. 11a B&R No. 320-19-15-05-0 l
Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 i
TAC Nos. M85446 and M85447 li l
1
I l
PREFACE This report is supplied as part of the " Technical Assistance in Support
(-
of the Instrumentation and Controls Systems Branch." It is.being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Reactor C)ntrols and Human Factors, by EG&G Idaho, Inc., DOE /NRC Support Programs Unit.
l l
i i
I I
iii l
1
1
.d CONTENTS 1
SUMMARY
ii PREFACE..............................................................
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................
1 1
2.
NRC SPECIFIED REQUESTED ACTIONS.................................
4 l
3.
EVALUATION......................................................
7 3.1 Evaluation of Licensee Response to Reporting Requirements.
7 3.2 Evaluation of Licensee Response to Requested Actions......
7 4.
CONCLUSIONS.....................................................
12 5.
REFERENCES......................................................
13 l
1 l
i i
i i
l l
l l
iv l
1
Evaluation of Utility Response to Supplement I to NRC Bulletin 90-01: St. Lucie-1/-2 1.
INTRODUCTION The NRC issued Bulletin 90-01 on March 9, 1990 (Reference 1).
That Bulletin discussed certain Rosemount pressure and differential pressure transmitter models identified by the manufacturer as prone to fill-oil leakage. The Bulletin requested licensees to identify whether these transmitters were or may later be installed in safety-related systems.
Actions were detailed for licensee implementation for certain identified i
transmitters installed in a safety-related system. these same actions apply to those identified transmitters presently held in inventory for later installation in a safety-related system.
With the gradual leakage of fill-oil, the transmitter would not have the long term accuracy, time response, and reliability needed for its intended safety function.
Further, this condition could go undetected over a long period.
Redundant instrument. channels are subject to the same degradation mechanism. This increases the potential for a common mode failure.
- Thus, this potential failure mechanism raised concern for the reliability of reactor protection systems (RPS), engineered safety features (ESF) actuation systems,
)
and anticipp ud transient without ceram (ATWS) mitigating systems. To achieve high functiorsal reliability, there must be a low probability of component failure while operating, with any failures readily detectable.
Supplement I to NRC Bulletin 90-01 (Reference 2) was issued on December 22, 1992. The Supplement informed licensees of NRC staff activities regarding the subject transmitters, and noted continuing reports of transmitter failures. The NRC requested licensee action to resolve the issue.
The Supplement also updated the information contained in the original bulletin. The licensee was requested to review the information and determine if it was applicable at their facility. Further, the licensee was requested to modify their actions and enhanced surveillance monitoring programs to conform with t'.. dimtion given. Finall:, the licensee was 'istructed to j
I
1 I
respond to the NRC. The Reauested Actions in Supplement I to NRC Bulletin 90-l 01 supersede the original NRC Bulletin 90-01 Reauested Actions.
i In responding to Supplement I to NRC Bulletin 90-01, the licensee is directed to address three items.
1.
A statement either committing the licensee to take the NRC i
Bulletin 90-01, Supplement 1, Reauested Actions or taking exception to those actions.
j 2.
Addressing the actions committed to in the above statement, f
provide:
a.
a list of the specific actions, including any justifications, to be taken to complete the commitment, b.
a schedule for completion, and after completion, a statement confirming the actions c.
committed to are complete.
i 3.
A statement identifying the NRC Bulletin 90-01, Supplement 1, Reauested Actions not taken, along with an evaluation providing the basis for exemption.
In implementing the replacement option of the NRC Reauested Actions,
,y plant shutdown exclusively for replacing the. transmitters is not required.
This allowance infers that replacements can be scheduled. With replacement in a timely manner, enhanced surveillance monitoring for interim operation is not required.
The Florida Power and Light Company, the licensee for Unit Nos. I and 2 of the St. Lucie Plant, responded to Supplement 1 of NRC Bulletin 90-01 with a letter dated March 5, 1993 (Reference 3). The licensee provided additional information on March 9,1994 (Reference 4). The licensee notified the NRC that their transmitter replacements were complete on August 18, 1994 (Reference 5). This technical evaluation report evaluates the completeness of 2
J s
4 those submittals.
It also determines whether proposed surveillance methods
{
are adequate to determine fill-oil loss-caused degradation of the transmitter'.
Finally, this report addresses the interval of surveillance proposed by the licensee for any transmitters included in the enhanced surveillance monitoring program.
Many Rosemount transmitter failures have been attributed to the use of stainless steel "0"-rings between the sensing module and the process flanges.
Rosemount improved the manufacturing process for transmitters manufactured after July 11, 1989. Those improvements included a limit of the torque applied to the flange bolts. This limits the stress caused in the sensing module by the "0"-ring.
