ML12353A206
| ML12353A206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/2012 |
| From: | Delaney M Stevenson & Associates |
| To: | Exelon Generation Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RS-12-163 12Q0108.50-R-001, Rev 1 | |
| Download: ML12353A206 (34) | |
Text
12Q-108.50-R-o01 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 1 of 4 Status: '_l N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-17 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially Yes adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
- 2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant Yes degraded conditions?
More than minor corrosion of auxiliary steel base plates beneath valve 1E12-F068A due to leakage. Scale only; no separation of material observed.
Judged to be acceptable.
Station is aware of leak per WO 01432087.3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and Yes HVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)?4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Yes interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
- 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause a fire in the area?7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?
More than minor corrosion of lower scaffold legs beneath valve 1E12-FO68A due to leakage. Scale only; no separation of material observed.
Judged to be acceptable.
Per Operations, station is aware of leak.Scaffold is adequately restrained.
D-231 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 4 Status: N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-17 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?More than minor corrosion of auxiliary steel beneath valve 1E12-F068A due to leakage. Scale only; no separation of material observed.
Judged to be acceptable.
Per Operations, station is aware of leak.Comments Seismic Walkdown Team: M. Etre & M. Wodarcyk -9/17/2012 Evaluated by: Mark Etre Date: 10/17/2012 Michael Wodarcyk 10/17/2012 D-232 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 3 of 4 Status: r N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)4-17 D-233 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 4 of 4 Status: I N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)4-17 I1UVI (-Lasalle
.45%D-234 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 1 of 3 Status: F N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-18 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially Yes adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
- 2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant Yes degraded conditions?
Minor corrosion in several base plates judged to be acceptable.
- 3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and Yes HVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)?4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Yes interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
Insulated, non-safety-related pipes in contact. Judged to be acceptable.
- 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause flooding or spray in the area?Deluge system with threaded pipe is dry; requires signal to activate.
Judged to be acceptable.
Remaining piping is welded and judged to be acceptable.
- 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause a fire in the area?7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?
Scaffold adequately restrained to auxiliary steel.Other items on floor are not near sensitive targets and are judged to be acceptable.
D-235 1200108.50-R-O01 Rev. 1 Correspondence No. RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 3 Status: F N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-18 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Comments Seismic Walkdown Team: M. Etre & M. Wodarcyk -9/17/2012 Evaluated by: Mark Etre Date: 10/17/2012 Michael Wodarcyk 10/17/2012 Photos D-236 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. I Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 3 of 3 Status: Y-] N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)D-237 12Q0108.50-R-O01 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 1 of 4 Status: Y-1 N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-19 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially Yes adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
- 2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant Yes degraded conditions?
- 3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and Yes HVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)?4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Yes interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
Overhead chain-hung light fixture prevented from interaction with transformer by short hanging chain, conduit, and chain restraint.
- 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause a fire in the area?7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?
Wheeled breakers adequately restrained to wall.Eyewash station adequately restrained to column on opposite side of 19E transformer.
D-238 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 4 Status: F N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-19 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Comments Seismic Walkdown Team: M. Etre & M. Wodarcyk -9/18/2012 Evaluated by: Mark Etre Date: 10/17/2012 Michael Wodarcyk 10/17/2012 Photos LZUIZU'di V-LaSaIIe UJU D-239 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 3 of 4 Status: FY] N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-19 D-240 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 4 of 4 Status: F N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)4.D-241 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 1 of 3 Status: FY-] N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-23 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially Yes adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
- 2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant Yes degraded conditions?
- 3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and Yes HVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)?4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Yes interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
Masonry wall in area adequately restrained.
Overhead light fixtures judged to be acceptable.
- 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause a fire in the area?7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?
Emergency light fixture near non-safety-related junction box judged to be acceptable.
D-242 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 3 Status: N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Area Walk-by 4-23 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Comments Seismic Walkdown Team: M. Etre & M. Wodarcyk -9/18/2012 Evaluated by: Mark Etre Date: 10/25/2012 t k Michael Wodarcyk 10/25/2012 D-243 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 3 of 3 Status: FY] N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)D-244 12Q010850-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 E Plan for Future Seismic Walkdown of Inaccessible Equipment Seven (7) items could not be walked down during the 180-day period following the issuance of the 1 OCFR50.54(f) letter due to their being inaccessible.
