ML17257A504

Safety Evaluation Re Environ Qualification of safety-related Electrical Equipment Finding No Outstanding Items That Require Immediate Corrective Action.Deficient Items Replaced.Equipment Qualified for Low Probability Events

ML17257A504
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	06/01/1981
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17257A505	List: ML17257A504 ML17309A177
References
NUDOCS 8107300110
Download: ML17257A504 (30)

Text

Safety Evaluation Report By the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation For Rochester Gas 8 ELectric Corp.

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power P1ant Docket No. 50-244 Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related ELectricaL Equipment Date:

June 1,

1981 8107300iip 8ipbpi PDR ADOCK 05000244 P

PDR

Contents 1.0 Introduction..

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1

2.0 Background

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~.

~

~

~.

~

~

~

~..

1 2.1 Purpose

~

0

~

~

~

~

~ 3 2.2 Scope

~

o

~

~

~

~ 3 3.0 Staff Evaluation

~

~

~

~

~

~

~.

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~.....

4 3.1 Completeness of Safety-Related Equipment.

~

~ ~....

4 3.2 Service Conditions

~

~

~.

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~.....

5 3.3 Temperature,

Pressure, and Humidity Conditions Inside Containment

~

~

~

~

~

~

~.

~.

~..

~

~

~

~ ~....

6 3.4 Temperature, Pressure and Humidity Conditions Outside Containment

~

~.

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~....

7 3.5 Submergence

~

~

o a 8 3.6 Chemical Spray

~

~

~ 9 3.7 Aging.

~ I 0

~

0

~ \\

~

~

~

s

~

~ 9 3.8 Radiation (Inside and Outside Containment)

~

~

~

10 4.0 Qualification of Equipment..........

~

~..

11 4.1 Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action

~..

12 4.2 Equipment Requiring Addit iona Corrective Action 4.3 Equipment Considered Acceptab Acceptable.

l Information And/Or

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

13 le or Conditionally

~

~

s

~

~

e

~

~

~

~

~

s 15 5.0 Oeferred Requirements 16 6.0 Conclusions 0

0

~

0

~

0

~

~

~

~

~

0

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

17

Contents (Continued)

Appendix A - List of Equipment in Section 4.1, Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action...

A-1 Appendix B - List of Equipment in Section 4.2~ Equipment Requiring Additional Information And/Or Corrective Action.

Appendix C - List of Equipment in Section 4.3, Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable.

C-1 Appendix 0 Plant Safety-Rel.ated Systems and Display In strument at ion................

D-1

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FOR ROCHESTER GAS 8 ELECTRIC CORP.

R.E.

GINNA NUCLEAR. POWER'PLANT DOCKET NO 50-244 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL'QUIPMENT 1 0 INTRODUCTION General Design Criteria 1

and 4 specify that safety"related electricaL equipment in nuclear facilities must be capable of performing their safety"related function under aLL normaL~

abnormaL and accident conditions.

The NRC staff has required

-that all Licensees of operating reactors evaluate the quaLification of their safety-related electricaL equipment which is Located in a harsh environment.

2.0 BACKGROUND

In 1977~ the NRC staff instituted the systematic evaluation program (SEP) to determine the extent to which the Licensing basis for the older operating nuclear plants complies with current Licensing criteria.

Topic III-12 of this p rog ram re Lates to the envi ronment a L qua Lificat ion of saf ety"re Lated equi pment.

In December 1977~ the NRC issued a generic Letter to aLL SEP plant Licensees requesting that they review the adequacy of existing equipment qualification documentation.

NRC review. of Licensee responses Led to the preparation of NUREG-0458~

an interim NRC assessment of the environmentaL qualification of electrical equipment.

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 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 program.

On November 13, 1979 the DOR (Division of Operating Reactors)

"Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental QuaLification of CLass IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors" were prepared to form the basis for reviewing equipment in aLL operating pLants.

In October 1979, the NRC contracted with Franklin Research Center (FRC) for assistance in the detailed review of the SEP equipment environmentaL qualification and prepare the technicaL evaluation reports (TERs).

In February 1980, the NRC decided to include Inidan Point Units, 2 and 3

and Zion Units 1 and 2 in the SEP program for the purpose of equipment envi ronmenta L qua Lifi cat ion revi ew.