Post-production screening, including pre sure testing of the sensing module for this potential latent defect, was also implemented at that time.
Therefore, as described in Su,plement 1 of NRC Bulletin 90-01, those Rosemount transmitters manufactured after Julv 11.10'o, are not sebject to this review.
3
)
i 4
i 2.
NRC SPECIFIED REQUESTED ACTIONS The NRC staff specified the following Ettauested Actions of licensees of operating reactors.
j 1.
Review plant records and identify the following Rosemount transmitters (if manufactured before July 11,1989) that either are used in or may be j.
used in either safety-related or ATWS mitigating systems.
Rosemount Model 1153, Series B Rosemount Model 1153, Series D Rosemount Model 1154
~
Following identification, the licensee is to establish the following:
i i
n.
For those identified transmitters having a normal opc ating pressure greater than 1500 psi, and are installed as part of reactor protection trip systems, ESF actuation systems, or ATWS 7;
mitigating systems, either replace the transmitter in an expedited manner, or monitor monthly, for the life of the transmitter, using an enhanced surveillance program.
4 If the identified transmitter axceeds the 60,000 psi-month or the 130,000 psi-month criterion (depending on the range code of the transmitter) established by Rosemount, enhanced surveillance on a refueling (not exceeding 24 months) basis is acceptable. Under l
this option, justification must be based on the service record and the specific safety function of the transmitter. That justification can be based on high functional reliability provided by redundancy or diversity.
l 4
b.
For those identified transmitters having a normal operating
(
pressure greater than 1500 psi, and are installed as part of a safety-related system other than reactor protection trip systems, ESF actuation, or ATWS mitigating systems, either replace the transmitter or monitor quarterly, for the life of the transmitter, i
using an enhanced surveillance program.
If the identified transmitter exceeds the 60,000 psi-month or the 130,000 psi-month criterion (depending on the range code of the t
transmitter) established by Rosemount, enhanced surveillance on a i
refueling (not exceeding 24 months) basis is acceptable. Under i
this option, justification must be based on the service record and the specific safety function of the transmitter.
That 4
i l
justification can be based on high functional reliability provided by redundancy or diversity.
c.
For boiling water reactors (BWR)--
For tnose identified transmitters having a normal operating pressure greater than 500 psi and less than or equal to 1500 psi, and are installed as part of reactor protection trip systems, ESF actuation systems, or ATWS mitigating systems, either replace tha transmitter, or monitor monthly with an enhanced surveillance monitoring program, until the transmitter reaches the designated (by Rosemount) psi-month criterion (60,000 psi-month or 130,000 psi-month, depending on the transmitter range code).
For transmitters that provide signals to the RPS or ATWS trips for high pressure or low water level, the enhanced surveillance must be monthly.
For other transmitters in this classification, enhanced surveillance on a refueling (not exceeding 24 months) basis is acceptable. Under this option, justification must be based on the service record and the specific safety function of the transmitter.
That justification can be based on high functional reliability provided by redundancy or diversity.
For pressurized water reactors (PWR)--
For those identified transmitters having a normal operating pressure greater than 500 psi and less than or equal to 1500 psi, and are installed as part of reactor protection trip systems, ESF actuation systems, or ATWS mitigating systems, either replace the transmitter, or monitor with an enhanced surveillance monitoring program, until the transmitter reaches the designated (by Rosemount) psi-month criterion (60,000 psi-month or 130,000 psi-month, depending on the transmitter range code) on a refueling (not exceeding 24 months) basis.
d.
For those identified transmitters having a normal operating pressure greater than 500 psi and less than or equal to 1500 psi, and are installed as part of a safety-related system other than reactor protection trip systems, ESF actuation, or ATWS mitigating systems, either replace the transmitter or monitor with an enhanced surveillance mcnitoring program, until the transmitter reaches the designated (by Rosemount) psi-month criterion (60,000 psi-month or 130,000 psi-month, depending on the transmitter range code) on a refueling (not exceeding 24 months) basis.
5
- y-e.
Those transmitters having a normal operating pressure greater than j.
500 psi and less than or equal to 1500 psi, and nave accumulated E
sufficient psi-month operating history to exceed the criterion 4
established by Rosemount, may be excluded from the enhanced surveillance monitoring program at the discretion of the licensee.
However, the licensee should retain a high level of confidence that a high level of reliability is maintained and that transmitter failure due to loss of fill-oil is detectable.
I f.
Those transmitters having a normal operating pressure less than or d
equal to 500 psi may be excluded from the enhanced surveillance monitoring program at the discretion of the licensee. However, the licensee should retain a high level of confidence that a high i ~
level of reliability is maintained and that transmitter failure due to loss of fill-oil is detectable.
i i
2.