The items will be walked down during a unit outage or time when the equipment is accessible, as appropriate.
Table E-1 summarizes the reasons each item is inaccessible during normal plant operation and notes the LaSalle Station Issue Report (IR) that has been written to track completion of the Seismic Walkdowns (and Area Walk-bys) for these items. It is noted that SSCs identified on Table E-1 require a complete inspection including, as applicable, internal inspections of electrical cabinets for other adverse seismic conditions, as required.Certain cabinets require supplemental internal inspection for other adverse seismic conditions as summarized in Table E-2. Supplemental internal inspections of these cabinets are required due to clarifications provided by the NRC after the online seismic walkdowns were completed.
These Supplemental inspections will be completed during a unit outage or another time when the equipment is accessible, as appropriate.
It is noted, that SSCs identified on Table E-1 do not appear on Table E-2.E-1 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Table E-1. Inaccessible and Deferred Equipment Reason for Resolution/
Milestone Component ID Description Inaccessibility Request Status Completion Inaccssiblity ID (IR)SRV 1B21-F013C Located in L1R15 1B21-AO04C ACCUMULATOR Drywell Refueling____________Outage C MAIN STEAM LINE LIR15 CMISTA LIE Located in Refueling 1B21-F013C SAFETY RELIEF Drcwed Outag VALVE Drywell Outage L1R15 1B21-F013C-SRV C UMF-1 Located in Refueling A SOLENOID VALVE 'A' Drywell Outage LIR15 1B21-F022C C MS INBD ISOL Located in 1428087, Refueling Drywell WO Outage 1583946 L1R15 1B21-F028C C OTBD MAIN STEAM Located in Refueling ISOLATION VALVE MSIV Room Outage L1R15 1B21-F028C-VALVE, SOLENOID, Located in Refueling P2 O/B MSIV MSIV Room Outage C MAIN STEAM OTBD L1R15 C MAIN STE OT Located in Refueling 1B21-F067C DRAIN LINE ISOL MSIV Room Outage VALVE E-2
Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Table E-2. Supplemental Cabinet Internal Inspection List IF NOT STATUS/COMPONENT EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE IF MILESTONE NUMBER INSPECTION ID ~DESCRIPTION CLASS (YIN) ACCESSIBLE,WY COPEIN (R NSCTN IDCAS(/)WHY?
COMPLETION (IR RESULTS NUMBER)DIV I 480V MCC (01) Motor L1R15 IR 135X1 Cntro L1R15 01425132 1AP71E 135X-1 Control YES N/A Refueling W/O Centers Otg /Outage 414193 DIV I 480V MCC (01) Motor LiRiS IR 1AP73E 135X-3 Control L1 R15 01425132 Centers YES N/A Refueling W/o Outage 414193 DIV II 480V MCC (01) Motor L1R17 IR 1AP78E 136X-1 Control YES N/A Refueling 01425145 CentersOutage W/O 414192 DIV II 480V MCC (01) Motor L1R17 IR 136X-3 Control L1R7 01425145 1AP81E Centers YES N/A Refueling CnesOutage W/o 414192 250V MCC (01) Motor L1R15 IR 1C0EControl 0142513 1 DC005E Centers YES N/A Refueling 01425132 CnesOutage W/o 414193 480V SWGR 133 (02) Low Voltage L1R15 0R 1AP15E Switchgear YES N/A Refueling W/o and Breaker Outage 414193 Panels DIV I 480V (02) Low IR SWGR 135X Voltage L1RiS 01425132 1AP19E Switchgear YES N/A Refueling W/O and Breaker Outage 414193 Panels I II4I 193I Table E-2 Page 1 of 4 E-3 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 IF NOT TRACKING STATUS/COMPONENT EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE MILESTONE NUMBER INSPECTION ID DESCRIPTION CLASS (Y/N) ACCESSIBLE,WHY?
