ML20197H694

Interim Rept 2 of Deficiency PRD-84/08 Re Containment Personnel Air Lock Not Seismically Qualified.Initially Reported on 840416.Investigation Into Reportability of Drywell Airlocks Continuing.Final Rept Expected by 840928

ML20197H694
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	06/08/1984
From:	Richard J MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
AECM-84-2-0010, AECM-84-2-10, NUDOCS 8406190149
Download: ML20197H694 (3)

Text

. , .,

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY f&g Build Mississippi P. O. B g Tb{b , J A C K S O N , M I S S I S S I P gh' J B .RICH

. vieAR

.. D..... r aucuaa June 8,1984 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attention: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator

SUBJECT:

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 2 Docket No. 50-417 License No. NPF-13 File 0260/15525/15526/16694.4 PRD-84/08, Interim Report #2 for Unit 2, Containment Personnel Air Lock Seismic Qualification AECM-84/2-0010 Re ference : AECM-84/0237, 4/20/84 On April 16, 1984, Mississippi Power & Light Company notified Mr. R.

Carroll, of your of fice, of a Reportable Deficiency at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) Unit 1. The deficiency concerns a failure of the vendor, W. J.

Woolley Co., to seismically qualify the containment pneumatic supply system. On May 11, 1984, Mr. C. Julian, of your of fice, was notified of the reportability of this item under 10CFR50.55(e) for Unit 2.

The reportable deficiencies for both units concern the containment personnel airlocks. Investigation into the reportability of the drywell airlocks is continuing at this time. We expect to submit a final response by September 28, 1984.

Yours t 1 ,

KDS:dr ATTACHMENT cc: See page 2

~

8406190149 840608 PDR ADOCK 05000417 ,

S PDR

()f f W g C O P 3 -

' 3 Member Middle South Utilities System -

]

y

. '?

t Mr'. J. P. O'Reilly AECM-84/2-0010 NRC Page 2

~

'cc: Mr.~ J.' B. Richard

' Mr. R. B. McGehee

' Mr. . Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth-Street, N. W.

Suite 700 Washington, D. C. 20036 Mr. ' Richard .C. DeYoung, Director Of fice of Inspection & Enforcement

U. S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Washington,~D.C. 20555 Mr.'G. B. Taylor

- South Miss. Electric Power Association -

P. O. Box 1589 cHattiesburg, MS 39401 7

y

. Attachment ' to AECM-84/2-0010 Pege 1 of 1-INTERIM REPORT NO. 2 FOR UNIT 2 FOR PRD 84/08 I. Description of the Deficiency

The containment: personnel air locks consist of a cylindrical steel shell with steel bulkheads at each end, with one steel door in each

-bulkhead.. Sealing of the doors is accomplished by two continuous inflatable seals which surround each door edge. When the door is closed, the air lock pneumatic supply system provides air to the seals, two seals on each door are inflated outwardly from the door. The seals  ;

impinge against a smooth stainless sealing surface. l i

The air lock and its associated components were to be seismically ,

qualified by the supplier per GGNS Purchase Specification 9645-C- -

[

153.0. However, it has been determined that the personnel air locks  ;

pneumatic supply system (tubing, supports, and instrumentation) between  !

= the check valve upstream of the accumulators and the seals had not been 't seismic ally ' qualified . i Failure of any component in the pneumatic supply system between the  ;

check valve upstream of the accumulators and ,the seals, as a result of a seismic event, could result in deflation of the containment air lock 4 seals due to loss of air through the failed component. Deflation of ,

~

all seals could result in the loss of containment boundary integrity (reference FSAR_ Chapter 6.2). .

II. Approach to Resolution of the Problem 1 +

The . existing system will be reanalyzed, upgraded and qualified supports f will .be provided or a complete new air supply system design will be _  !

provided by the suppiter.

' ' III .~ Status of Proposed Resolution

. l The safety .Lsplications, cause, and extent of the deficiency have all  !

been determined.- Corrective actions and actions to prevent recurrence have not been finalized. . , .

IV._ ' Reason Why Final Report is Delayed -!

The final report-is delayed _ pending finalizing of the proposed design. ,

changes to be; implemented, for Unit 2.'

V. Date when Final Report will Be Submitted

'We expect to submit a final response' by September 28, 1984.

a a

h n r , e .. . --.

.e- - . . - . . - - - , , - . . . , , . - - - - ,,,,-.-n. . . . - ,.n-,., - - .. - -~,,- - . . .