ML13037A082
| ML13037A082 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/2013 |
| From: | Spina J Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, EDF Group |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML13037A082 (44) | |
Text
James A. Spina Vice President, Corporate Site Operations 100 Constellation Way Suite 200C Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-470-5203 Constellation eDF January 31, 2013 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
Document Control Desk Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69 Docket No. 50-410 Submittal of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Supplemental Seismic Walkdown Report (a)
Letter from M. G. Korsnick (CENG) to Document Control Desk (NRC) dated November 27, 2012, Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information, Recommendation 2.3, Seismic (ML12348A086)
In Reference (a), Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station committed to perform follow-up seismic inspections for Unit 2 by the end of the 2014 Spring outage. Attachment (1) provides a description of walkdowns that were able to be performed earlier than the commitment date. As described in Attachment (1),
equipment that was not accessible at the time of these walkdowns remains on the schedule committed to in Reference (a).
This letter does not contain any new or revised regulatory commitments.
If there are any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Everett (Chip) Perkins Everett.Perkins(&cengllc.com at 410-470-3928.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 31, 2013.
Sincerely, s A. Spina JAS/EMT/bjd
ý-oo I LAU-
Document Control Desk January 31, 2013 Page 2
Attachment:
(1) Supplemental Seismic Walkdown Report cc:
B. K. Vaidya, NRC W. M. Dean, NRC Resident Inspector (Nine Mile Point)
ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPLEMENTAL SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC January 31, 2013
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Table of Contents L ist o f T ab les.........................................................................................................
ii Executive Summary.................................................................................................
iii 1 I Introduction.......................................................................................................................................
1-1 1.1 Background....................................................................................................................
1-1 1.2 Approach........................................................................................................................
1-1 2
Personnel Qualifications...................................................................................................................
2-1 2.1 Overview.........................................................................................................................
2-1 2.2 W alkdown Personnel......................................................................................................
2-1 3
Selection of SSCs...............................................................................................................................
3-1 3.1 Overview.........................................................................................................................
3-1 3.2 Selection of Alternate Com ponents.................................................................................
3-1 4
Seismic W alkdowns and Area W alk-Bys..........................................................................................
4-1 4.1 Overview.........................................................................................................................
4-1 4.2 Seism ic W alkdowns.........................................................................................................
4-1 4.3 Area W alk-Bys................................................................................................................
4-2 5
Licensing Basis Evaluations.............................................................................................................
5-1 6
Peer Review........................................................................................................................................
6-1 6.1 Peer Review Introduction................................................................................................
6-1 6.2 Review of Sam ple Checklist and Area W alk-bys.............................................................
6-1 6.3 Review of Licensing Basis Evaluations............................................................................
6-2 6.4 Review of Final Subm ittal Report and Sign-off...............................................................
6-2 7
References..........................................................................................................................................
7-1 A
Project Personnel Certificates..........................................................................................................
A-1 B
Seismic W alkdown Checklists (SW Cs).........................................................................................
B-I C Area Walk-By Checklists (A W Cs)................................................................................................
C-1 D SWCsfor Supplemental Internal Inspections of Electrical Cabinets...............................................
D-1 E
Plan for Future Seismic W alkdown of Inaccessible Equipment....................................................
E-1
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT List of Tables Table 2-1 Personnel Included in NTTF 2.3 Supplemental Walkdown..................................
2-1 Table 3-1 Selection of Alternate Components Based on Plant Conditions..............................
3-1 Table 6-1 Table of Peer Review Comments for SW Cs.......................................................... 6-1 Table 6-2 Table of Peer Review Comments for AW C's.......................................................... 6-2 Table B-I Summary of Seismic Walkdown Checklists Completed by NMP Personnel................. B-1 Table C-I Summary of Area W alk-By Checklists............................................................
C-1 Table E-1 Summary of Inaccessible Equipment..............................................................
E-1 Table E-2 Summary of Equipment Subject to Supplemental Internal Inspections........................... E-2
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Executive Summary This Supplemental Seismic Walkdown Report documents walkdowns performed at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2) for components that were not accessible during the initial walkdowns and were not included in the response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information, Recommendation 2.3, and Seismic (Reference 3). These seismic walkdowns did not identify any adverse seismic conditions that required licensing basis evaluations or evaluation by the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Corrective Action Program.