COMPLETION (IR RESULTS NUMBER) RESULTS DIV II 480V (02) Low IR SWGR 136X Voltage L1R17 01425145 1AP21 E Switchgear YES N/A Refueling W/o and Breaker Outage 414192 Panels 4160V SWGR (03) Medium NO OTHER 1AP05E 142X Voltage YES N/A 9/14/2012 N/A ADVERSE Switchgear SEISMIC CONDITIONS TRANSFORMER, (04) L1R17 IR 136X Transformers 01425145 1AP06E-9 YES N/A Refueling W/O Outage 414192 TRANSFORMER, (04) L1R15 IR 1API9E-102B 135X Transformers YES N/A Refueling 01425132 OPERueg W/O Outage 414193 DIV I 250VDC (14)DISTRIBUTION Distribution L1R15 IR BUS 1 Panels and 01425132 1 DC02E Automatic YES N/A Refueling W/O Transfer Outage 414193 Switches 125VDC (14)DISTRIBUTION Distribution L1R15 IR PANEL 112X Panels and 01425132 1 DC12E Automatic YES N/A Refueling W/O Transfer Outage 414193 Switches Table E-2 Page 2 of 4 E-4 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 IF NOT TRACKING STATUS/COMPONENT EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE MILESTONE NUMBER INSPECTION ID ~DESCRIPTION CLASS (YIN) ACCESSIBLE,WY COPEIN (R NSCTN IDCAS(/)WHY?
COMPLETION (IR RESULTS NUMBER)DIV II 125VDC (14)DISTRIBUTION Distribution L1R15 IR BUS 1B Panels and LNRin 01425132 1 DC15E Automatic YES N/A Refueling W/o Transfer Outage 414193 Switches 250V DC (16) Battery IR BATTERY Chargers & L1 R15 01425132 1 DC003E CHARGER NO. 1 Inverters YES N/A Refueling W/o Outage 414193 125V DC (16) Battery IR BATTERY Chargers & L1R15 01425132 1DC16E CHARGER NO. Inverters YES N/A Refueling W/o 1B Outage 414193 1ADGA (20) NO OTHER GENERATOR Instrument ADVERSE 1DG02JA CONTROL and Control YES N/A 9/13/2012 N/A SEISMIC PANEL Panels CONDITIONS 1A DG ENGINE (20) NO OTHER CONTROL Instrument ADVERSE 1 DG03J PAN E L andt Cont YES N/A 9/13/2012 N/A SEI SM PANEL and Control SEISMIC Panels CONDITIONS ASSY -PANEL, (20) NO OTHER EMERG CORE Instrument ADVERSE 1 H 1 3-P601 EEGCR IntuetYES N/A 9/14/2012 N/A ADES COOL SYST and Control SEISMIC Panels CONDITIONS ASSY -PANEL, (20) NO OTHER RWCU/RX Instrument ADVERSE 1H13P602 RECIRC and Control YES N/A 9/14/2012 N/A SEISMIC CONTROL Panels CONDITIONS Table E-2 Page 3 of 4 E-5 12QO0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 IF NOT TRACKING STATUS /COMPONENT EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE MILESTONE NUMBER INSPECTION ID DESCRIPTION CLASS (Y/N) ACCESSIBLE, COMPLETION (IR RESULTS WHY? NUMBER) RESULTS B/C RHR PUMP (20) IR ROOM Instrument L1R15 01425132 1 PL33J VENTILATION and Control YES N/A Refueling W/o PANEL Panels Outage 414193 A RHR PUMP (20) IR ROOM Instrument L1R15 01425132 1PL34J VENTILATION and Control YES N/A Refueling W/o PANEL Panels Outage 414193 LPCS PUMP (20) IR ROOM Instrument L1R15 01425132 1 PL35J VENTILATION and Control YES N/A Refueling W/o PANEL Panels Outage 414193 Table E-2 Page 4 of 4 E-6 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 F Peer Review Report This appendix includes the Peer Review Team's report, including the signed Peer Review Checklist for SWEL from Appendix F of the EPRI guidance document. (Ref. 1)F-1 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Peer Review Report for Near Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation
2.3 Seismic
Walkdown Inspection of LaSalle County Generating Station Unit 1 October 19, 2012 Prepared by Peer Reviewers Walter Diordjevic (Team Leader)Todd A. Bacon Tribhawan K. Ram Walter Djordjevic October 19, 2012 Peer Review Team Leader Certification Signature Date Sheet 1 of 11 F-2 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 IIntroduction
1.1 OVERVIEW
This report documents the independent peer review for the Near Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation
2.3 Seismic
Walkdowns performed by Stevenson
&Associates (S&A) for Unit 1 of the LaSalle County Generating Station (LCGS). The peer review addresses the following activities:
- Review of the selection of the structures, systems, and components, (SSCs) that are included in the Seismic Walkdown Equipment List (SWEL).* Observation of the seismic walkdowns on August 29, 2012 and adherence to the Seismic Walkdown Guidance (SWG)1 by Mr. Todd Bacon.* Review of a sample of the checklists prepared for the Seismic Walkdowns
& Area Walk-bys.* Review of any licensing basis evaluations.