Also in February 1980, the NRC staff met with personneL from FRC and representatives of the SEP group in an open session at NRC headquarters to review the program in reLation to the DOR guidelines.

On May 23, 1980, the Commissioners issued Memorandum and Order CLI"80-21, which states that the DOR guidelines and NUREG"0588 set the requirements that Licensees and applicants must meet regarding the environmentaL quali-fication of safety-reLated electrical equipment to satisfy 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC)-4.

This order required the staff to complete k

safety evaluation reports (SERs) for aLL operating plants by February 1, 1981.

In addition~ this Order requires that all Licensees have qualified safety-related electricaL equipment instaLLed in their plants by June 30~ 1982.

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

These supplements were issued on February 29~ September 30~

and October 24~ 1980.

In addition, the staff issued orders dated August 29~ 1980 (amended in September 1980) and October 24, 1980 to aLL Licensees.

The August order required that the Licensees provide a report, by November 1, 1980, docu-menting the qualification of safety-related electrical equipment.

The October order required the establishment of a central file Location for the maintenance of aLL equipment-qualification records.

The central file was mandated to be established by December 1, 1980.

The order also required that aLL safety-related electrical equipment be qualified by June 30, 1982.

On February 15, 1980 Rochester Gas and ELectric Corp.

(RGSE) was formally asked to address the environmental qualification of safety-related equipment for the Ginna Station.

In response to this request, RGSE submitted infor-mation which was transmitted by a Letter dated Apr-25,1980.

On May 22 and 29~ 1980~

RGRE presented a revised submittaL~ updated with the Latest available information pertaining to equipment qualification.

RGRE sub-mitted additionaL information on October 31~ 1980.

2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this safety evaluation report (SER) is to identify equipment whose qualification program does 'not provide sufficient assurance that the equipment is capable of providing the design function in the hostile

environments.

The staff position reLating to any identified deficiencies is provided in this report.

2.2 S COPE The scope of this report includes that equipment which must function to mitigate the consequences of Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) or a High-Energy-Line Break (HELB) inside or outside containment~

and whose environment would be adversely affected by that accident.

3.0 STAFF EV ALUATION The staff's evaluation of the Licensee's responses included an on-site inspection of selected Class EE equipment and by examining the Licensee's report for compLeteness and acceptability.

The criteria described in the DOR Guidelines and NUREG-0588, in part, were used as a basis for the'taff's evaluation of the adequacy of the Licensee qualification program.

During the week of Nay 5~ 1980~

NRC and FRC representatives visited the Ginna plant site~ inspected safety-related systems and equipment, identified and tabulated safety"related components through discussions with plant personnel, and conducted a general review of RGSE's submittaL of Apr. 25, 1980.

The inspection spot checked proper installation of accessible equipment~

over all interface integrity~ and manufacturers nameplate data.

The manufacturer and modeL number from the nameplate data was compared to information given in the Licensee's submittal.

The following safety evaLuation incorporates the RG&E submittal and the Frank Lin Research Center techni ca L eva Luat ion report (TER).

3.1 COMPLETENESS OF SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT In accordance with the DOR guidelines~

the Licensee was directed to establish a List of systems and display instrumentation needed to mitigate the consequences of a LOCA or HELB, inside or outside con-

tainment, and reach safe shutdown.

The Lists of safety-related systems and display instrumentation were developed from a review of plant safety analyses and emergency procedures.

The display instrumentation selected includes parameters to monitor overaLL pLant performance as weLL as to monitor performance of the systems on the List-The systems List was established on the basis of the functions that must be performed for mitigation of the consequences of a LOCA or HELB without regard to Location of equipment relative to a potentially hostile environment.

The staff has determined and verified that the systems considered by the Licensee 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 environment.

In addition to the concerns identified beLow the staff's systems review has not included those equipment items discussed in section 5.0 of this report.

The systems and instrumentation List is contained in Appendix D.

The Licensee submitted an extensive List of safety-related electricaL equipment.

This List was evaluated and identicaL components within a plant area exposed to the same environment were grouped; 44 item types of equipment were identified and assessed by the staff.

