ML16340C040

Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,Unit Nos. 1 and 2.Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323.(Pacific Gas and Electric Company)

ML16340C040
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/30/1981
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-0675, NUREG-0675-S15, NUREG-675, NUREG-675-S15, NUDOCS 8110190831
Download: ML16340C040 (32)

Text

NUREG-0675 Supplement No. 15 Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Supplement No. 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation September 1981

~% 1toy, c<

fp

~4 0

4y*y4

10/2/81 TABLE OF CONTENTS

~Pa e

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DISCUSSION.......,................

1-1 1.1 Introduction.......................................;..

1-1 7 ~

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL...................... ~...

~.. ~. ~ 7-1 7.8.2 Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment.................................

7-1 APPENDICES A.

CONTINUATION OF CHRONOLOGY.................................

A-1 B.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ -'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

B-1 111

.1 ~

-INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DISCUSSION 1.1 Introduction Supplement No. 13 to the Commission's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) in the matter of the Pacific Gas

& Electric Company's application for an operating license for Diablo Canyon, Units 1

& 2, issued April 1981, stated that the matter of environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment would be addressed in a future SER Supplement.

In this supplement to the

SER, we provide our evaluation of the above cited electrical equipment.

Appendix A to this report is a,continuation of the chronology of the staff safety review.

Appendix B is a safety evaluation of the environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment for Diablo Canyon, Units 1

& 2.

1-1

~ 7.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL 7.8.2 Environmental uglification of Class IE Electrical E ui ment In Section 7.8.2 of Supplement No.

13 to the SER we stated that our evaluation of the environmental qualifications of safety-related electrical equipment would be addressed in a supplement to the SER.

Our safety evaluation of this subject is given in Appendix B to this report.

7-1

APPENDIX A CHRONOLOGY OF RADIOLOGICAL REVIEW Date Docketed Hay 31, 1978 February 8, 1979 October ll, 1979 February 19, 1980 February 21, 1980 February 29, 1980 September 30, 1980 October 24, 1980 June 10, 1981 September 2,

1981 Descri tion of Documents NRC issued IE Circular 78-08 NRC issued IE Bulletin IEB 79-01 NRC letter requesting additional information in regard to environmental qualification of Class IE equipment NRC letter requesting additional information in regard to environmental qualification of Class IE equipment NRC letter requesting additional information in, regard to environmental qualification of Class IE equipment NRC issued supplement to IE Bulletin IEB 79-01B NRC issued supplement to IE Bulletin IEB 79-01B NRC issued supplement to IE Bulletin

'EB 79-01B PGSE provided submittal on environmental qualification of Class IE equipment.

PGSE provided submittal on environmental qualificaiton of Class IE e'quipment.

A-1

APPENDIX-B ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFI'CATION OF SAFETY'-RELATED ELECTRI'CAL EQUIPMENT 8-1

APPENDI'X B CONTENTS 1

Introduction.............

Page B-3 2

Background..

B-3 2.1 2.2 Purpose Scope

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

B-4 B-4 3

Staff Evaluation B-4 3.1 Completeness of Safety-Related Equipment......

3.2 Service'onditions.....

3.3 Temperature,

Pressure, and Humidity Conditions Inside Containment 3.4 Temperature,

Pressure, and Humidity Conditions Outside Containment 3.5 Submergence...........

3.6 Chemical Spray.......................

3.7 Aging 3.8 Radiation (Inside and Outside Containment)....

3.9

.Outstanding Equipment 4

qualification of Equipment......

B-4 B-5 B-5 B-6 B-6 B-7 B-7 B-7 B-8 B-8 4.1 4.2 4.3 Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action.......

Equipment Requiring Additional Information and/or Corrective Action

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

B-9 B-9 B-l0 5

Conclusions...