- Review of the decisions for entering the potentially adverse conditions into the plant's Corrective Action Plan (CAP).* Review of the final submittal report.The peer reviewers for LCGS Unit 1 are Messrs. Walter Djordjevic, Todd A. Bacon, and Tribhawan K. Ram, all of S&A. Mr. Djordjevic is designated the Peer Review Team Leader. None of the aforementioned engineers is involved in the seismic walkdown inspection process so that they can maintain their independence from the project. Mr.Djordjevic is an advanced degree structural engineer, has over thirty years of nuclear seismic experience and has been trained as a Seismic Capability Engineer (EPRI SQUG training), EPRI IPEEE Add-on, Seismic Fragility and Seismic Walkdown Engineer (SWE). Mr. Bacon is a civil-structural engineer with over thirty years of nuclear engineering experience and received the Seismic Walkdown Engineer (SWE) training.Mr. Ram is an advanced degree nuclear engineer with over twenty-eight years of 1 EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, dated June 2012.Sheet 2 of 11 F-3 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 nuclear power plant experience.
Mr. Djordjevic, as Peer Review Team Leader, has participated in all phases of the peer review process for LCGS Unit 1.The SWEL development was performed by Mr. Tony Perez of S&A. Revision 0 of the peer review determined that a SWEL 2 list should have been created to include Seismic Category I isolation valves. Accordingly, such a list was generated.
Revision 1 of the SWEL Peer Review resulted in no additional findings.
The completed Revision 1 of the SWEL Peer Review checklist is attached to this document.
The discussion for the SWEL development peer review is found in Section 2.The peer review of the seismic walkdown inspection started on August 29, 2012 with a peer check of the actual walkdowns for Unit 1. Mr. Bacon joined the walkdown team for a portion of the day's planned walkdowns to observe the conduct of walkdowns and adherence to the SWG. Interviews were conducted by Messrs. Bacon and Djordjevic with the SWE inspection team after review of a sample of the Unit 1 Seismic Walkdown Checklists (SWCs) and the Area Walk-by Checklists (AWCs) to ascertain procedural compliance with the SWG. The interviews were conducted with Mr. Dave Carter of the SWE inspection team on October 8, 2012, and Messrs. Jim Griffith, Mark Etre and Mike Wodarcyk on October 9, 2012. The discussion of the sample SWCs and AWCs is provided in Section 3.No issues were identified which challenged the current licensing basis.Sheet 3 of 11 F-4 1200108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 2Peer Review -Selection of SSCs 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to describe the process to perform the peer review of the selected structures, systems, and components, (SSCs) that were included in the Seismic Walkdown Equipment List (SWEL).This section documents the Peer Review -Selection of SSCs performed for LaSalle County Generating Station -Unit 1.2.2 PEER REVIEW ACTIVITY -SELECTION OF SSCS The guidance in EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, dated June 2012, Section 3: Selection of SSCs was used as the basis for this review.This peer review was based on reviews of the following documents:
- Seismic Walkdown Interim Report, Revisions 0 and 1 This peer review was based on interviews with the following individual who was directly responsible for development of the SWEL:* Mr. Tony Perez, Senior Mechanical Engineer This peer review utilized the checklist shown in the SWG, Appendix F: Checklist for Peer Review of SSC Selection.
