ML20247K247
| ML20247K247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Perry, Hope Creek, Turkey Point, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1989 |
| From: | Berlinger C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rossi C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909210114 | |
| Download: ML20247K247 (5) | |
Text
.
-y i
- hake A
(
UNITED STATES j!
, p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[m
'4
- j WASHWGTON, D. C. 20555
,e t:
August 24, 1989:
-MEMORANDUM FOR:
' Charles.E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational Events Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Carl H. Berlinger,- Chief Generic Communications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
PLANT VISITS REGARDING ROSEMOUNT TRANSMITTERS Generic Communications Branch (0GCB) and Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch'(SICB) staff members recently visited several nuclear power plants to gather. information,regarding industry actions to address the loss of oil malfunctions of Rosemount model 1153 and 1154 transmitters. Scott Newberry, Vincent. Thomas, and Timothy Carnes of SICB, Jaime Guillen of OGCB, and I. visited the Salem and, Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station on July 18 and 19, 1989.
' Jerry Hauck of SICB, Jaime Guillen, and I visited the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, on July 21, 1989. Jaime Guillen and John Ramsey of OGCB, visited the Perry Nuclear Station on August I and 2,1989.
During these visits, NRC staff discussed with various plant personnel their knowledge of the loss of oil issue and actions being taken in response to the information forwarded to utilities by Rosemount, NRC, and industry groups. lists the major items of discussion during these site visits and provided a listing of the primary generic communications that have been forwarded to' utilities regarding the loss of oil issue.
In addition, NRC staff conducted interviews with instrumentation and control technicians, control room operators, and systems engineers in order to obtain their perspective on this: issue and personal experience in working with Rosemount transmitters.
3 The utilities have taken the same general approach in addressing the loss of oil. issue at each of their plants; however, the implementation schedules varied due to the the individual plant operating status and the varying number and location of installed transmitters. Most of the actions taken by the utilities were, concentrated on transmitters from certain manufacturing lots that were CONTACTS: John Ramsey, NRR (301)492-1167 Jaime Guillen, NRR (301) 492-1170 1
\\ f0f
'I i
8909210114 890824 I
PDR-ADOCK 05000250
__ _ if M
l
Mr. Charles E. Rossi August 24, 1989 i
identified by Rosemount as being more susceptible to the loss of oil anomaly and on transmitters that have been in operation for less than 30 months as this type of failure has typically occurred in transmitters that have been in service for less than 36 months and that have been subjected to continuous high pressure (greaterthan200 psi). The three utilities had received all applicable infor-mation regarding Rosemount 1153 and 1154 transmitters and the exact location and function of all highly suspect installed transmitters had been identified.
Although the level of detailed _information that was forwarded to plant personnel varied, each utility had informed their instrumentation and control systems technicians and control room operators about the loss of oil issue and some of the symptoms observed in potentially defective transmitters.
The utilities were in the process of reviewing available plant records, such as calibration records, for any anomalies that would identify any malfunctioning transmitters. Each utility had also identified at least one Rosemount trans-mitter that was suspected or confirmed to have malfunctioned due to the loss of oil syndrome.
In each case, plant technicians noted symptoms that were highly abnormal for Rosemount transmitters, for example slow or sluggish response to a change in test pressure. These abnormal symptoms were observed and noted before Rosemount and the NRC alerted the industry about the loss of oil issue. According to technicians, Rosemount transmitters are highly reliable and abnormalities in performance are easily detectable when subjected to a calibration.
NRC staff discussed with utility personnel the adequacy of the information disseminated by Rosemount, NRC, and industry regarding the loss of oil issue.
In all cases, the utilities commented that they had been receiving ample information regarding this issue from various sources; however, due to the nature of the problem, there was no information regarding specific tests or programs to determine whether a transmitter was susceptible to a loss of oil failure. This inability to positively identify transmitters susceptible to this type of failure has been the most difficult aspect for utilities in addressing this issue.
In response, the utilities have increased their monitoring of Rosemount transmitters from the specific manufacturing lots identified by Rosemount and those transmitters that have been installed for less than 30 months. The utilities have also had to rely on the results of their most recent calibrations or tests performed on Rosemount transmitters since most of installed transmitters in safety-related systems have been calibrated or tested within the last 6-12 months. The information provided by Rosemount, NRC, and industry, which discusses symptoms and performance characteristics observed in degraded transmitters, hve been very useful to utilities in these efforts.
The utilities which we visited plan to continue monitoring the performance of Rosemount transmitters and industry actions to address this issue. Once the issue is resolved, the utilities plan to evaluate their alternatives and take appropriate actions to ensure that the issue is fully addressed at their plants.