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~, ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

B-10 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D

Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action Equipment Requiring Additional Information and/or Corrective Action Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable Safety-Rel ated Systems B-12 B-13 B-15 B-17 B-2

,APPENDIX B

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION BRANCH FOR PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1

AND 2 DOCKET NO. 50-275, 323 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RE;LATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 1

INTRODUCTION General Design Criteria 1

and 4 specify that safety-related electrical equipment in nuclear facilities must be capable of performing its safety-related function under environmental conditions associated with all normal, abnormal, and accident plant operation.

In order to ensure compliance with the criteria, the NRC staff required all near-'term Operating License (OL) applicants to reassess and evaluate their environmental qualification documentation for their safety-related electrical equipment.

2 BACKGROUND On February 8, 1979, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) issued to all licensees of operating plants (except those included in the systematic evaluation program (SEP))

IE Bulletin IEB 79-01, "Environmental Qualification of Class IE Equipment."

This bulletin, together with IE,Circular 78-08 (issued on May 31, 1978 ), required the licensees to perform reviews to assess the adequacy of their environmental qualification programs By letters dated October ll, 1979 and February 19 and 21, 1980, the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) requested Operating License applicants to review and evaluate the environmental qualification documentation for each item of safety-related electrical equipment and to identify the degree to which their qualification program complies with the staff' positions as described in NUREG-0588,

" Interim Staff Position on Enviroreental Qualifica-tion of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment."

The applicants were directed to provide a submittal reporting the results of this review.

Subsequently, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21

( issued on May 23, 1980) states that NUREG-0588 forms the requirements that licensees must meet regardirfg environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment in order to satisfy those aspects of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General

'Design Criterion (GDC ) 4.

This order requires that the licensees have qualified safety-related

'equipment installed in their plants by June 30, 1982.

Supplements to IEB 79-01B were issued for further clarification and definition of the staff' needs.

These supplements were issued on February 29, September 30, and October 24, 1980, and were given to OL applicants for consideration in their review.

In response, to the staff request, the applicant provided equipment qualification information by letters dated June 10 and September 2,

1981.

2.1 Purpose The purpose of this SER i s to identify equipment whose qualification program does not provide sufficient assurance that the equipment is capable of performing the design function in hostile environments.

The staff position relating to any identified deficiencies is provided'n this report.

2.2 Scope The scope of this report is limited to an evaluation of the equipment which

'ust function in order to mitigate the consequences of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) or a high-energy-line-break (HELB) accident, inside or outside containment, while subjected to the hostile environments associated with these accidents.

3 STAFF EVALUATION The staff e'valuation of the applicant's response includes an onsite inspection of selected Class IE equipment, audits of qualificatio'n documentation, and an examination of the applicant's report for completeness and a'cceptability.

The criteria described in NUREG-0588 form the basis for the staff evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant' qualification program.

The staff per formed audits of the applicant' envirormental qualification program July 27-31, 1981 and August 31-September 4, 1981.

The first audit consisted of a 30% review of the applicant's equipment.

Several deficiencies were identified during the audit.

The second audit consisted of 100K review of applicant' equipment No major deficiencies were noted, and the applicant had corrected all deficiencies noted in the first audit.

3.1 Completeness of Safety-Related Equipment In accordance with NUREG-0588, the applicant.was directed to

( 1) establish a-list of systems and equipment that are required to mitigate a

LOCA and an HELB and (2 ) identify components needed to perform the function of safety-related display information, post-accident sampling and monitoring, and radiation monitoring.

The staff developed a generic master list based upon a review of plant safety analyses and emergency procedures.

The instrumentation selected includes parameters'o monitor overall plant performance as well as to monitor the per-formance of the systems on the list.,

The systems list was established on the basis of the functions that must be performed for accident mitigation (without regard to location of equipment relative to hostile environments).

The list of safety-related systems provided by the applicant was reviewed against the staff-developed master list.

Based upon information in the applicant's submittal, the staff has verified.

and determined that the systems included in the applicant' submittal are those required to achieve or support:

( 1) emergency reactor

shutdown, (2 ) containment isolation, (3 ) reactor core cooling, (4 ) containment heat

removal, (5) core residual heat removal, and (6) prevention of significant release of radioactive material to the'nvironment.