For SWEL 1 development, the following actions were completed in the peer review process:* Verification that the SSCs selected represented a diverse sample of the equipment required to perform the following five safety functions:
o Reactor Reactivity Control (RRC)o Reactor Coolant Pressure Control (RCPC)o Reactor Coolant Inventory Control (RCIC)o Decay Heat Removal (DHR)o Containment Function (CF)This peer review determined that the SSCs selected for the seismic walkdowns represent a diverse sample of equipment required to perform the five safety functions.
- Verification that the SSCs selected include an appropriate representation of items having the following sample selection attributes:
o Various types of systems o Major new and replacement equipment o Various types of equipment o Various environments o Equipment enhanced based on the findings of the IPEEE Sheet 4 of 11 F-5 12Q-108.50-R-OO1 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 o Risk insight consideration This peer review determined that the SSCs selected for the seismic walkdowns include a sample of items that represent each attribute/consideration identified above.For SWEL 2 development, the following actions were completed in the peer review process: " Verification that spent fuel pool related items were considered and appropriately added to SWEL 2.This peer review determined that spent fuel pool related items were given appropriate consideration.
Portions of the spent fuel pool cooling system are classified as Seismic Category I (Class I) and SWEL 2 was sufficiently populated as appropriate." Verification that appropriate justification was documented for spent fuel pool related items that were not added to the SWEL 2.This peer review determined that an appropriate level of justification was documented for those items related to the spent fuel pool that were not added to SWEL 2.2.D1 PEER REVIEW FINLIINI1iS-SELECTION OF SSCs This peer review found that the process for selecting SSCs that were added to the SWEL was consistent with the process outlined in the SWG Section 3: Selection of SSCs.Revision 1 of the peer review checklist is attached to this document.
Revision 0 of the peer review checklist determined that a SWEL 2 list should have been created to include Seismic Category I isolation valves. Accordingly, such a list was generated.
There were no additional findings for the Revision 1 Peer Review checklist.
- 2. D RESOLUTION OF PEER REVIEW COD [DENTS -SELECTION OF SSCs All comments requiring resolution were incorporated prior to completion of this peer review.2. E CONCLUSION OF PEER REVIEW -SELECTION OF SSCS This peer review concludes that the process for selecting SSCs to be included on the seismic walkdown equipment list appropriately followed the process outlined in the SWG, Section 3: Selection of SSCs. It is further concluded that the SWEL sufficiently represents a broad population of plant Seismic Category I (Class I) equipment and systems to meet the objectives of the NRC 50.54(f) letter.Sheet 5 of 11 F-6 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 3Review of Sample Seismic Walkdown & Area Walk-Bys Checklists
3.1 OVERVIEW
A peer review of the SWCs and AWCs was performed after which an interview was conducted by Messrs. Djordjevic and Bacon with the SWE inspection team in accordance with the SWG requirements on October 8 and 9, 2012. The SWE trained walkdown engineers were Messrs. Dave Carter, Jim Griffith, Mark Etre and Mike Wodarcyk.3.2 SAMPLE CHECKLISTS Table 3-1 lists the SWC and AWC samples which represent approximately 22% of the SWCs and 23% of the AWCs. The sample includes the equipment inspected during the peer review and other equipment items from other classes to introduce diversity to the sampling procedure.
