NUREG-0588, QA Program Insp Rept 99900908/82-01 on 820420-22.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Generic Qualification of Class IE Equipment Per NUREG-0588 & Revision 1 to IEEE Std 323-1974.Two Items Remain Open
| ML20027B029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/13/1982 |
| From: | Andrea Johnson, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | PROCESS TECHNOLOGY, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027B017 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900908, RTR-NUREG-0588, RTR-NUREG-588 NUDOCS 8209160282 | |
| Download: ML20027B029 (8) | |
Text
.
4 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - REGION IV May 21, 1982 Docket No.:
99900908/82-01 Environmental Qualifications Program:
Phase II Test Program for Rosemount 1153 Series D and Foxboro N-E 10 Series Pressure Transmitters, Report No. 7, Accident Radiation Tests.
Equipment Identification:
Rosemount Test Specimen Serial No:
No:
Mod. No Type Range s
R1 309352 1153DD3 Differential 0-30 inches water R2 320344 1153005 Differential 0-750 inches water R3 308551 1153HD7 Differential 0-3000 psia R4 333241 1153AD6 Absolute 15-100 psia R5 311863 1153GD9 Gauge 0-3000 psig Foxboro F1 4456838 N-E11GM-HIE 2 Gauge 1600-2400 psig F2 4456842 N-E11GH-IIM2 Gauge 0-3000 psig F3 4456846 N-E13DM-IIMI Differential 30-150 inches water F4 4456849 N-E13DH-HIM1 Differential 0-200 inches water FS 4456851 N-E13DH-IIH1 Differential 0-500 inches water Test Organization:
Process Technology, Inc., North Airport Road, P. O. Box 2265, l
West Memphis, Arkansas 72301.
i Contract No.: Wisconsin Electric Power Company (For Utility Group), Purchase i
Order Number A-61384.
Inspection Conducted:
April 20-22, 1982.
/>Wf?2)
If$Ef8 E-Inspectors:
~~
cr 1
A. R. Johnson, uipment Qualification Section, (EQS)
Date Ven or Progr Branch, Region IV 8209160282 820816 PDR GA999 EMV*****
99900908 PDR
- = - -, - - _, -. - -.
. Approved By; M-3 - / 3 - P 2-8 H. S. Phillips, Chief, Equipment Qualification Date Vendor Program Branch, Region IV, Arlington, Texas Summary:
The purpose of this inspection was to verify the radiation dosimetry performed, witness, and review documentation of the accident radiation tests, for the Rosemount 1153 series D and Foxboro N-E 10 series pressure transmitters, as part of the Phase II test program,-to generically qualify class 1E equipment to category I requireaients of NUREG-0588, Rev.1/IEEE Std 323-1974.
This inspec-tion was a continuation of that performed by the NRC-RIV on March 29-April 1, 1982, (Docket No. 99900902/82-04 Report No. 6).
Results:
The review performed during this inspection indicated:
1.
The detailed test procedures are in accordance with the test plans.
2.
The accident radiation tests were performed in accordance with the detailed test procedures.
3.
All necessary information and data were collected to allow evaluation of test results in relation to the licensee notification / acceptance criteria.
4.
The test results for the following transmitters were outside of the prescribed margins required for acceptance.
Foxboro Transmitter F3 Output differed from the preradiation 5 point data by more than 1 5% (worst case 73.9% error at 100% of span).
This con-stitutes failure to meet the acceptance criteria in that a proportional electrical signal was not produced.
Transmitter was returned to the manufacturer for analysis.
5.
The test results for the following transmitters were outside of the prescribed margins required for licensee notification.
Rosemount Transmitter R1:
The 5 point calibration check prior to the accident radiation l
test deviated from the postseismic data by greater than 1 0.5%,
as the result of transportation.
Output during accident radiation testing differed from the preradiation 5 point calibration data by more than 1 5%.
l
- ~.
. Foxboro Transmitter F1:
Severe leakage between the process connector / body interface 0-ring and the " NPT fitting.
Foxboro Transmitter F2:
Output differed for the preradiation 5 point calibration data by more than + 5%.
Test results, less significant, on other transmitters outside the prescribed margins required for licensee notification, are summarized in the " Details Section" of this report.
6.
Anomalies were properly documented and corrective actions were approved.
4 4
4 DETAILS j
Prepared by A. R. Johnson A.
Person Contacted M. A. Welt, Ph.D., President, Radiation Technology 4
R. Buckley, Plant Manager, Process Technology B. Fowler, Lead Test Engineer, Wyle Laboratories R. Hollingsworth, Quality Control Specialist, Wyle Laboratories G. Gray, Technician, Wyle Laboratories J. Pritchard, Technician, Wyle Laboratories J. A. Sears, Corporate Engineering, Foxboro Company W. E. Faraone, Equipment Qualification Engineer, WPPSS B.