Three Seismic Walkdown Equipment List I (SWEL 1) components remain deferred as they require specific plant or maintenance configurations for the walkdowns. Table E-l lists these components and provides the dates the walkdown results will be provided.
Seventeen electrical cabinets require follow-up internal inspection for other adverse seismic conditions.
The industry was made aware of the NRC staff position on opening electrical cabinets after the online seismic walkdowns were completed. Follow-up inspections of the electrical cabinets will be completed, as required, during a unit outage or another time when the equipment is accessible. Table E-2 lists these components and provides the dates the walkdown results will be provided.
EPRI Technical Report 1025286 (Reference 1) was used to perform the engineering walkdowns and evaluations described in this report. In accordance with Reference 1, the following topics are addressed in the subsequent sections of this report.
Personnel Qualifications Selection of Systems, Structures, and Components (SSCs)
Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys Seismic Licensing Basis Evaluations Peer Review
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Personnel Qualifications Personnel qualifications are discussed in Section 2 of this report. The personnel who performed the key activities required to fulfill the objectives and requirements of Reference 2 are qualified and trained as required in EPRI Technical Report 1025286 (Reference 1). These personnel are responsible for:
Performing the Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys Performing the seismic licensing basis evaluations, as applicable Performing the peer reviews Selection of SSCs Selection of SSCs was completed and documented within Reference 3.
This supplemental report documents any alternate components that were selected by the Seismic Walkdown Engineers (SWE) when the original component was unavailable due to changing plant conditions or physical location.
Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys Section 4 of this report documents the supplemental equipment Seismic Walkdowns and the Area Walk-Bys. The supplemental seismic walkdowns for NMP2 were performed on November 15, 2012 during a planned outage. The walkdown team consisted of two SWEs, one from the station's Design Engineering group, the other from the station's Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) group. Operations/Maintenance personnel were also available and called upon as needed.
The seismic walkdowns focused on the seismic adequacy of the items on the SWEL. The walkdowns focused on the following:
" Adverse anchorage conditions
" Adverse seismic spatial interactions
" Other adverse seismic conditions (e.g., degradation)
Area Walk-Bys were conducted in each area of the plant that contained an item on the SWEL. The area walk-by was performed to identify potentially adverse seismic conditions associated with other SSCs located within the vicinity of the SWEL item. There were two area walk-bys performed during the supplemental seismic walkdown on November 15, 2012 that encompassed the three components. The key examination factors that were considered in the area walk-bys included the following:
" Anchorage conditions (if visible without opening equipment)
Significantly degraded equipment in the area
" Potential seismic interactions A visual assessment (from the floor) of cable/conduit raceways and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) ducting (e.g., condition of supports or fill conditions of cable tray)
Potential adverse interactions that could cause flooding/spray and fire in the area v
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT
- Miscellaneous other conditions including conformance of temporary installations to general seismic housekeeping procedures The seismic walkdown team walked down three of six deferred components on the SWEL 1. Walkdowns for the remaining three SWEL 1 components are being deferred due to accessibility issues (components located in containment) and will be completed subsequent to this supplemental response.
During the supplemental walkdowns of NMP2, there were no adverse seismic conditions identified that challenged the licensing basis for the plant. No Condition Reports were issued as a result of this supplemental walkdown.
Seismic Walkdown Checklists (SWC) and Area Walkdown Checklists (AWC) were completed for the three components that were walked down. SWCs for the remaining deferred items and their associated AWCs will be completed at the time of the follow up walkdowns and a supplemental report will be issued within three months after the NMP2 Spring 2014 outage. Any SWCs or AWCs that need to be revised as a result of the deferred inspections will be updated and re-submitted in a supplemental report.
Seismic Licensing Basis Evaluations EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Section 5: Seismic Licensing Basis Evaluation provides a detailed process to perform and document seismic licensing basis evaluations of SSCs when potentially adverse seismic conditions are identified during the equipment seismic walkdowns or area walk-bys. The process provides a means to identify, evaluate and document how the identified potentially adverse seismic condition meets a station's seismic licensing basis without entering the condition into a station's Corrective Action Program (CAP).