Table 3-1: Table of SWC and AWC Samples from Seismic Walkdown Inspection for Unit 1 Equipment Equipment Class Walkdown Item Observations Identification OVC01CA 10 -Air Handlers ASS'Y -FAN, CR HVAC SUPPLY OA No concern 1AP06E-9 4 -Transformers TRANSFORMER No concern 136X 1AP21E 2 -Low Voltage No concern Switchgear DIV II 480V SWGR 136X 1AP71E 1 -Motor Control No concern Centers DIV 1 480V MCC 135X-1 lCll-DO01001 0 -Other Open s-hooks -IR CONTROL UNIT CRD 1406922 written HYDRAULIC 26-59 1Cl1-D3403-125 21 -Tanks and Heat CRD HCU SCRAM Open s-hooks -IR Exchangers WATER 1406922 written ACCUMULATOR 1C41-A001 21 -Tanks and Heat STANDBY LIQUID No concern Exchangers CONTROL SOLUTION TANK 1C41-COO1A 5 -Horizontal Pump A STANDBY LIQUID No concern CONTROL PUMP Sheet 6 of 11 F-7 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. I Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Equipment Equipment Class Walkdown Item Observations Identification 1 DC003E 16 -Battery Chargers No concern and Inverters 250V DC BATTERY CHARGER NO. 1 1DC01E 15 -Batteries on No concern Racks 250VDC BATTERY 1DG011 8 -Motor-Operated No concern and Solenoid-1A DG COOLING Operated Valves WTR STRAINER BACKWASH VALVE 1DG01K 17 -Engine- No concern Generators 1A DIESEL GENERATOR 1 DG035 8 -Motor-Operated No concern and Solenoid-LPCS PUMP MOTOR Operated Valves COOLER UPSTRM INLET VALVE 1E12-B001B 21 -Tanks and Heat No concern Exchangers B RHR HEAT EXCHANGER 1E12-F051B 7- Fluid-Operated IR 1412094 issued to Valves B RHR HX RCIC address hairline crack in STEAM INLET instrument gage.PRESS CONT VALVE 1E21-C001 6 -Vertical Pumps No concern LPCS PUMP 1 E22-CO01 6 -Vertical Pumps HI PRESS CORE No concern SPRAY PUMP 1E22-N004 18 -Instruments on No concern Racks HPCS PUMP DSCH PRESS 1 E51 -CO01 5 -Horizontal Pump No concern RCIC PUMP 1FC133 0 -Other FUEL POOL RHR No concern SUCT SUPPLY HEADER DRAIN VALVE 1H 1 3-P601 20 -Instrumentation No concern and Control Panels ASSY -PANEL, and Cabinets EMERG CORE COOL SYST 1HGO01A 8 -Motor-Operated No concern and Solenoid-Operated Valves H2 RECOMB 1HG01A U-1 DW SUCT. VLV 1HG01A 9- Fans ASSY -BLOWER, H2 No concern I_ _ RECOMBINER Sheet 7 of 11 F-8 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Equipment Equipment Class Walkdown Item Observations Identification 1 PL35J 20 -Instrumentation No concern and Control Panels LPCS PUMP ROOM and Cabinets VENTILATION PANEL 1VQ031 7 -Fluid-Operated SUP POOL No concern Valves VENT/PURGE OULET UPSTREAM ISOL.Area Walkdown Description Observations Area Walk-by 1-05; RB El.761'; near CRD HCU 34-03, 59 Lights with open S-hooks; IR 1406922 written.Area Walk-by 1-06; RB El.761'; near CRD HCU 26-59, 03 Lights with open S-hooks; IR 1406922 written.Area Walk-by 2-03; RB El.673'; near 1 E22-6001, -N004,-NO05 Ladder storage corrected during walk-by.Area Walk-by 3-09; RB El. No concern 710'; near 1VQ031, -032 Area Walk-by 3-16; RB El. No concern 694'; near 1E12-F036B Area Walk-by 3-21; AB El. No concern 731'Area Walk-by 3-26; DG El. No concern 710' near 1 D0005T Area Walk-by3-31; Control No concern Room near 1 H1 3-P601, P602 Area Walk-by 4-14; RB El. No concern 694', near 1 DG035, 1 PL35J Area Walk-by 4-18; RB El. No concern 674'Sheet 8 of 11 F-9 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 3.3 EVALUATION OF FINDINGS There were no findings that challenged the licensing basis. A review of Table 3-1 of the previous section shows no concerns or findings in the sampling of the SWCs and AWCs.Tables 5-2 and 5-3 of the Seismic Walkdown Report (final submittal report) provide the lists of the issues encountered for the equipment seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys.The scaffolding and seismic housekeeping procedures were reviewed by the SWEs in order to gain a full understanding of the plant practices in regard to those procedures.
There were no seismic concerns noted in Unit 1 with regard to scaffold erection.
The scaffolds were properly tied off and braced, and properly tagged with respect to the procedure.