The staff therefore concludes that the systems identified by the applicant

( listed in Appendix D) are acceptable..

Display instrumentation which provides information for the reactor ope'rators to aid them in the safe handling of the plant was identified by the applicant.

A list of all safety-related display instrumentation was provided.

The staff is currently reviewing this list for completeness The on-going review will determine whether additional equipment, if any, is needed to be qualified.

The. applicant identified 43 types of equipment which were assessed by the staff.

These 43 equipment types represent 20,384 individual equipment components.

Of the 20,384, 20,264 (20,000 splices) are conditionally qualified, 89 are being

replaced, and 31 are under review.

3.2 Service Conditions Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21 requires that the "For Comment" NUREG-0588 is to be used as the criteria for establishing the adequacy of the safety-related electrical equipment environmental qualification program.

This document provides the option of establishing a bounding pressure and temperature condition based on plant-specific analysis identified in the applicant' Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or based on generic profiles. using the methods identified in these documents.

On this basis, the staff has

assumed, unless otherwise noted, that the analysis for developing the environmental envelopes for Diablo Canyon Units 1

and 2

relative to the temperature,

pressure, and the containment spray caustics has been performed in accordance with the requirements stated above.

The staff has reviewed the qualification documentation to ensure that the qualification specifications envelope the conditions established by the applicant.

Equipment submergence has also been addressed where the possibility exists that flooding of equipment may result fran HELBs

3. 3 Temperature,

Pressure, and Humidity Conditions Inside Containment The applicant has submitted the LOCA/NSLB profiles used for equipment qualifi-cation purposes.

The peak pressure and temperature resulting from these profiles are as follows:

0 Max Temp

( F)

Max Press (psig)

Humidity (%)

LOCA NSLB 272 344 47 47 100 100 B-5

The staff has reviewed these profiles and'inds them acceptable for use in equipment qualification.

That is, there is reasonable assurance that the actual temperatures and pressures for the postulated accidents will not exceed these profiles anywhere within the specified environmental zone (except in the break zone).

3.4 Tem erature,

Pressure, and Humidity Conditions Outside Containment The applicant has provided the temperature,

pressure, humidity, and applicable environment associated with an HELB outside containment.

The following areas outside containment have been addressed:

(1)

Auxiliary building

'2)

Fuel handling building 0

The staff has used the screening criteria of saturation temperature (212 F

near atmospheric pressure) to verify that the parameters identified by the applicant for HELB are acceptable.

The maximum submergence levels inside containment have been established and assessed by the applicant.

Unless otherwise noted, the staff assumed for this review that the methodology employed by the applicant is in accordance with the appropriate criteria as established by Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21.

The applicant's value for maximum submergence is 96 ft 1 in.

Equipment below this level was.identified by. the applicant.

Some equipment with the potential

.for submergence was relocated above flood level.

The applicant indicated that the remaining equipment with the potential for submergence will perform its function before becoming submerged, and that failure after submergence will not affect any other safety-related equipment or system or mislead an operator.

The applicant has determined by analysis that there is no potential for submergence of Class IE equipment outside containment.

The staff has reviewed the applicant's information referenced in the Diablo Canyon FSAR pertaining to the potential for outside containment flooding; moreover we reviewed an example of the potential flooding scenario and the methodology used to calculate this potential.

On the basis of this'eview, the staff concludes that flooding of Class IE safety related electrical equipment outside of the containment has been adequately addressed, and the conclusions reached by the applicant are acceptable.

B-6

3.6 Chemical Spray The applicant's FSAR value for the chemical concentration is 2000 ppm boron and sodium hydroxide injection, resulting in a pH greater than 8.8.

In ad'dition, the applicant's containment spray system is designed so that no single failure can occur that will result in additional sodium hydroxide being added which could increase the anticipated alkalinity of the chemical spray.'he exact percent used by the vendor for qualification testing and the equality of test sprays have been verified by the applicant and are acceptable to the staff.