General The purpose of the subject test program was to qualify pressure i
transmitters manufactured by Rosemount and Foxboro for use in safety-related systems in nuclear power generating stations.
Wyle qualification test plans No. 45352-1 and 45352-2, Rev. A, have incorporated the NRC's recommendations and resolved their concerns, and appear to meet the requirements of IEEE Std. 323-1974 and NUREG-0588, Rev. 1.
Wyle Laboratories' development of test procedures, No. 45592-1, dated August 19, 1981, and No. 45591-2, dated July 1, 1981, have been approved j
for use in implementing the methodologies and requirement of these test plans.
The test procedures include checklist / data sheets which have been i
completed during the test program, providing auditable records of the l
qualification testing.
The purpose of the inspection, conducted by the NRC RIV inspector, was to assure that the accident radiation tests were conducted in j
accordance with the test plans and procedures, and to review documented j
test records, completed by Process Technology ar.d Wyle personnel during the tests, for acceptance within prescribea margins to meet the IEEE
]
Std. 'J23-1974 and NUREG-0588, Rev. 1 requirements. The NRC RIV inspector accomplished this effort by review and inspection of checklist / data sheets, documented anomalies, qualification plans, test procedures, radiation dosimetry system procedures / calculations / calibrations, other selected documents, and discussions with Process Technology and Wyle Laboratory test personnel.
C.
Accident Radiation Test 1.
Objectives 1
i The objectives of the inspection were to review and witness the accident radiation tests as follows:
a.
Verify the radiation dosimetry performed as meeting the
{
requirements of the qualification plans.
-. 4 b.
Review detailed test procedures for conformity to the qualification plans.
4 c.
Verify that tests were performed in accordance with the detailed test procedures, d.
Review test results from documented records, and verify test results were well within the prescribed margins of acceptcnce.
e.
Observe and identify test results outside of the margins necessary for licensee notification.
f.
Determine that Notices of Anomalies (NOA), where required, are prepared in a timely manner.
2.
Findings a.
Five Foxboro transmitters, and subsequently five Rosemount transmitters, were mounted to a Wyle-fabricated test fixture, and uniformly exposed to a source of Cobalt 60 gamma radiation,simulatingaccideng(airequivalent)totalinye-grated dose (TID) of 2.0 x 10 rads (Foxboro) and 5 x 10 -rads (Rosemount).
The radiation threshold damage levels, of the transmitter's nonmetallic materials, were lower than the predicted radiation requirement, above.
The irradiation testing was performed to confirm the capability of the trans-mitters to perform their safety-related fgnction.
The above subject equipment was exposed to 3.0 x 10 rads per hour 6
(Foxboro),and2xg0 rads per hour (Rosemount) for the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, and 1 x 10 rads per hour thereafter.
b.
The NRC-RIV inspector reviewed and verified the dosimetry system and the three dimensional dosg % called for in therate mapping, meetin the system accuracy requirements of -5 i
qualification plans No. 45352-1 and 45352-2. The radiation dosimetry performed was of the chemical solution type utilizing Fe Cu dosimeters.
Irradiated dosimeters were placed in spectrophotometer and the dosages calculated.
The NRC - RIV inspector verified the dosimetry system calibrations as l
traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
The NRC - RIV l
inspector also reviewed the dosimetry laboratory notebook records and calculations.
Notebook records evidenced that l
dose value calculations had considered corrections for temp-erature effects.
Details of Process Technology's radiation dosimetry system is delineated in their dosimetry procedures and facility description June 1, 1981, and are in place at their West Memphis facility, and considered proprietary information.
c.
A five point calibration check and leak test were performed on each transmitter prior to and at the completion of the radiation test.
A five point calibration check and
. 6 6
voltagevariatjantestgereperformegat3x10,6x10, 1x 10 5 x 10 1 x 10 and 2 x 1(
rads (Foxb ro) and 4x10,1x10,2x10,3.5x10),and5x10 6
7 7
9 rads (Rosemount),'without interruption of irradiation.
d.
Prior to the accident radiation tests, five point calibration checks on the following transmitters differed from their respective postseismic calibration data by + 0.5% or more (transportation criterion), exceeding the prescribed margins required for licensee notification:
Transmitter F1 had an error of approximately -3.0%.
Transmitter F2 had an error of +0.64% at 25% of span,
+0.76% at 50% of span, and +0.51% at 75% of span.