Further, the process directs that if a condition cannot be readily shown to meet the seismic licensing basis, the identified condition should be entered into the station's CAP where it will be determined that the condition does or does not meet the seismic licensing basis.
The process provided in Reference 1 was not needed to perform and document seismic licensing bases evaluations of SSCs with a potentially adverse seismic condition because no adverse conditions or questionable conditions were discovered.
Peer Reviews A peer review team consisting of two qualified individuals was assembled and peer reviews were performed in accordance with EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Section 6: Peer Reviews (Reference 1).
The peer review process included the following activities:
Review of the checklists prepared for the seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys Review of licensing basis evaluations, as applicable
" Review of the submittal report Provided a summary report of the peer review process in the submittal report Section 6 of this report contains the peer review summary report. The peer review determined that the objectives and requirements of the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter (Reference 2) are met. Further, the efforts completed and documented within this report are in accordance with Reference 1.
vi
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Summary In summary, the supplemental seismic walkdowns have been completed at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 in accordance with the NRC-endorsed walkdown methodology.
No degraded, nonconforming, or unanalyzed conditions were identified as a result of these supplemental seismic walkdowns. Deferred walkdown items and expected completion dates are outlined in Appendix E.
vii
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
In response to the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.3 and Reference 2, seismic walkdowns were performed at NMP2 in accordance with EPRI Technical Report 1025286 (Reference 1). Results of the walkdowns are documented in Reference 3. The walkdown team was unable to inspect some equipment at that time due to plant configuration and accessibility.
This supplemental report documents completion of three of the required seismic walkdowns for inaccessible equipment.
1.2 Approach In accordance with Reference 1, the following topics are addressed in the subsequent sections of this report:
Personnel Qualifications Selection of SSCs Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys Licensing Basis Evaluations Peer Review
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 2
Personnel Qualifications 2.1 Overview This section of the report identifies the personnel that participated in the supplemental inspections for the NTTF 2.3 seismic walkdown effort. A description of the responsibilities of each seismic walkdown participant's role(s) is provided in Section 2 of Reference 1. Note that for this report, the only roles required were for the walkdown team, licensing basis reviewer, and peer reviewer.
Personnel responsible for equipment selection and IPEEE review are noted in Section 3 of Reference 3.
2.2 Walkdown Personnel This table summarizes the names and corresponding roles of personnel who participated Supplemental Seismic Walkdown effort.
in the NTTF 2.3 Table 2-1 Personnel Included in NTTF 2.3 Supplemental Walkdown Seismic Licensing Walkdown Basis Peer Personnel Role Engineer Reviewer Reviewer Mr. Andrew Scheg X
X Mr. Jeff Park X
X Mr. Joshua Rocks X(1 Mr. Irineo Ferrer X
Note 1: Peer Review Team Leader The following include a short synopsis of each individual's qualifications.
Jeff Park: Mr. Park is an engineer for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) design engineering department, working in the civil structural group. Mr. Park has a BS in General Engineering from the US Military Academy, MS in: Civil Engineering from the University of Arizona, Tucson, and is a SQUG Certified Engineer.
Andrew Scheg: Mr. Scheg is a former systems engineer with over 6 years of nuclear experience. He is currently working in the NMPNS Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) group. Mr. Scheg is fully qualified as a PRA engineer and has completed the 6-week EPRI Education of Risk Professionals Course. His past work in the PRA field includes Risk Informed In-Service Inspection, significance determination evaluations, Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Member, and Mitigating System Performance Index evaluations. He is involved with the development and coordination for execution of NRC NTTF Actions 2.1 (Seismic PRA) and 2.3 (Seismic Equipment Walkdowns).
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Joshua Rocks Mr. Rocks is an engineer for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) design engineering department, working in the civil structural group. Mr. Rocks has a BS and MS in Civil Engineering from the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, and has completed the NTTF 2.3 Seismic Walkdown training course.
Irineo (Randy) Ferrer Mr. Ferrer is a mechanical design engineer for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) with over 30 years of nuclear experience and is involved in supporting the Fukushima NTTF recommendations. Mr Ferrer has a BS in Nuclear Science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and is a registered Professional Engineer in New York State.