3.7 ~Agin NUREG-0588 Category II, del ineates two aging-program requirements.

Valve operators committed to IEEE Standard 382-1972 and motors committed to IEEE Standard 334-1971 must meet 'the Category I requirements of the NUREG.

This requires the est'ablishment of a qualified life, with maintenance and replacement schedules based on the findings.

All other equipment must be subjected to an aging program which identifies aging-susceptible materials within the component.

Additionally, the staff requires that the applicant:

(1)

Establish an ongoing program to review surveillance and maintenance records to identify potential age-related degradations, and (2)

Establish component maintenance and replacement schedules which include considerations of aging characteristics of the installed components.

The applicant has established a limited qualified life for each equipment type through test and/or analysis and is currently involved in a program to extend and/or confirm the qualified life of the equipment.

In addition, the applicant has developed a program for surveillance and maintenance to ensure that equip-ment will not degrade sooner than predicted.

The staff has reviewed this program and finds it acceptable.

Surveillance and maintenance program procedures are to be implemented before full-power operation.

Until these procedures are implemented, aging will remain an open item.

The applicant is requested to notify the staff when procedures are implemented.

3.8 Radiation

( Inside and Outside Containment)

The applicant has provided values for the radiation levels'ostulated to exist following a LOCA.

The application and methodology employed to determine these values were presented to'he applicant as part of the NRC staff criteria con-tained in NUREG-0588 and in the guidance provided in IEB-79-01B, Supplement 2.

The staff review determined that the values to which equipment was.qualified enveloped the requirements identified by the applicant.

8~7

The value required by the applicant inside containment is an integrated dose 5

8 range of 8.66 x 10 to 1.6 x 10 rads.

The applicant has provided the analysis including basis, assumptions, and sanple calculation--used to determine the radiation levels.

In addition, the applicant has provided the analysis--

including basis, assumptions, and a sample calculation to determine the effect of beta radiation on the equipment's gaskets and seals.

The staff has reviewed the analyses and concludes that the applicant's overall approach should result in reasonable estimates of the radiation qualification values and is acceptable 3

7 A required value range of 5.29 x 10 to 6.7 x 10 rads has been used by the applicant to specify limiting radiation 1 evel s equipment oustside containment.

This value consider s the radiation levels influenced by the source term methodology associated with post-LOCA recirculation fluid lines and is acceptable.

3. 9 Outstanding Equipment The applicant has performed a circuit analysis to provide assurance that failure of exempted equipment and equipment lacking complete documentation for qualifica-tion will not adversely affect any other safety function or mislead an operator.

The staff has reviewed the information provided and concluded that interim operation with this equipment will not degrade the safety functions or inhibit accident mitigation systems or equipment in the unlikely event of exposure to an adverse environment.

Modifications as a result of the TMI Action Plan which have not been implemented

,will be qualified to meet NUREG-0588 Category I requirements at the time of installation or when the equipment is required to be operable, per the established schedule of NUREG-0737 ("Clarification of TMI Action Plan" ).

0 QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT The following subsections present the staff's assessment, based on the applicant's submittal, of the qualification status of safety-related electrical equipment.

The staff has separated the safety-related equipment into three categories:

(1) equipment requiring iranediate corrective action, (2) equipment requiring additional qualification information and/or corrective action, and (3) equip-ment considered acceptable if the staff's concern identified in Section 3.7 is satisfactorily resolved.

An appendix for each subsection of this report provides a list of equipment for which additional information and/or corrective action is required.

4.1 Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action Appendix A identifies equipment (if any) in this category.

The applicant was asked to review the facility's safety-related electrical equipment.

The applicant's review of this equipment has not identified any equipment requiring iranediate corrective action; therefore, no deficie~cy reports were submitted.

In addition, in this review,. the staff has not identified any safety-related electrical equipment which is not able to perform its intended safety function during the time in which it must operate.