Transmitter R1 had an error of 0.9% at 25% of span, 1.5% at 50% of span, 2.3% at 75% of span, and 2.9% at 100% of span.
The manufacturers and lead licencee representative were notified.
No adjustments were to be made.
Testing was to
- continue, e.
Prior to the radiation tests, bubble leakage was noted on the following transmitters:
Transmitter F1 - " NPT fitting and process connector / body interface.
Transmitter F2 - " NPT fitting and the tubing connector at the process connector end.
Transmitter F4 - Body leakage.
Transmitter R1 - Swagelok fitting on low pressure side process connection.
Transmitter R2 - Both sides of transmitter body and Swagelok fittings on both process connections.
Transmitter R3 - Swagelok fittings on both process connections.
The lead licensee representative was notified.
Testing was to continue.
f.
Dur ng the accident radiation testing of the Foxboro Transmitters, i
the irradation was interrupted prior to performing the 5 point 8
calibration check at a total integrated dose of 1 x 10 rads due to an error in calculating the end of the exposure period for the first orientation.
t
_7 i
Also, ten hours after rotating the Foxboro transmitters to tne second orientation, the irradiation was interrupted due to an error in programming the exposure time in the source control computer.
Both anomalies were attributed to operator error in the use 9f the computer program.
The lead licensee representative was notified.
Testing was to continue.
g.
During thy accident radiation testing of tne Foxboro transmitters at 2 x 10 rads TID, a five point calibration differed from the preradiation calibration by 5.2% on transmitter R1, exceeding the prescribed margin of + 5% required for licensee notification.
The lead licensee representative was notified.
Testing was to continue.
h.
During and at the completion of the accident radiation tests, transmitter F3 differed from the preradiation calibration by as high as 73.9% at 100% span, 49.5% at 75% span, and 25.2%
at 50% span.
The maximum current output reduction of this 4
transmitter continued to degrade from the onset of irradiation.
j This constituted a failure to meet the acceptance criteria, as stated in qualification plan No. 45352-1 section 2.2.2, in that i
a proportional electrical signal was not produced.
The lead licensee representative was notified.
Transmitter F3 was returned to the manufacturer for analysis.,
submitted at a later date than this inspection period, rep-resents Foxboro's immediate response and course of action in their analysis of the above failure.
This matter is an unresolved i
item pending clarification to the NRC staff, prior to or during the NRC staff review of the end user's (applicant's) environmental qualification program which precedes the development of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for each end user's facility.
J l
i.
During and at the completion of the accident radiation tests, transmitter F2 differed from the preradiation calibration by as high as -5.8%, exceeding the prescribed margin of + 5%
required for licencee notification.
The lead licensee representative was notified.
Testing was to continue.
j.
At the completion of the accident radiation test, a leak test as outlined in procedures 45592-1 and 45592-2 was performed.
Bubble leakage was noted as follows:
Transmitter R1 - Swagelok fitting on low pressure side process connection.
I j
Transmitter R2 - Both sides of transmitter body and Swagelok l
fittings on both process connections.
1 d
_,yy
,m_
y
_..,r--
Transmitter R3 - Swagelok fittings on both process connections.
I Transmitter F1 - " NPT fitting and the process connector / body interface 0-ring was leaking severely.
1 Transmitter F2 - " NPT fitting and the tubing connector at the process connector end.
Transmitter F4 - Body Leakage.
The lead utility owners group representative was notified, and the results are as follows:
(1) Transmitters R1, R2, R3, F2, and F4 will continue through the LOCA/HELB test.
(2) Transmitter F1 would be required to be repaired prior to LOCA/HELB testing.
Analysis of transmitter F1 would be 1
performed at the Wyle Laboratories, Huntsville, Alabama under the direction of the Foxboro Corporate Engineering representative.
This anomaly requires further disposition prior to the LOCA/HELB testing.
This matter is an unresolved item pending clarification to the NRC staff, prior to or during the NRC staff review of the end user's (applicant's) environmental qualification program which precedes development of a SER for each end user's facility.
NOA's were issued for all of the above (d thru j) findings.
3.
Summary 1
Based on the information above, the NRC-RIV inspector determined that:
Rosemount pressure transmitters R1, R2, R3, R4. R5, and Foxboro pressure transmitters F1, F2, F4, and FS, have met the requirements of NUREG-0588, Revision 1, Category I (IEEE Std 323-1974) for accident radiation conditions, as evidenced by test results within the prescribed margins of acceptance.
Based on the information above, the NRC-RIV inspector could not determine that Foxboro pressure transmitter F3 met the requirements of NUREG-0588, Revision 1, Category I (IEEE Std 323-1974) for accident 3
i radiation conditions.
I 4
i
_ _,... _