2-2
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 3
Selection of SSCs 3.1 Overview Section 4.0 of Reference 3 details the selection methodology utilized for this report and SWEL development. Selection of SSCs is outside the scope of work performed within this report.
3.2 Selection of Alternate Components The three components inspected under the supplemental walkdown are located in containment.
The walkdown of components in containment was performed on November 15, 2012 during a planned outage.
This walkdown required coordination between equipment maintenance in progress at the time of the walkdown, required operating equipment, and ALARA dose concerns.
Three originally selected components could not be inspected due to plant conditions or accessibility issues. In these cases, the walkdown team inspected an alternate component (same equipment class) credited with performing the same function. The potential substitution of components due to changing plant conditions was discussed with the peer review team during the preparation of Section 4.0 of Reference 3. Table 3-1 provides an evaluation of the original SWEL 1 component against the alternate components.
Table 3-1 Selection of Alternate Components Based on Plant Conditions Original SWELl Alternate Equipment Class Component Component Basis For Change Evaluation 21CS*M0V128, This component is 2NMP*RE3217D, RCIC Steam physically located Acceptable -
8 Radiation Detector Supply inside inside the Reactor 21CS*MOV128 has (LPRM) to Automatic core and should not the same class as LPRM1 Auomatic be included in the 2NMP*RE3217D Isolation Valve SE SWEL I 2CPS*AOV108 Acceptable - both components have Purge Exhaust Containment located above a large the same equipment 7
from Drywell Purge to Drywell opening; performing class and perform inside Automatic inside Automatic wad i
th the same Isolation Valve Isolation Valve area was a safety containment concern isolation function Acceptable - both 2MSS*PSV121, 2MSS*PSV120, components are main steam safety 22 Safety/Relief Safety/Relief Ease of access relief valves, same Valve Valve model, and perform the same function
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 4
Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys 4.1 Overview Three additional walkdowns of drywell components were conducted November 15, 2012 during a planned outage. All inspections were performed by a two-person team of trained Seismic Walkdown Engineers in accordance with Reference 1. The seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
4.2 Seismic Walkdowns The components included in the seismic walkdowns are shown on the NMP2 SWEL I in Appendix B of Reference 3. A Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) from Appendix C of Reference 1 was completed for each item on the SWEL except for those items deferred. Additionally, photos are included with SWCs to provide a visual record of the walkdowns. Subsequently, seismic walkdowns were completed for 3 of the 6 deferred items on the NMP2 SWEL 1 list and are included in Appendix B. Three SWEL list items in the primary containment are being deferred to the earliest window of accessibility.
Table E-1 in Appendix E includes the list of deferred walkdown equipment items. Table E-2 in Appendix E includes the list of equipment subject to supplemental internal inspections because they were not opened during walkdowns. These are cabinets with doors or panels with latches or thumbscrews that can readily be opened during normal maintenance activities. Internal inspections for these cabinets are to be completed in accordance with the station work management scheduling in order to complete them all before the end of the next refueling outage in Spring 2014 (Regulatory Commitment NL-2012-000044-003).
4.2.1 Anchorage Configuration Confirmation As required by Reference 1 (page 4-3), 50% of the items were confirmed to have anchorage configurations consistent with plant documentation. Appendix B, Table B-i indicates the anchorage verification status for components as follows:
N/A: components that are line-mounted and/or are not anchored to the civil structure and therefore do not count in the anchorage confirmation total. It is noted that Reference 1 includes Question 6 on the SWCs which asks, "Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?" and only provides for a Yes, No or Unknown answer choice. The answer for question 6 is therefore given a "Yes" when the answers to question 1 is "No" and questions 2 to 5 are either "N/A" or "Yes" on the check list.
Y: components anchored to the civil structure that were confirmed to be consistent with plant configuration documentation.
N: components for which anchorage drawings were not designated for retrieval because they were not included in the 50% sample or they did not have specific anchorage associated with them because they were in-line equipment items.
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 4.2.2 Issues Identification during Seismic Walkdowns There were no issues identified by the SWEs during the equipment walkdowns.