A few lighting fixtures with open S-hooks were found in the plant; however, none of them resulted in any seismic issues as evidenced by reviewing the IRs written (see Tables 5-2 and 5-3) during these walkdowns.
Loose fasteners were observed in a few instances but in all cases were determined not to be seismic concerns.Concerning seismic housekeeping there were only a few minor items found throughout the plant. It can be concluded that LCGS Unit 1 implements their seismic housekeeping program consistently and to a very high standard.The peer reviewers consider the judgments made by the SWEs to be appropriate and in concurrence with the SWG.Sheet 9 of 11 F-1 0 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.. RS-12-163 4Review of Licensing Basis Assessments Tables 5-2 and 5-3 of the Seismic Walkdown Report provide a list of the issues encountered during the Unit 1 seismic walkdown inspections for the SWEL components and how they were addressed.
If a LCGS IR request was generated it is shown in the Tables. Interviews were conducted by Messrs. Djordjevic and Bacon with the SWE inspection team on October 8 and 9, 2012 to discuss the issues identified.
No potentially adverse seismic conditions were identified that resulted in a seismic licensing basis evaluation.
The peer reviewers concur with this outcome.Sheet 10 of 11 F-11 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-1 2-163 5Review Final Submittal Report & Sign-off The entire final submittal report has been reviewed by Messrs. W. Djordjevic, T. K. Ram and T. A. Bacon and found to meet the requirements of the EPRI 1025286 -Seismic Walkdown Guidance.
The Peer Review determined that the objectives and requirements of the 50.54(f) letter2 are met. Further, the efforts completed and documented within the final submittal report are in accordance with the EPRI guidance document.NRC Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," Enclosure 3,"Recommendation 2.3: Seismic," dated March 12, 2012 Sheet 11 of 11 F-12 Attachment 1 -Peer Reveiw Checklist for SWEL 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 1 of 2 Peer Review Checklist for SWEL Instructions for Completing Checklist This peer review checklist may be used to document the review of the Seismic Walkdown Equipment List (SWEL) in accordance with Section 6. The space below each question in this checklist should be used to describe any findings identified during the peer review process and how the SWEL may have changed to address those findings.
Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Were the five safety functions adequately represented in the SWEL I selection?
Y0 NEI Appropriate equipment has been included to maintain the five safety functions:
RRC, DHR, RCIC, RCPC, and CF 2. Does SWEL 1 include an appropriate representation of items having the following sample selection attributes:
- a. Various types of systems? YE Various system types (e.g., EDG, EDG Oil Transfer, RHR, RHR Service Water, CS, Batteries, Battery Chargers, Low and Med Vol Switchgear and MCCs) have been included.b. Major new and replacement equipment?
Y None as explained in the interim report.c. Various types of equipment?
YEE The equipment represents all required 21 types except 11 and 13. The screenings
- 1, #2, and #3 resulted in no equipment in the latter two categories.
- d. Various environments?
Y12 Appropriate environments (e. g., Reactor, DW, DG, and Auxiliary buildings) have been included.e. Equipment enhanced based on the findings of the IPEEE (or equivalent) program? YE None as explained in the interim report.~NO F1 N F-1 3 Attachment 1 -Peer Reveiw Checklist for SWEL 12Q0108.50-R-001 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 2 Peer Review Checklist for SWEL f Were risk insights considered in the development of SWEL 1?Risk quantifications (F-V and RAW) provided in the "Comments" column YO NEi 3. For SWEL 2: a. Were spent fuel pool related items considered, and if applicable included in SWEL 2?Yes. There are no items associated with SFP rapid draindown.
- b. Was an appropriate justification documented for spent fuel pool related items not included in SWEL 2?Provided in the submittal report YO NEI YO NEI 4. Provide any other comments related to the peer review of the SWELs.The previous peer review checklist had indicated a need for creating SWEL 2 to incorporate Seismic Category I valves used to isolate RHR system from SFP system. Based on that review, a SWEL 2 list was created.5. Have all peer review comments been adequately addressed in the final SWEL? YO' NE Peer Reviewer #1: TK Ram (Lasalle Unit 1)Date: 9/27/2012 Peer Reviewer #2: Walter DiordievicI k4,fl-Date: 10/8/2012 F-14