4.2 Equipment Re uiring Additional Information and/or Corrective Action Appendix B identifies equipment in this category, including a tabulation of deficiencies.

The deficiencies are noted by a letter relating to the legend for the qualification parameter or condition.

Legend R=radiation T

- tenperature

(}T

- qualification time RT - required time P

- pressure H

- humidity CS

- chemical spray A

- material-aging evaluation; replacement schedule; ongoing equipment surveillance S

- submergence N

- margin I

- HELB evaluation outside containment not completed gM

- qualification method RPN - equipment relocation or replacement; adequate schedule not provided EXN - exempted equipment justification inadequate SEN - separate-effects qualification justification inadequate OI

- qualification information being developed RPS - equipment relocation or replacement schedule provided As noted in Section 4,. these deficiencies do not necessarily mean that the equipment is unqualified.

However, the deficiencies are cause for concern and require further case-by-case evaluation.

The staff has determined that an acceptable basis to exempt equipment from qualification, in whole or part, has been provided by the applicant in its failure mode and effects analysis for all the equipment exempted from qualification using the criteria listed below.

The applicant is, however, required to update the appropriate component evalua-tion work sheets as additional qualification information becomes available.

B-9

(1)

Equipment does not perform esse'ntial safety functions in the harsh environment, and equipment failurh in the harsh environment, will not impact safety-related functions or mislead an operator.

(2a)

Equipment performs its function before its exposure to the harsh environment; and the adequacy for the time margin provided is adequately justified, and (2b) Subsequent failure of. the equipment as a result of the harsh environment does not degrade other safety functions or mislead the operator (3)

The safety-related function can be accomplished by some other designated equipment that has been adequately qualified and satisfies the single-fai 1 ure criterion.

(4)

Equipment will not be subject'ed to a harsh environment as a result of the postulated accident.

4.3 E ui ment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable Based on the staff review of the applicant' submittal, the staff identified the equipment in Appendix C as

( 1) acceptable on the basis that the qualifi-cation program adequately enveloped the specific environmental plant parameters, or (2 ) conditionally acceptable subject to the satisfactory resolution of the staff concern identified in Section 3.7.

For the equipment identified as conditionally acceptable, the staff determined that

( 1)

The applicant has not completed the evaluation of plant equipment material to ensure that no known materials susceptible to degradation because of aging have been Used.

(2 )

Although the applicant has established a plant surveillance and maintenance

program, implementation procedures have not been completed.

The applicant is, therefore, required to inform the staff of both completion of the aging program and implementation of the surveillance and maintenenace program.

5 CONCLUSIONS The staff has determined that the applicant's listing of safety-related systems and associated electrical equipment whose ability to function in a harsh environment following a postulated accident is complete and acceptable except as noted in Section 3 of this report.

The staff has also determined that the environmental service conditions to be met by the electrical equipment in the

• harsh accident environment are appropriate, except as noted in Section 3 of this report.

B-10

The staff has reviewed the qualification of safety-related electrical equipment to the extent defined by this SER and has found no outstanding items

'- which would require imnediate corrective action to ensure the safety of plant operation.

However, the staff-has determined that several items of safety-related electrical equipment identified by the applicant for this review require additional information.

This review was based on a comparison of the qualifica-tion values with the specified environmental values required by the design, whicl were provided in the applicant's summary sheets'.

7 Subsection 4.2 identified deficiencies that must be resolved to establish the qualification of the equipment; the staff requires the applicant to update the CES when the noted deficiencies are resolved.

The applicant has provided acceptable justification for operation of all unqualified or documentation-deficient equipment.

Subsection 4.3 identified acceptance and conditional acceptance based on noted deficiencies.

Where deficiencies are noted, the applicant should update the CES when the deficiency is resolved.

Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that conformance with the above requirements and satisfactory completion of the corrective actions by June 30, 1982 will ensure compliance with the Commission Memorandum and Order of Nay 23, 1980.