The Licensee has also identified certain equipment items as providing important safety functions~ but has not included them in the List of equipment that must be qualified.

Justification for the omission should be presented.

3.2 Service Conditions The Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-80-21), dated May 23~ 1980 requires that the DOR Guidelines and the "For Comment" NUREG-0588 are to be used as the criteria for establishing the adequacy of the safety related electricaL equipment environmental qualification program.

These documents provide the option of establishing a bounding pressure and temperature condition based on plant specific analysis identified in the Licensees 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 Ginna

\\

relative to the temperature~

pressure~

and the containment spray caustics, have been performed in accordance with the above stated requirments.

For this review the staff reviewed the qualification documentation to ensure that the qualification specifications envelope the conditions established by the Licensee.

The staff assumed that for plants, designed and equipped with an automatic containment spray system, which satisfies the single failure criterion~ the main steam Line break environmental conditions are enveLoped by the Large break LOCA environmentaL conditions.

The staff assumed and requires that the Licensee verifies~ that the containment spray system is not subjected to a disabling single component fai Lure and therefore satisfies the DOR Guideline requirements of Section 4.2.1.

Equipment submergence has also been addressed where the possibility exists that flooding of equipment may result from high energy Line breaks (HELB).

3.3 TEMPERATURE~ PRESSURE~

AND HUMIDITY CONDITIONS INSIDE CONTAINMENT The Licensee has provided the results of accident analyses as follows:

Max. Temp.

('F)

Max. Press.

(psig)

Humidity LOCA 286 60 100%

MSLB (not provided)

The staff has concluded that the minimum temperature profile for equipment qualification purposes should include a margin to account for higher than average temperatures in the upper regions of the containment that can exist due to stratification especiaLLy foLlowing a postulated MSLB.

Use of the steam saturation temperature corresponding to the totaL building pressure (partiaL pressure of steam plus partial pressure of air) versus time untiL the sprays become effective wiLL provide an acceptable margin for either a postulated LOCA or MSLB, whichever is controlling as to potentiaL adverse environmentaL effects on equipment.

The Licensee's specified temperature (service condition) of 286'F does not satisfy the above requirement.

A saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure profile (307 F peak temperature at 60 psig) should be used instead.

The Licensee should update his equipment summary tables to reflect this change.

If there is any equipment that does, not meet the staff position~

the Licensee must provide either justification that the equipment wilL perform its intended function under the specified conditions or propose corrective action.

3 ~ 4 TEMPERATURE~ PRESSURE AND HUMIDITY CONDITIONS OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT The Licensee has provided the temperature pressure~

humidity and applicable environmentaL values associated with a HELB outside containment'n the foLLowing plant areas:

1.

Auxi Liary Bui Lding 2.

Intermediate bui Lding and cable tunneL 3.

Diesel generator rooms 4.

Screen house I

5.

AuxiLiary building addition 6.

Turbine bui Lding 7.

Relay and battery rooms 8.

MechanicaL equipment room 9.

Control room The staff has verified that the parameters identified by the Licensee for the MSLB are acceptable.

3 ~ 5 SUBMERGENCE The maximum submergence Levels have been established and assessed by the Licensee.

The staff assumed for this review, unless otherwise noted, that the methodology employed by the Licensee is in accordance with the appropriate criteria as established by the Commission Memor-andum and Order (CLI-80-21), dated May 23~ 1980.

The Licensee's value for maximum submergence is 7 feet.

The elevation Level was not stated.

The Licensee shouLd provide this information.

The Licensee should provide an assessment of the failure modes associated with the submergence of equipment.

Assurance should also be provided that the subsequent failure of this equipment will not adversely affect any other safety functions or mislead an operator.

Additionally, the

~ ~

Licensee should discuss operating time, across the spectrum of events~

in relation to the time of submergence.

If the results of the Licensee's assessment are acceptable~

then the equipment may be exempt from the submergence parameter of quaLification.

3.6 CHENICAL SPRAT The Licensee's FSAR value for the chemicaL concentration is 2000-3000 PPN boric acid solution corresponding to 0.8 to 1.7 volume percent used by the vendors for qualification testing.

3.7 AGING The DOR Guidelines, section 7~ does not require a qualified Life to be established for all safety related electrical equipment, however, the following actions are required:

1.