4.3 Area Walk-Bys In accordance with Reference 1, Area Walk-by Checklists (AWC) were performed for each room or area within a large room (35 foot radius) which included one or more items on the SWEL. All completed AWCs are included in Appendix C. These include overhead areas and other equipment items not on the SWELs in the area. A total of two AWCs were completed for NMP2 during this supplemental walkdown.
4.3.1 Issue Identification during Area Walk-bys No anomalies or issues were identified by the SWEs during the area walk-bys.
4-2
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 5
Licensing Basis Evaluations There were no issues identified during the supplemental seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys determined to be a "Potentially Adverse Seismic Condition" that could have potentially challenged the site's licensing basis.
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 6
Peer Review 6.1 Peer Review Introduction The peer review was performed in accordance with Reference 1. The scope of the Peer Review was limited to the following activities, as the SWEL development process has already been peer reviewed by the original peer review team:
Review of all the checklists completed for the Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys Review of the final submittal report The inclusion of a summary of the peer review process in the submittal report 6.2 Review of Sample Checklist and Area Walk-bys 6.2.1 Walkdown Review and Review of Checklists Mr. Joshua Rocks and Mr. Irineo Ferrer completed a peer review of all SWCs and AWCs completed by the SWE walkdown team.
In addition, an interview was conducted by Mr. Rocks with the SWE inspection team, after review of the Seismic Walkdown Checklists (SWC) and Area Walk-By Checklists (AWC), to ascertain the quality and validate adherence to the Seismic Walkdown Guidance (Reference 1).
Peer reviewer observations/comments are documented in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2.
Table 6-1. Table of Peer Review Comments for SWCs SWEL 1 COMP ID Item #
Description Location Observations/Comments Shutdown Cooling Based on interview and 2RHS*MOV 112 42 Supply Inside Automatic PC 249' pictures provided, Isolation Valve checklist responses are appropriate.
100 OHM @ ODeg C Based on interview and 2CMS TE 10 76 Platinum Resistance 2CMS*TET20 76 Deteto nio PC 249' pictures provided checklist yemp TemetoraMoiture responses are appropriate Drywell Temperature Based on interview and 21CS*MOV128 1
RCIC PC 261' pictures provided, checklist responses are appropriate.
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Table 6-2. Table of Peer Review Comments for AWCs Area Walkdown Area #
Location Observations/Comments Description Primary Containment-Az 170, in the vicinity of No pictures provided due to no adverse 2CMS*TE 120 and conditions identified.
2RHS*MOV1 12 Primary Containment-Az No pictures provided due to no adverse 43 188, in the vicinity of PC 249' conditions identified.
2ICS*MOV128 6.2.2 Evaluation of Findings No issues were identified during the peer review.
6.3 Review of Licensing Basis Evaluations 6.3.1 Overview of Licensing Basis Evaluations Because there are no issues identified during the seismic walkdowns or area walk-bys, no formal licensing basis evaluations were required.
6.3.2 Insights and Recommendations None.
6.4 Review of Final Submittal Report and Sign-off The supplemental inspection report has been reviewed by Mr. Joshua Rocks and Mr. Irineo Ferrer. The report was found to meet the requirements of Reference 1.
6-2
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 7
References Note: Reference drawings related to SWEL items are provided in the Seismic Walkdown Checklists and if applicable, in the Area-Walk-by Checklists.
- 1.
EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, dated June 2012
- 2.
Letter from E. J. Leeds (NRC) and M. R. Johnson (NRC) to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, dated March 12, 2012, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident
- 3.