The staff further concludes that there is reasonable assurance of safe operation of this facility pending completion of these corrective actions.

,This conclusion is based on the following:

(1)

There are no outstanding items which would require immediate corrective action to assure safety of plant operation.

(2)

Some of the items found deficient have been or are being replaced or relocated, thus improving the facility's capability to function following a

LOCA or HELB.

(3)

The harsh environmental conditions for which this equipment must be qualified result from low-probability events; events which might reasonably be anticipated during this very limited period would lead to less demanding service conditions for this equipment.

(4)

The applicant has provided justification for operation with unqualified components or 'documentation-deficient components.

APPENDIX A E(UIPMENT RE(UIRING IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION (CATEGORY 4. 1)

NO E(UIPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY B-12

APPENDIX B EQUIPMENT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

'AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION (CATEGORY 4. 2)

LEGEND:

Desi nation for Deficienc R - Radiation T - Temperature QT - Qualification time RT - Required time P - Pressure H - Humidity CS - Chemical spray A - Material aging evaluation, replacement

schedule, ongoing equipment surveillance S - Submergence M - Margin I -

HELB evaluation outside containment not completed QM - Qualification method RPN - Equipment relocation or replacement, adequate schedule not provided EXN - Exempted equipment justification inadequate SEN - Separate effects qualification justfi.cation inadequate QI - Qualification information being developed "RPS - Equipment relocation or replacement schedule provided EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION Pressure Transmitter Pressure Transmitter Pressure Sensor RTD MANUFACTURER Rosemount Barton Barton Sostman MODEL NO.

1152 Lot 1 351 119 01B DEFICIENCY RPS Rpsl (5)

QIz (1)

RPS A

components to be replaced by the applicant will be replaced with qualified components currently undergoing qualification testing.

~See footnotes at end of Appendix.

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION Differential Pressure Transmitter Pressure Transmitter Electro-Hydraulic Actuator MANUFACTURER Fischer 8

Porter Fischer 8

Porter ITT General Controls MODEL NO.

10 BI/C 10 BO/C 50EP1041 NH92K6002E 2L80 DEFICIENCY RPS RPS RPS

'I2 Solenoid Operator Motor Operator Target Rock Limitorque 79AB-001 QIs I/C Class B

RPS Hydrogen Recombiner Acoustic Monitor Wide Range RTD Pressure Differential Transmitter Hydrogen Monitor Victoreen TEC Barton 1414 763 764 QI3 QI3 QIs QI4 QI4 QIs QIs

\\

Awaiting final test report on testing of sensor using oil fill.

~Awaiting test report on qualification of capacitor.

sNew equipment item being added as a post TMI-2 revision.

4Item currently in vendor's qualification program.

Documentation will be added upon completion.

5See NUREG-0675 Supplement 9 to the Diablo Canyon Units 1

and 2 Safety Evaluation Report for further requirements, B-14

APPENDIX C

E(UIPMENT CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE OR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE (CATEGORY 4.3)

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER MODEL NO.

DEFICIENCY Cable Okonite EPR/Hypalon Containment Fan Cooler Motors Westinghouse Type CSP Solenoid Operator Limit Switch Solenoid Operator Solenoid Operator Motor Operator Electrical Penetration ASCO NAMCO Valcor ASCO Limitorque

'GE 2084483F'P831655V NP8316E35V NP831655E EA-180 V526-5295-36 831655 8321A5 SMC"04 100 Series A

A A

A A

A Signal 8 Thermo-couple Cable Cable Cable Cable Fan Cooler Cable Continental Boston Raychem Okonite Boston CC2193 A

Silicone/Hypalon A

Stilan Tefzel Silicone Braid Kapton Asbestos'ypalon B-15

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER MODEL No.