Detailed comparison of existing equipment to the materials identifed in Appendix C of the DOR guidelines.

The first supplement to IEB>>79&18 requires the Licensees to utilize the table and identify any additional materials as a result of their effort.

2.

Establish an ongoing program to review surveillance and maintenance records to identify potential age related degradations.

3.

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

For this review the staff requires that the Licensee submit supplementaL information to verify and identify their degree of conformance to the above requirements.

The response should be inclusive of aLL the equipment identified as required to maintain their functional operability in harsh environments.

The staff wi Ll review the Licensees

response, when submitted, and report its evaluation in a supplemental report.

3.8 RADIATION (INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CONTAINNENT)

The Licensee has provided values for radiation Levels postulated to exist foLLowing a LOCA event.

The application and methodology employed to determine these values have been presented to the Licensee as part of the NRC staff criteri a contained in the DOR Guidelines~

NUREG-0588 and the guidance provided in IEB-79-01B, Supplement 2.

Therefor e~ for this review, the staff has assumed that the values provided, unLess otherwise

noted, have been determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.,

The staff 's review assessed that the vaLues to which equipment was qualified~ enveloped the requirements identified by the Licensee.

The 8

value established by the Licensee is 1.6 x 10 RADS for the integrated dose inside containment.

This value envelopes the DOR Guidelines require-ments and is therefore acceptable.

A typicaL value outside containment 6

of 2.8 x 10 RADS has been used by the Licensee to specify Limiting radiation Levels within the areas containing RHR and SI pumps in the auxiliary building.

This value appears to consider the radiation Levels influenced by the source term methodoLogy associated with post-LOCA recirculation fluid Lines and is therefore acceptable.

10

4.0 QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT The following subsections are the staff 's assessment~

based on the Licensee's submittal, and the Franklin TER of the qualification status of safety-related electricaL equipment.

The staff has separated the safety-related equipment into three categories (1) equipment requiring immediate corrective action, (2) equipment requiring additionaL qualification information and/or corrective action, and (3) equip-ment considered acceptable conditioned only on the satisfactory resoLution of the staff's concern identified in Section 3.7.

The NRC staff in its assessment of the Licensees submittal and the TER did not review, the methodology employed to determine the values estab-Lished by the Licensee.

However, in reviewing the TER a determination was made by the staff as to the stated conditions presented by the Licensee.

Additionally, the detailed review of supporting documentation referenced by the Licensee (e.g., test reports) has been completed by FRC The environmentaL qualification data bank to be established by the staff wiLL provide the means to cross reference each supporting docu" ment to the referencing Licensee.

11

Where supporting documents were found to be unacceptable, the Licensee wiLL be required to take additional corrective actions to either establish qualification or replace the item(s) of concern-An appendix for each subsection is attached which provides a List of equip-ment which requires additional information and/or corrective action.

Where appropriate, a reference is provided in the appendices to identify deficiencies.

It should be noted, as in the Commission Memorandum, and Order~ that the deficiencies identified do not necessarily mean that equipment is unqualified.

However, they are cause for concern and may require further case-by-case evaluations.

4 ~ 1 EQUIPMENT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION Appendix A identifies equipment (if any) in this category.

The Licensee was requested, to perform a review of the facilities safety"related

, eLectricaL equipment.

The Licensees review of this equipment has not identified any equipment requiring immediate corrective action and therefore no Licensee event reports were submitted.

In addition the staff, in this review, has not identified any safety"related electricaL equipment which is known not to be able to perform its intended safety function during the time period in which it is required to operate.

12

4 2 EQUIPMENT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION Appendix B identifies equipment in this category, including the tabulation of their deficiencies.

The deficiencies are noted by a

Letter relating to the Legend~ identified below, indicating that insufficient information has been provided for the qualification pa ramet e r or condi tion.

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 Survei L Lance 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 Justification Inadequate QI - Qua Lificat ion Informat ion Being Deve Loped RPS - Equipment Relocation or Replacement Schedule Provided.

13

As noted in Section 4.0, these deficiencies do not necessarily mean that the equipment is unqualified.

However~ they are cause for concern 4

and require further case-by-case evaluations.