Letter from M. G. Korsnick (CENG) to Document Control Desk (NRC) dated November 27, 2012, Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information, Recommendation 2.3, Seismic
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT A
Project Personnel Certificates Andrew Scheg, Equipment Selection.................................................................... A-2 Jeff P ark, S W E.............................................................................................. A -3 Joshua Rocks, Peer Review Team Leader.............................................................. A-4 A-]
~Er~IJ 10 Certificate of Completion Andrew Scheg Training on Near Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3
- Plant Seismic Walkdowns June 27, 2012 Date Robott K( Kaswara EPRI Mrwqer SUtA&urlI Reliabtkt & 141agiIty
derifiratb of AW~ieurmnrd Qt4is is lu (irrtifij Illat Jeffrey.M. Park iLIa 4as GirampleW t4v §(TU(31 Wallibown zulb ;5-pisaxir ýEualuatlan Cýrailliklo crerni Jot 1-1 r s p Daeof2 L
aQUG RcprcscnLDLlvu Pt illk 1, 4.A-Ai*l Trn4o-or-iiIng, Coor q ALltTttrllS(r0tQr
arI ra2 I I,4 I!II I Certificate of Completion z
Q 0
Josh Rocks Training on Near Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3
- Plant Seismic Walkdowns J une 21, 2012) bale EPFRI Marmaqu '
51r~udursi IRelabIlfly & Inteanwy
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT B Seismic Walkdown Checklists (SWCs)
Table B-1. Summary of Seismic Walkdown Checklists Completed by NMP Personnel SWEL Anchorage Component ID Item #
Description Verification Page Confirmed?
SWELl Items 2RHS*MOV 112 42 Shutdown Cooling Supply Inside N/A B-2 Automatic Isolation Valve 100 OHM @ 0 Deg C platinum 2CMS*TE120 76 resistance temp detector, monitors N
B-6 drywell temperature 21CS*M0V128 I
RCIC steam supply inside automatic N/A B-9 isolation valve B-1
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: M N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
2RHS*MOV112 Equipment Class:
(8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves Equipment
Description:
Shutdown Cooling Supply Inside Automatic Isolation Valve Project:
Nine Mile 2 SWEL Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Primary Containment, Elevation 256', AZ 1710 Manufacturer/Model:
Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. 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.
Anchorage
- 1.
Is anchorage configuration verification required (i.e., is the item one of the 50%
No of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
- 2.
Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?
- 3.
Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?
- 4.
Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors?
- 5.
Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note:
This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)
- 6.
Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?
N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes B-2
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status:
N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
2RHS*MOV112 Equipment Class:
(8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves Equipment
Description:
Shutdown Cooling Supply Inside Automatic Isolation Valve Interaction Effects
- 7.
Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures?
Yes
- 8.
Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles and lighting, and Yes masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment?
- 9.
Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage?
Yes
- 10.
Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of Yes potentially adverse seismic interaction effects?
Other Adverse Conditions
- 11.
Have you looked for and found no adverse seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment?
Comments Evaluated by:
Andrew Scheg 2 -
Date:
11/15/2012 Jeff Park 11/15/2012 B-3
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: F(
N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
2RHS*MOV112 Equipment Class:
(8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves Equipment
Description:
Shutdown Cooling Supply Inside Automatic Isolation Valve Photos B-4
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: [-V N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
2RHS*MOV112 Equipment Class:
(8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves EauiDment DescriDtion:
Shutdown Coolina SUDDIV Inside Automatic Isolation Valve B-5
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status:
N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
2CMS*TE120 Equipment Class:
(19) Temperature Sensors 100 OHM @ ODEG C PLATINUM RESISTANCE TEMP DETECTOR, Equipment
Description:
MONITORS DRYWELL TEMPERATURE Project:
Nine Mile 2 SWEL Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Primary Containment, Elevation 249', Az 1670 Manufacturer/Model:
Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. 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.
Anchorage
- 1.
Is anchorage configuration verification required (i.e., is the item one of the 50%
of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
No
- 2.
Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?
- 3.
Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?
- 4.
Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors?
- 5.
Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note:
This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)
- 6.
Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?
Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes B-6
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: M N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
2CMS*TE120 Equipment Class:
(19) Temperature Sensors 100 OHM @ ODEG C PLATINUM RESISTANCE TEMP DETECTOR, Equipment
Description:
MONITORS DRYWELL TEMPERATURE Interaction Effects
- 7.
Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures?
Yes
- 8.
Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles and lighting, and Yes masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment?
- 9.
Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage?
Yes
- 10.
Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of Yes potentially adverse seismic interaction effects?
Other Adverse Conditions
- 11.
Have you looked for and found no adverse seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment?
