ML20209C094
| ML20209C094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/29/1986 |
| From: | Guldemond W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609080391 | |
| Download: ML20209C094 (2) | |
Text
c Ds6 6
t AUG 2 S E55 MEMORANDUM FOR: Projects Branch 2 Section Chiefs FROM:
W. G. Guldemond, Chief, Projects Branch 2
SUBJECT:
PERIODIC INSPECTION OF SEISMIC MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION As the enclosed memorandum from J. G. Partlow indicates, some recent concerns have developed regarding the operability / reliability of seismic monitoring instrumentation. The regions have been asked to conduct periodic inspections of maintenance and testing of such instrumentation. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the inspections we will perform in this area until such time as our routine modules have been revised per our request to Mr. Partlow (copy enclosed).
Initial Inspection (to be completed by September 30,1986)
Complete the enclosed form for each plant cnd submit to W. G. Guldemond. No more than three inspector hours per facility are to be expended in this request.
Periodic Inspection Annually, review the most recent maintenance and surveillance data on seismic monitoring instrumentation and verify: 1) that the equipment is operable; 2) required tests are on the licensee's test schedule;
- 3) any needed maintenance has been scheduled; and 4) any equipment failures have been appropriately documented. Physically inspect accessible instrumentation for evidence of deterioration or inoperability.
Document the results of these inspections in a routine Resident Inspector report.
Please add item 2 above to your Master Inspection Plans.
o Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
{/{,/
W. A*u l m nd, Chief ojects' Branch 2
Enclosures:
1.
Memo Norelius fm Partlow dtd 2/19/86 2.
Memo Partlow fm Norelius requesting incorporation of seismic instrumentation into the routine inspection program 3.
Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation y
Data Form RIII 5~
mg"d-p
%omom 4
MEMORANDUM FOR: James G. Partlow, Director, Division of Inspection Programs.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
Charles E. Norelius, Director, Division of Reactor Projects, Region III
SUBJECT:
PERIODIC INSPECTION OF SEISMIC MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION By memorandum dated February 19, 1986 you requested Region III to incorporate periodic inspection coverage of maintenance and testing associated with seismic instrumentation into our routine inspection planning. This is being done in the following fashion:
1.
A one time inspection at all Region III facilities will be completed by September 30, 1986 to establish the type of instrumentation at each facility, applicable surveillance requirements - both licensee originated and in the Technical Specifications, applicable preventive maintenance performed, and recent failure history.
2.
Annual inspections to ascertain equipment, testing, and maintenance status.
The results of item 1. above will be documented on a survey form provided to the resident inspectors.
Copies of these forms will be forwarded to you on or before October 30, 1986.
The results of item 2. above will be dccumented in routine Resident Inspector reports.
As implementation of a periodic inspection program via memorandum is somewhat unwieldy, Region III recommends that IE incorporate periodic inspection of seismic instrumentation into an existing MC2515 minimum program Irispection Procedure (IP).
In this regard, please find attached a copy of page 5 of IP 71707, marked up for your use in implementing this reconrnendation.
Your cooperation in incorporating seismic instrumentation inspectiori requirements into an existing IP in a timely manner would be appreciated.
If you have any questions in this regard, please contact W. Guldemand (FTS 388-5574) of my staff.
Charles E. Norelius, Director Division of Reactor Projects
Attachment:
Marked up copy of page 5 of IP 71707
\\
UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k.....)
waeoumoven.o.c.senes
)
February 19, 1986 i
MEM0RANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List FROM:
James G. Partlow Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement i
SUBJECT:
SEISMIC INSTRtMENTATION FAILURES Enclosed for your informationis a July 9,1985 memorandum from K. R: Goller.
RES, to J. M. Taylor, IE, that highlights a problem of failures with seismic l
instrumentation. We evaluated this memorandum and available information on failures of seismic instrumentation. Our review disclosed that since the i
issuance of IE Circular 81-03, which covered this subject, there has only been one incident involving seismic instrumentation failures. We also noted that power reactors which do not have standard technical specifications (TS) normally do not have TS surveillance requirements for demonstrating the operability of
,l seismic instrumentation, and that all previous failures of seismic instrumentation occurred at these reactors.
j Although our review of recent failures of seismic instrumentation did not i
indicate a broad problem, the operational readiness of seismic instrumentation is an item that we believe warrants periodic _ inspection coverage. The January 31, 1986 earthquake near Cleveland, Ohio affected several nuclear plants, and the importance of having operable, seismic instrumentation was clearly demonstrated. At the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, the seismic instrumentation was activated and provided important data which the licensee and the NRC are using to analyze the event.