The staff has determined that an acceptable basis to exempt equipment from qualification~ in whole or part, can be established provided the following can be estab-Lished and verified by the Licensees:

(1)

Equipment does not provide essentiaL safety functions in the harsh environment and failure of it in the harsh environment wiLL not impact safety related functions or mislead an operator.

(2a)

Equipment performs its function prior to 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 failure criteria.

(4)

Equipment not subjected to a harsh environment as a result of the postulated accident.

14

The Licensee i s theref ore requi red to supp Lement the informati on presented by providing their resolutions to the deficiencies identified which should include a description of the corrective action and schedules for its completion (as applicable)~ etc.

The staff wiLL review the Licensees

response, when submitted~

and report on the resolution in a supplementaL report.

It should be noted that where testing is presently being conducted, a

condition may arise whi ch results in a determination by the Licensee that the equipment does not satisfy the qualification test requirements.

For that equipment the Licensee wiLL be required to provide their proposed corrective action~

on a timely basis, to assure that qualifi-cation can be established by June 30, 1982.

4 ~ 3 EQUIPMENT CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE OR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE Based on the staffs review of the Licensees submittal and the TER the staff identified the equipment in Appendix C (1) as acceptable on the basis that the quaLification program adequately enveloped the specific environ-mentaL plant parameters, or (2) conditionaLLy acceptable subject to the satis-factory resolution of the staff concern identified in Section 3.7.

15

For the equipment identified as conditionaLLy acceptabLe the staff deter-mined that the Licensee did not clearly:

(1) state that a material evaluation on their equipment was conducted to assure that no known materials susceptible to degradation due to aging have been used in their equipment.

(2) establish an ongoing program to review the surveiLLance and maintenance records of their plant in order to identify equipment degradation which may be age related, and/or (3) propose a maintenance program and replacement schedule for equipment identified in item 1 or equipment that is qualified for Less than the Life of the plant.

The Licensee is therefore required to supplement the information presented for equipment in this category before fuLL acceptance of this equipment can be estabLished.

The staff wiLL revie~ the Licensees

response, when submitted, and report on the resolution in a supplementaL report.

5 ~ 0 DEFERRED REQUIREMENTS IE Bulletin 79-01B, Supplement 3 has relaxed the time constraints for the submission of the information associated with cold shutdown equipment and TMI Lessons Learned modifications.

To permit a uniform program schedule the SEP plant reviews have been amended.

The staff required that this information be provided by February 1, 1981.

The staff wiLL provide a

supplemental safety eva.luation addressing these concerns.

16

~

~ p

~

~

1

'I

6.0 CONCLUSION

S The staff has determined that the Licensee's Listing of. safety-related systems and associated electricaL equipment~

whose abiLity to function in a harsh environment foLlowing an accident is required to mitigate a LOCA or HELB, 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 I

environment are appropriate except as noted in Section 3 of this report.

Outstanding information identified in Section 3 should be provided within 90 days of receipt of this SER.

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 w'ould require immediate corrective action to assure safety of plant operation.

However~ the staff has determined that many items of safety-related electricaL equipment identified by the Licensee for this review do not have adequate documentation to ensure that they are capable of withstanding the harsh environmentaL service conditions.

This review was based on a comparison of the qualification values with the specified environmentaL values required by the design which were provided in the Licensee's summary sheets.

Subsection 4.2 identified deficiencies that must be resolved to estabLish the qualification of the equipment; the staff requires that the information Lacking in this category be provided within 90 days of receipt of this SER.

17

Mithin. this'eriod~ the Licensee should either provide documentation of the missing qualification information which demonstrates that such equipment meets the bOR Guidelines or NUREG-0588 or commit to a corrective action (re-qualification, replacement~

relocation~

and so forth) consistent with the requirements to establish qualification by June 30~ 1982. If the Latter option is chosen~

the Licensee must provide justification for operation until such corrective action is complete.

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

Mhere additionaL information is required, the Licensee should respond within 90 days of receipt of this SER by providing assurance that these concerns wiLL be satisfactorily resolved by June 30, 1982.

The staff issued to the Licensee sections 3 and 4 of this report and requested, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f), the Licensee to review the deficiencies enumerated and the ramifications thereof to determine whether safe operation of the faci lity would be impacted in consideration of the deficiencies.