Evaluate the enhanced surveillance monitoring program. The evaluation is to ensure the measurement data has an accuracy commensurate with the accuracy needed to compare the data to the manufacturers drift data criteria.
It is this comparison that determines tha degradation threshold for loss of fill-oil failures of the subject transmitters.
4-The Supplement also states the NRC may conduct audits or inspections in the future to verify compliance with the established requirements.
4
\\
w 6
- ~, - - - -
~
1
\\-
l:
3.
EVALUATION The licensee responded to Supplement 1 of NRC Bulletin 90-01 < n March 5, 1993. The licensee provided additional information on March 9, 199s. The licensee notified the NRC that their transmitter replacements were complete on August 18, 1994. Those responses were compared to the Bulletin Reportina j
Reauirements and Reauested Actions as described below. The licensee reports having Rosemount transmitters. that are subject to the Reauested Actions of the Supplement. Other Rosemount transmitters are outside the scope of the Supplement due to replacement or refurbishment.
I 3.1 Evaluation of Licensee Resoonse to Reportino Reautrements The licensee states, in Reference 3, that they ir+end to implement the r
Reauested Actions detailed in Supplement 1 of NRC Bulletin 90-01.
Included l
with that statement is clarification, interpretation, and the limits placed on-f that commitment. The licensee described the specific actions taken to execute I
the Reauested Actions.
The licensee provided a statement that the Reauested Actions are complete on August 18, 1994.
The licensee submittals conform to the Reportina Reauirements of Supplement 1 of NRC Bulletin 90-01.
3.2 Evaluation of Licensee Response to Reauested Actions Supplement 1 of NRC Bulietin 90-01 requested licensee action to resolve the issue of fill-oil leakage in Rosemount transmitters. This Technical Evaluation Report sunnarizes the Reauested Actions and the associated transmitter criteria in Section 2.
Rosemount transmitters manufactured after July 11, 1989 are not subject to the Supplement requirements or an enhanced surveillance monitoring program. The ifcensee response to the Supplement is i
discussed in the following sections.
L 7
l 1
_ _ - - - =. _ _
3.2.1 Licensee Response to Reauested Action 1.a Unit 90. 1 The licensee states there are Rosemount transmitters from this transmitter' classification at Unit No.1 of the St. Lucie Plant.
The licensee i
scheduled the subject transmitters for replacement in the spring of 1993.
However, the licensee committed that if a delay in transmitter installation j
occurred, the licensee will monitor that transmitter monthly as part of th'eir i
enhanced surveillance monitoring program. The licensee stated they will not I
increase the surveillance interval from monthly without providing justification to the NRC. The licensee actions for transmitters in f
transmitter classification 1.a at Unit No. I are acceptable. As noted in Reference 5, the licensee actions for this transmitter classification are comple+e,
,d the transmitters replaced as scheduled.
Unit No. 2 t
}
The licensee states there are Rosemount transmitters from this transmitter classification at Unit No. 2 of the St. Lucie Plant. However, all Unit No. 2 Rosemount transmitters in this transmitter classification were manufactured after July 11, 1989, and are exempt from the Supplement requirements.
3.2.2 Licensee Response to Reauested Action 1.b Unit No. 1 The licensee states there are Rosemount transmitters from this transmitter classification at Unit No.1 of the St. Lucie Plant. The licensee scheduled the subject transmitters for replacement in the spring of 1993.
However, the licensee committed, in Reference 3, that if a delay in trarsmitter in 'allation occurred, the licensee will monitor that transmitta-8
quarterly as part of their enhanced surveillance monitoring program.
The licensee states they will not increase the surveillance interval from quarterly without providing justification to the NRC. The licensee actions for transmitters in transmitter classification 1.b at Unit No. I are acceptable. As noted in Reference 5, the licensee actions for this transmitter classification are complete, and the transmitters replaced as scheduled.
Unit No. 2 The licensee states there are Rosemount transmitters from this transmitter classification at Unit No. 2 of the St. Lucie Plant. The licensee
)
scheduled the subject transmitters for replacement in the fall of 1993. The licensaa committed, in Reference 3, to monitor these transmitters quarterly as part of the enhanced surveillance monitoring program until replaced.
Some of i
the Unit No. 2 Rosemount transmitters were manufactured after July 11, 1989, and are exempt from the Supplement requirements. The licensee actions for j
transmitters in transmitter classification 1.b at Unit No. 2 are acceptable.
As noted in Reference 5, the licensee actions for this transmitter classification are complete, and the transmitters replaced as scheduled.
3.2.3 Licensee Response to Reauested Action 1.c The licensee states there are Rosemount transmitters from this transmitter classification at the St. Lucie Plant. The licensee states that these transmitters will participate in an enhanced surveillance monitoring program on a refueling basis. The interval will not exceed 24 months.