Comments Evaluated by:
Andrew Scheg Date:
11/15/2012 Jeff Park 11/15/2012 B-7
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: [Y N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
2CMS*TE120 Equipment Class:
(19) Temperature Sensors 100 OHM @ ODEG C PLATINUM RESISTANCE TEMP DETECTOR, Equipment
Description:
MONITORS DRYWELL TEMPERATURE Photos B-8
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status:
N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
21CS*MOV128 Equipment Class:
(8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves Equipment
Description:
RCIC STEAM SUPPLY INSIDE AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVE Project:
Nine Mile 2 SWEL Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
Primary Containment, Elevation 264', Az 1880 Manufacturer/Model:
Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. 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.
Anchorage
- 1. Is anchorage configuration verification required (i.e., is the item one of the 50%
No of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
- 2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?
N/A
- 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?
N/A
- 4.
Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors?
N/A
- 5.
Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note:
N/A This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)
- 6.
Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of Yes potentially adverse seismic conditions?
B-9
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status:
N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
21CS*MOV128 Equipment Class:
(8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves Equipment
Description:
RCIC STEAM SUPPLY INSIDE AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVE Interaction Effects
- 7.
Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures?
Yes
- 8.
Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles and lighting, and Yes masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment?
- 9.
Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage?
Yes
- 10.
Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of Yes potentially adverse seismic interaction effects?
Other Adverse Conditions
- 11.
Have you looked for and found no adverse seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment?
Comments Evaluated by:
Andrew Scheg Date:
11/15/2012 Jeff Park 11/15/2012 B-10
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: [V N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
21CS*MOV128 Equipment Class:
(8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves Equipment
Description:
RCIC STEAM SUPPLY INSIDE AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVE Photos B-ll
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: W N U Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)
Equipment ID No.:
21CS*MOV128 Equipment Class:
(8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves Eauipment
Description:
RCIC STEAM SUPPLY INSIDE AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVE B-12
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT C Area Walk-By Checklists (AWCs)
Table C-1. Summary of Area Walk-By Checklists AWC No.
Building Elevation Room-Area-Description Page Primary Containment-Az 170, in the vicinity of 42 PC 249'-0" 2CMS*TE 120 and 2RHS*MOV 112 C-2 Primary Containment-Az188, in the vicinity of 43 PC 261'-0" 2ICS*MOV128 C-4 C-1
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: M N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)
Area 42-Primary Containment-Az 170, in the vicinity of Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
2CMS*TE120 and 2RHS*MOV112 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 adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
Yes
- 2.
Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?
Yes
- 3.
Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and 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 interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
Yes Yes Yes Yes
- 5.
Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?
- 6.
Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause a fire in the area?
C-2
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status: T N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)
Area 42-Primary Containment-Az 170, in the vicinity of Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
2CMS*TE120 and 2RHS*MOV112
- 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)?
- 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 Evaluated by:
Andrew Scheg
_ Date:
11/15/2012 Jeff Park 11/15/2012 C-3
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status:
]
N U
Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)
Area 43-Primary Containment-Az188, in the vicinity of Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
21CS*MOV128 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 adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
Yes
- 2.
Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?
Yes
- 3.
Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and 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 interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
Yes Yes Yes
- 5.
Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?
- 6.
Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause a fire in the area?
Yes C-4
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT Status:
N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)
Area 43-Primary Containment-Az188, in the vicinity of Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area):
21CS*MOV128
- 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)?
- 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 Evaluated by:
Andrew Scheg
.*4(__
Date:
11/15/2012 Jeff Park 11/15/2012 (jU C-5
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT D
SWCsfor Supplemental Internal Inspections of Electrical Cabinets No SWC component supplemental internal inspections were perfomed as part of the inspection scope addressed in this report.
D-I
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT E
Plan for Future Seismic Walkdown of Inaccessible Equipment There are three items that have been deferred until the next refueling outage (RFO).
Table E-1 summarizes the reasons each item is inaccessible during normal plant operation, and notes the planned Seismic Walkdown date. There is also one area walk-by associated with these items. Condition Report CR-2012-008440 has been written to schedule the seismic walkdowns (and area walk-bys) for these items.
All items will be walked down before or during the next RFO, which occurs in the Spring 2014. A supplemental report will be provided within three months of the completion of this outage.
Table E-1. Summary of Inaccessible Equipment SWEL-1 Planned Planned Building and Plann Updated Reason for List Item Component ID Description Location Walkdown/
Submittal Inaccessibility Report Date CONTAINMENT PURGE TO DRYWELL Item in Primary PC, Elevation Spring 2014 Containment.