The Licensee has completed a

preliminary review of the identified deficiencies and has determined that, after due consideration of the deficiencies and their ramification~

continued safe operation would not be adversely affected.

18

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 Nemo and Order of Nay 23, 1980 (CLI-80-21) and with the licensing orders issued by NRR on October 24~ 1980.

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

This conclusion is based on the following:

I (1) that 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 facilities capability to function foLLowing a LOCA or HELB, and (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.

19

APPENDIX A LIST OF EQUIPMENT IN SECTION 4 ~1i EQUIPMENT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION Equipment Description Manufacturer Model/

Tgpe NO EQUIPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY

APPENDIX B List of Equipment in Section 4.2~ Equipment Requiring Additional Information And/Or Corrective Action LEGEND:

DESIGNATION FOR Deficiency NOTE:

(R) Licensee has committed to replace equi pment R-T-

QT-RT-pH-CS-A-

Radiation Temperature Qua lificati on Time Required Time Pressure Humidity Chemical Spray Material Aging Evaluation, Replacement

Schedule, Ongoing Equipment Survei llance Submergence M " Margin I - HELB Evaluation Outside Containment Not Comp leted QM - Qualification Method RPN - Equipment Relocation or Replacement~

Adequate Schedule Not. Provided EXN - Exempted Equipment Justification Inadequate SEN " Separate Effects Qualification Justification Inadequate QI " Qualification Information Being Developed RPS - Equipment Relocation or Replacement Schedule Provided TER Item No.

Equipment Description Manufacturer Model/

Type Deficiencies (R) 1A (R) 1B 1C 15A 15B 16A 17A 17B 17C (R) 19 SOV Operator SOV Operator SOV Operator Cables Cables Cables Cables Cables Cables Level transmitter ASCO ASCO ASCO Kerite Kerite Coleman Coleman Rome General Cable Barton LB 8300 B6IU LB 8300 B64RU LBX831616 Type HT Type HT UNK UNK UNK UNK 289 QI~QM~A~T~P~QT QI~QM~A~T~P~QT QIrQMwArTrQT A~R ArR A~R A~R A~R A~R QIANA B-1

Appendix B~ Continued TER Item No.

21A Equipment Description Pressure transmitter Nanufacture r Barton Model/

Type 332 Deficiency QIANA 30 34 3A 3B (R) 4 (R) 6A (R) 6B 13B Notor Spli ce Solenoid Solenoid Solenoid Solenoid Solenoid Notor Electri cal Penetration Westinghouse Raychem Lawrence Lawrence Versa Versa Versa Westinghouse Westinghouse 588.5-CSP Type WCS F-N 110114W 125434W VSG VSG-3731 VSG-3421 505USABDP UNK QI~QN~A~T~CS~R~

QI~QN~A~T~P~QT QI~QN~A~T~P~QT QI~QN~A~T~P~QT QI~A~QM~T~P~QT~

CS~R QI~A~QNjT~P~QT~

CS~R QI A~QM~R 14 (R) 20 (R) 21B Pressure transmitter Barton Terminal Block Westinghouse Flow transmitter Barton 542247 332 332 A~S~CS~R QI QI (R) 22 Pressure transmitter Foxboro 611 GN DSI ArSwCSrRrQN (R) 24 Leve l transmitter Foxboro (Modified) 613-N-NDL A~S~CS~R~QN (R) 26 Level transmitter Foxboro 613-HN-HSI QI (R) 27 Temperature Detector Elements Rosemount 176JA QI~A~QN~T~P~QT~R B-2

Appendix B~ Continued TER Item No.