Rosemount is continuing their testing program and plans to provide final recom-mendations to its customers regarding specific tests or programs to address the 1
__-__-___-______--a
g
"-n y
..Mr. C ar es..- ossi
- 3'-
. August.24, 1989 h l E R loss'of oil issue within the next few months.- The NRC will continue to monitor.
o-
'Rosemount and other industry efforts to resolve this, issue and considersregu-
, ' latory actions,.if-appropriate. The:information obtained during these site-visits will be very valuable ~ in determining the proper regulatory actions if-this course is. deemed necessary.
/s/
Carl H. Berlinger, Chief Generic Communications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation _
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution EWBrach, VIB SNewberry, SICB '
DOEA R/F l0GCB R/FJ CBerlinger, NRR JGuillen, NRR:
's1Ramsey, NRRL Guillen R/F-fPDRi DCS i
- See previous concurrence OGCB:DOEA.NRR*
OGCB:DOEA:HRR*
C/SICB: DEST:NRR*
C/0GCB:DOEA:NRR JGuillen' JRamsey SNewberry CHBerlinger 08/22/89 08/22/89 08/23/89 08/Af5/89
= _ = _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
j!
- z. -
~
t s
t y
. GUIDELINES FOR ROSEMOUNT VISITS 1.
Verify that the operating license or construction permit holder (licensee) has. received all applicable information regarding the deficiency in Rosemount model.1153 and 1154 transmitters. Enclosure 2 provides.a listing of the generic communications provided by Rosemount and NRC to the nuclear. industry.
2.
Determine whether the licensee has identified the location of all Rosemount model.1153 and 1154 pressure. transmitters and spare d/p sensing cells,'regardless of their manufacturing date.
3.
Determine whether the. licensee developed and instituted special procedures, or expanded existing procedures, to monitor the performance of Rosemount'. transmitters during power operation and identify potentially defective _ones. Some' of the symptoms observed in potentially defective transmitters are delineated.in NRC Information Notice No. 89-42 and the information provided by Rosemount.
4.
Determine whether the licensee has reviewed available plant records, transmitter calibration records, and operating data that may identify potentially defective transmitters.
5.
Determine whether the licensee has performed any time response, overpressure, or calibration tests on model 1153 and 1154 transmitters.
The Rosemount technical bulletins provide specific tests that are suggested for identifying possible malfunctions in certain types of transmitters.
6.
Determine whether the licensee has identified any transmitters as potentially defective, their method of discovery, and whether Rosemount has been informed. While determining this item, the licensee should also be queried on his knowledge of the loss-of-oil anomaly.
~7.-
. Determine whether the licensee considered the need for a justification for
~
continued operation (JCO), or an engineering evaluation, if Rosemount model 1153 and 1154 transmitters were found installed in safety-related systems.
Review the adequacy of the JC0 or the engineering evaluation.
8.
Meet with the licenset's plant personnel to discuss the adequacy of the
-Rosemount recommendations and the information provided in NRC Information Notice No. 89-42, and any problems that were confronted in implementing these suggestions and recommendations.
9.
Meet with control room operators to discuss their knowledge regarding the symptoms observed in potentially defective transmitters.
In addition, determine W ther operating and maintenance / test personnel are being informed on 'ow to address the Rosemount transmitter issue.
'10.
Discuss with the licensee their proposed long term actions to address the continued use of Rosemount transmitters, including the priority for testing all highly suspect transmitters.
i
- _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ - _.
7 _
GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO ROSEMOUNT TRANSMITTERS 1.
Rosemount letter.to all customers dated December 12, 1988, stating that a potential problem may exist with Rosemount models 1153 and 1154 pressure transmitters. General Electric also forwarded a copy of this letter to all boiling water reactor via Rapid Information Communication Services Information Letter (RICSIL) No. 033.
2.
Rosemount letter to all customers dated February 9,1989, regarding the possible malfunction of models 1153 and 1154 pressure and differential pressure transmitters due to a loss of silicone oil from the transmitter's sensing module.
In addition, letters were sent to customers who had received transmitters-from specific manufacturing lots (referred to as weld lots) that appeared to be more susceptible to this phenomena.
3.
NRC Information Notice No. 89-42, " Failure of Rosemount Models 1153 and 1154 Transmitters," dated April 21, 1989, issued to all holders of operating licenses or construction permit.s for nuclear power reactors.
This information notice summarized the failures that occurred at Millstone, Unit 3, the information provided by Rosemount, and the results of the April 13, 1989, meeting sponsored by the NRC during which Rosemount and several industry groups presented their perspectives on this issue.
4.
Rosemount technical bulletin to all customers and licensees dated May 10 or 12, 1989, that outlined the results of testing being performed by Rosemount and suggested some techniques to monitor and identify potentially defective transmitters. This technical bulletin also indicated that all Rosemount models 1153 and 1154 transmitters were potentially susceptible to a loss of oil malfunction.
5.
Rosemount technical bulletin to all customers and licensees dated July 12, 1989, that provided additional results of the testing being performed by Rosemount and suggested additional techniques to monitor and identify potentially defective transmitters.
l lL _- _- __
.