Either replacement or successfully achieving the psi-month maturity threshold will remove a transmitter from the enhanced surveillance monitoring program.
Replacement with a transmitter manufactured after July 11, 1989, removes the transmitter from the Supplement requirements. Successfully achieving maturity transfers the transmitter to transmitter classification 1.e.
See Section 3.2.5.
9 n
~
l l
l l
l 3.2.4 Licensee Response to Reauested Action 1.d l
l; The licensee states there are R'osemount transmitters from this transmitter classification at the St. Lucie Plant. The licensee states that these transmitters will participate in an enhanced surveillance monitoring program on a refueling basis. The interval will not exceed 24 months.
Either replacement or successfully achieving the psi-month maturity threshold will remove a transmitter from the enhanced surveillance monitoring program.
s.
Replacement with a transmitter manufactured after July 11, 1989, removes the transmitter from the Supplement requirements. Successfully achieving maturity transfers the transmitter to transmitter classification 1.e.
See Section 3.2.5.
3.2.5 Licensee Response to Reauested Action 1.e l
As transmitters in transmitter classification 1.c and 1.d exceed the i
psi-month maturity threshold, the licensee will remove those transmitters from i
the enhanced surveillance monitoring program. The Supplement permits this action.
f The Supplement requires the licensee to maintain a high degree of confidence that these transmitters remain highly reliable. The licensee states that before removing a transmitter from the enhanced surveillance monitoring program, the transmitter will exhibit no excessive drift or sluggishness.
The licensee states that existing maintenance and surveillance programs can detect future failures due to the loss of fill-oil.
3.2.6 Licensee Response to Reauested Action 1.f 4
The licensee states there are Rosemount transmitters from this classification at the St. Lucie Plant. At licensee discretion, these j
transmitters are not part of the enhanced surveillance monitoring program.
I The Supplement permits this action.
10
- - -._~. - - -. - -. -.
4 2
5 i
- o i
The Supplement requires the licensee to maintain a high degree of 4
confidence that these transmitters remain highly reliable. The licensee l
j
~
states that existing maintenance and surveillance programs can detect future f
failures due to the loss of fill-oil.
i 2
3.2.7 Enhanced Surveillance Monitorina Proaram i
i The licensee described the monitoring intervals for the different transmitter classifications. The licensee, in addressing Reauested Action 2 f
i of the Supplement, states their enhanced surveillance monitoring program uses the guidelines of Rosemount Technical Bulletin No. 4.
Following the l
guidelines of Rosemount Technical Bulletin No. 4 satisfies the requirements of the Supplement and is acceptable.
l t
11 1
1 l
1 t
4.
CONCLUSIONS Based on our review, we find the licensee has completed the reporting requirements of Supplement I of NRC Bulletin 90-01.
Further, the licensee conforms to the Reauested Actions of Supplement 1 to NRC Bulletin 90-01, f
l f
-l i
e i
'I t
f 3
5 s
F
)
I t
t k
5 I
3 i
i i
12
e 5.
REFERENCES 1.
NRC Bulletin No. 90-01:
" Loss of Fill-oil in Transmitters Manufactured by Rosemount," March 9, 1990, OMB No. 3150-0011.
2.
NRC Bulletin No. 90-01, Supplement 1: " Loss of Fill-oil in Transmitters Manufactured by Rosemount," December 22, 1992, OMB No. 3150-0011.
3.
Letter, Florida Power and Light Company (D. A. Sager) to NRC, "NRC Bulletin 90-01 Supplement 1 Response," March 5,1993, L-93-61.
4.
Letter, Florida Power and Light Company (D. A. Sager) to NRC, "NRC Bulletin 90-01 Supplement 1 Additional Information," March 9,1994, L-94-061.
5.
Letter, Florida Power and Light Company (D. A. Sager) to NRC, "NRC Bulletin 90-01 Cupplement 1 Additional Information," August 18, 1994, L-94-210.
l l
i 13
. -...-.. -~. =. -
- - - -. - - - -.. ~..
4 J
SALP INPUT l
FACILITY NAME:
St. Lucie 1 and 2
SUMMARY
OF REVIEW The staff completed its review of the licensee's response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bulletin 90-01, Supplerr.ent 1, submitted by the Florida j
Power and Light Company for the St. Lucie p1Lat. We find the licensee's response ror this item acceptable.
i.
NARRATIVE DISCUSSION OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE - FUNCTIONAL AREA The initial response provided to the staff was supplemented with additional information to meet the requested actions.
i Author:
D. Spaulding l
Date:
September 26, 1994 t<
i i
l i
9 4
ATTACHMENT 3 l-4 1
i y._., s
.. - _.