Equipment Description Manufacturer Node L/

Type Defici ency 31 35 41 Switchgear Solenoid Swit chgea r Westinghouse Va leo r Westinghouse DB-50Aq 1600A V57300 DH-350Ep 1200A QI~A~QN~T QI~QN~A~T~P~QT~CS~

R QI~A~QN~T 8-3

APPENDIX C

List of Equipment in Section 4.3, Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable Legend:

A " Materials Aging Evaluation TER ITEN NO ~

Equipment Description Manufacturer Node l/

Type Deficiencies 13A Electrical Penetrations Crouse"Hinds UNK 8E (R) 18 (R) 23 25 8D 8H 15C 5A 8A 8F NOV Level Transmit ters Pressure Transmitter Level Transmitter NOV NOV NOV Cable SOV Operator Damper MOV MOV NOV LINITORQUE Foxboro Foxboro Foxboro LINITORQUE LIMITORQUE LINITORQUE Kerite ASCO UNK LIMITORQUE LIMITORQUE LINITORQUE SNB-000 611-GN-AS I 611-GN-DSI 613-DN"NSI SNB-00 SMB-00 SNB-1 Type HT UNK UNK SNB-2 SMB-00 SNB-00

Appendi x D

Plant Safety-Related Systems and Display Instrumentation A.

Safe Shutdown Systems System Term Function Reactor Protection/Trip System*

Trips reactor when predetermined set points are exceeded Main Steam (MSIVs~ Safetiesp Atmospheric Reliefs)*

Releases energy (steam) for plant cooldown/isolates MS during MSLB/

HELB accidents Auxi Liary Feedwater*/Standby Auxi Liary I/L Provides steam gen.

makeup water for decay heat removaL 5 plant cooldown Chemical 5 Volume Control (Charging L

Portions)*

Residual Heat Removal+

Component Cooling Provides reactor makeup water during cooldown/Long term chemicaL controL Long term heat removaL capabiLity Removes heat from RHR heat exchanger/

transfers heat to the service sys.

Servi ce Water Diesel Generator*

S/I Transfers heat from the component cooling heat exc. to heat sink Emergency electricaL power source for vital equipment 125"V dc Power Supply System*

Diesel Oil*

Vital Instrument Power Supply*.

Auxiliary Power Distribution System S/I Backup power to vitaL equip.

5 circuits Lubrication for emerg-diesels Self explanatory Power to various elec.

equipment Primary Auxi Liary Bui Lding Vent i L-ation System**

I/L Self explanatory Cont ro L Bui Lding H.V.C. Systems**

Diesel Room Ventilation Systems**

I/L Self explanatory I

SeLf explanatory

Appendix D~ Continued PLant Safety-Related Systems and Display Instrumentation B.

Accident Mitigating Systems (LOCA, MSLB~ FWLB)

System Term Function Pressurizer Pressure Relief Power operated re Lief vaLves for relieving RCS pressure.

Containment Isolation System*

Isolates containment penetrations in case of accident Reactor Containment Fan Coolers, Hydrogen Purge and Hydrogen Recombiners Post LOCA containment heat removal 5

hydrogen controL Safety Injection and Accumu lators S/I Provides cooling water to the core post-accident Post-Accident Sampling 5 Monitoring L

Containment Radiation Monitor Self explanatory Containment Spray Post accident containment pressure 5

iodine controL Feedwater Control 5 Bypass Valves/

Feedpump trip/Feedpump Discharge Valves Isolates feedwater Lines in case of Line break Pump Room VentiLation coolers (RHR/SI/

I/l./CS/CCP)

I/L Cooling for motor of certain vitaL pumps ControL Room Ventilation Main Steam Isolation valves Redundant, vitaL vent sys.

Automatically isolates the main steam Lines in case of Line break LEGEND

• Systems which function both for safe shutdown and also for accident mitiga-tionon.

• • Review of these systems deferred until after February 1, 1981, as referenced in Section 2.2.2

~ of TER.

+System required for cold shutdown only.

(S) Short Term (I) Intermediate Term (L) Long Term Less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Up to 30 days 30 days plus D-2

Appendix D, Continued C.

Accident Nitigating and Safety Shutdown Instruments

<LOCAr NSLBi FWLB>

TERN Pressurizer Level Pressurizer Pressure RCS Temperature Containment Pressure***

Steam Line Pressure Steam Line F low Safety Injection Flow***

Sump level***

Steam generator Level Auxiliary Feed System Flow Chemi ca l and vo lume cont rol flow RWST Level, BAST Level***

Residual Heat Removal Flow Component Cooling Water Flow Servi ce Water System Diesel Generator Emergency AC Power Emergency DC Power

• • • Instruments required only for accident mitigation purposes.

D-3