Therefore, we reco mend _that maintenance and testing l
assoLiated with seisr11_1rts_trWLnentation t>e factored into your routine insnection 1
- plannTng, i
If there are any questions on this matter, please contact G. Barber.
FTS 492-7473.
l l
9#\\ d"'
Jan s G. Partlow, Director Div' sion of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement l
i
Enclosure:
As stated 1
f cc w/ enc 1:
FEB 2 4 996 S. D. Ebneter, DRS/ Region I l
A. Gibson, DRS/ Region !!
C. J. Paperic110. DRS/ Region !!!
F.. R. Goller, 04ES (w/o enc 1) l mAndo1 a nn.
Fw y s y ~fn E W
~ _ - - _. - _ _ _ _.
N1tiple Addressees Richard W. Starostecki. Director Division of Reactor Projects Region I Roger Walker Director Division of Reactor Projects Region II Charles E. More11us. Director Division of Reactor Projects Region III Eric H. Johnson, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Region IV Dennis F. Kirsch, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Region V
,* mee s
UNITED STATES k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
masmwovow.o.c.senes t
JUL.9 91985 k....
a James M. Taylor, Director MEMORANDUM FOR:
Office of Inspection & Enforcement l
Karl R. Goller. Director FROM:
Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences. RES FAILURE OF SEISNIC STRONG GROUND MOTION ACCE
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Appendix A. " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power P 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria," Paragraph VI(a)(3) provides the regulatory basis for the installation and operation of seismic strong gro This regulation states, in motion accelerographs at nuclear power plants.
ided so that the seismic
' part, that, " Suitable instrumentation shall be prov response of nuclear power plant featuras important to safety can be de promptly to permit comparison of such response with tha basis.
be operated safely..."
Although this instrumentation is primarily intended to enable determining \\'
whether the ground motions of an earthquake felt by a nuclear power plant exceeded the design basis ground motions for that plant, an important se objective is to provide the NRC with ongoing information and bases for its These are currently based current licensing requirements and practices.
primarily on theory and extrapolation from the behavior of non-nuclear The RES interests in this problem are incorporated in facilities.
i secondary objective.
validate seismic design codes, seisnic margin assessments and to improveAlso, l
present models of strong ground motion propagation. instrum I
monitoring networks in the eastern and central U.S. which are intended to provide information on the origins, probabilities and characteristics of earthquakes.in this region of the U.S.
Since Appendix A went into effect, a number of earthquakes have oc probably should have triggered the accelerographs in the NPP's, bu The Lancaster, Pennsylvania, earthquake of 1984 is a good case in poi In that earthquake, the ground motion recorders at the Peach Bottom P not.
i Inspection and testing of this instrumentation the day following This occurred in not trigger.
the earthquake indicated that the system was inoperative.
~
i f
4 JUL 0 91985 i '
,2 spite of the fact that the system had.just been inspected and tested 2 days before the earthquake.
It is our understanding that in many cases, routine inspection and testing of such instrumentation at NPP's is showing that it would not have performed This situation is depriving us of properly if an earthquake had occurred.Much more importantly, however, it means th valpable seismic data.
a high probability that the intended information concerning the magnitude and nature of the ground motions to which a NPP is actually subjected during a seismic event will not be available. This could put the NRC in a difficult and awkward position concerning the restart of such a NPP.
These incidents of seismic instrumentation failure are likely related to the testing and maintenance procedures; or, more generally, the quality assurance I recomend that this situation be reviewed to better program applied to them.
establish the source of these failures so that appropriate measures may be In the interim, I suggest that you consider having undertaken to correct them.
resident inspectors increase their level of attention to the seismic l
instrumentation at NPP's.
Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES cc:
J. Knight, NRR G. Arlotto, RES B. Grimes, IE E. Jordan, IE H. Thompson, NRR T. Speis NRR i
i e
. - _ - _ _ -