17 2CPS*SOV122 INSIDE 96A 50 RO7/31/14 AUTOMATIC 296', Az 65 RFO Walkdown ISOLATION cannot be VALVE performed with unit at power or PC: EL 296',
without SAFETY/RELIEF Spring 2014 22 2MSS* PSV120 VALVE Rad = 20, RFO 7/31/14 temporary AZ=30 lighting and scaffolding ADS VALVE PC: EL 299',
Spring 2014 89 21AS*TK34 ACCUMULATOR Rad = 0, AZ=O RFO 7/31/14 Table E-2 includes the list of equipment items that require supplemental internal inspections because they were not opened during the walkdowns.
Cabinets that have been identified as requiring these supplemental internal inspections are those with doors or panels with latches or thumbscrews and can be readily opened during nornmal maintenance activities. Internal inspections for these cabinets are to be completed in accordance with the station work management scheduling in order to complete them all before the end of the next refueling outage. CR-2012-009635 and Work Order C92057302 has been initiated to perform the internal inspections.
E-1
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT The Seismic Walkdown Checklists for the 17 equipment items identified in Table E-2 that can be opened for internal inspections will be revised at the time of the supplemental walkdown to indicate the results of these internal inspections.
In addition, for items 94, 4 and 7 (2DMS*MCCA1, 2EHS*MCC102, and 2ENS*SWGIO1), the internal anchorage needs to be verified to the design drawings. The walkdown for items 94, 4 and 7 only verified configuration compliance with the external anchorage.
Table E-2. Summary of Equipment Subject to Supplemental Internal Inspections Planned SWEL-1 Building Updated List Class Component ID Description and Submittal Item #
Location Report Date 2DMS*MCCA1
- ABN, 7/31/14 94 14 (Notel) 125VDCMCC EL. 240' 2EHS*MCC102
- ABN, 4
1 (Note*)
EMER MCC 102 EL. 240' 7/31/14 5
2 2EJS*PNLI04A 600V EMERGENCY PANEL AN, 7/31/14 EL. 240' RECTIFIER / INVERTER /
CR, 67 16 2VBA*UPS2C STATIC SWITCH EL.
7/31/14 STATIC SWITCH EL. 237' 2CES*PNL405 REMOTE SHUTDOWN CB, 85 20 (Note 2)
CONTROL PANEL EL. 261' 7/31/14 63 14 2SCM*PNL103A 120/240V AC DIST PNL
- CRR, 7/31/14 EL. 288' 2ENS*SWG101
- CSA, 7
3
~Note
- CSA, 66 16 2VBA*UPS2A SUPICUIGRGCA 7/31/14 TRANSFORMER&MANUAL EL. 261' BYPASS SWITCH 93 14 2BYS*SWG002A 125VDC SWITCHGEAR
- CSA, 7/31/14 EL. 261' 600V U.S EMERGENCY
- CSA, 6
2 2EJS*US SWITCHGEAR EL. 261' 7/31/14 61 14 2EJA*PNLI01A CB 120/240V HEATER PANEL
- CSA, 62 14 2EJS* PNL 100A 6VANLE21' 7/31 /14 600V PANEL EL. 261' PANEL (120 VAC POWER
- CTR, 64 14 2VBS*PNLIO1A DISTRIBUTION FROM EL. 288' 7/31/14 2VBA*UPS2A) 95 14 2BYS*PNL204A 125VDC DIST PNL DG, 7/31/14 EL. 261' E-2
ATTACHMENT 1 SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT 125 VDC HPCS DIESEL DG, 96 14 2CES*IPNL414 GENERATOR DISTRIBUTION EL. 261' 7/31/14 PANEL SERVICE WATER STRAINERS SA, 102 20 2CE S*PNL504 COTO AE L
6' 7/31 /14 CONTROL PANEL EL. 261' SW, 106 1
2EHS*MCC101 EMERGENCY MCC 101 EL. 261 7/31/14 Notes:
- 1) Additional internal anchorage also needs verification during this supplementary walkdown.
- 2) Need to confirm that panels are bolted together for 2CES*PNL405 in accordance with plant documentation.
E-3