DEFICIENCY Heat Shrink Splice Electrical Conductor Seal Assembly Conduit Seals Electrical Cable Electrical Cable Cable Motor Motor Operator Motor Operator Cable Motor Operator Indicating Switch RTD

'otor Rayc hem Conax f

Z. Gedney Rockbestos ITT Raychem Westinghouse Limitorque Limitorque Okonite Rotork Barton Sostman Westinghouse WCSF-N NMCR

NMCPS NPANL WCAP NTELS N-11001'SBI Firewall III Exa'ne II

Flametrol HSDP I/C Class H

SMBO/C, 5KV 1H9A2 I'88A 118348-1 ABDP A

~

A A

A A-A A

A A

,A B-16

APPENDIX 0 SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEMS'unction Emergency Reactor Shutdown Containment Isolation Reactor Core Cooling Containment Heat Removal Core Residual Heat Removal Prevention of Significant Release of Radioactive Material to Evironment Supporting System System Reactor Coolant Reactor Protection Safeguards Actuation Chemical and Volume Control Main Steam Isolation Main Feedwater Isolation Containment Isolation Safety Injection Chemical and Volume Control Residual Heat Removal Containment Radiation Sampling Safety Injection Residual Heat Removal Ventilation Residual Heat Removal Reactor Coolant Main Feedwater Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Steam Dump Component Cooling Water Service Water Containment Fission Product Removal Containment Ventilation Containment Combustible Gas Control Containment Radiation Monitoring Containment Radiation Sampling Emergency Power Safety Equipment Area Ventilation Control Room Habitability The NRC staff recognized that these are differences in nomenclature of systems because of plant vintage and engineering design; consequently some systems performing identical or similar functions may have different names.

In those instances it is necessary to verify the system(s) function with the applicant.

't I

II

NRC FORM 335 17 77)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BIBLIOGRAPHICDATA SHEET

1. REPORT NUMBER (Assigned by DDC/

NUREG-0675 Supplement'o.

15

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE (Add Volume No.,ifappropriate/

Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2

2. (Leave blank/

3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

7. AUTHORIS'I

5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONNAME AND MAILINGADDRESS (Include tip Code/

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C, 20555 MONTH Se tember DATE REPORT ISSUED MONTH Se tember

6. (Leave blank/

YEAR 1 81 YEAR 1 8

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILINGADDRESS (include Zip Code/

Same as 9. above B. (Leave blank/

10. PROJECT/TASK/WORK UNITNo.

11. CONTRACT No.

13. TYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD COVE RED (Inclusive datesi

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323

16. ABSTRACT (200 words or /ess/

14. (Leave blank/

Supplement No. 15 to the Safety Evaluation Report for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's application for licenses to operate the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power.

Hant (Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323) located in San Luis Obispo County, CELLifornia has been prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of'he Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Supplement No. 15 discusses the staff's evaluation of the environmental qualifications of safety-related electrical equipment.

17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 17a. DESCRIPTORS 17b. IDENTIFIERSIOPEN ENDED TERMS

16. AVAILABILITYSTATEMENT Unlimited NRC FORM 335 I7 77)

19. SECURITY CLASS (Thts report/

Unclassified

20. sEcURITY cI.AJs (This page/

bnclassz fr.ed 21, NO. OF PAGES

22. PRICE S

k

NRC Form 122 (743)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION DOCUMENT REQUEST/CONTROL Q~ l/F fN DATEOF REQUEST

'I-I'~

RGANIZATION(Division/Branch)

NAME MAILINGINFORMATION(Ifother than NRC Hq.)

RGANIZATION TREET ADDRESS STATE MATERIALREQUESTED REQUESTER'S NAME >>,

TELEPHONE NO.

MAILSTOPIIINRCHqf.

C.3" '2 ZIP CODE HOLD FOR PICKUP MAIL.RUN/STOPSYSTEM MAIL FOR DISTRI8. SVS. USE ONLY REQUEST RECEIVED BY~

TELEPHONE MAIL WALK.IN DOC MENT PICKED P

INVENTORY BOX NO.

SE

'UENCE DOCKETAND/OR PUBLICATIONNUMBER NUMBEROF

, COPIES

'l f

ll