ML18046A824
| ML18046A824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18046A645 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107300096 | |
| Download: ML18046A824 (30) | |
Text
- -""
~
-~*~" -
't.,.*. *.!
Safety Evaluation Report By the Office of Nuclear Reattor Regulation.
For Cons"'mers Po.wer Company
. *Pal ts:ades~ Plant Docke~ No. 50-255 Environmental Qualifi~ation of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment Date:
June 1,. 1981
~l
- 8107300096 *810601;.: -11*-
PDR ADOCK 05000255
' ;'I P
PDR l,_l _ J
Contents 1.0 Introduction
- ~*
1 2.0 Background
- 2.1 2.2 Purpose **
Scope *
- 1
.. ** 4
- 4 3.0 Staff Evaluation 4
3.1 Completeness of Safety-Related Equipment **
5 3.2 Serv,ice Conditions
- 6 3.3 Temperature, Pressure, and Humidity Conditions Inside Contairiment **************** ~ ***** 7 3.4 Temperature, Pres sure and Humidity Conditions Outside
- Containment
- 8 3.5 Su~mergence ******
3~.6-Chem,i-cal Sp ray 3.7 Aging **.....
3.8 Radiation <Inside and Outside Containment) **
4-.0 Q.ua.Li.ficat.ion of Equipment **
. *.....10 11 11 4.1 Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action
- 13 4.2 E*quipment Requiring Additional Information And/Or Corrective* Action* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
- 13 4.3 Equ.ipment Cons.idered Accep.table or Condi tiona.lly Ac.cept:ab;le*. * * * *
- 1 5 5.0 6*.0 Deferred Requirements
- Conclusions *****
16 16
\\..
- <"4.
- l.
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 Ac.tion *************** B-1 Appendix C - List of Equipment in Section 4.3, Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Ac*ceptable.
~ ** * *************** C-1 Appendix D - Plant Safety-Rehted Systems and Display Instrumentation **************** D-1
SAFETY eJ ALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY P*ALISADES PLANT.
DOC<ET NO. 50-255 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION
.G~neral Design Criteria 1 and 4 ~pecify that safety-related electrical equipment in nuclear* facilities must be capable of pe.rfo.rming their safety-related fur;iction under all normal, abnormal and accident conditions.
The*NRC staff has required that all licensees of operating reactors evaluate the qual'ification of their safety-related electrical equipment which is located in a harsh environment.
2.O BAC<GROUND In 1:977, the. NR:C sta,ff instituted, the sys.tema-ti c eva lua:tion program (SEP) to determine the extent to which the* licens*ing basis for* the older operating nuclear plants complies with current licensing criteri.a.
Topic III-12 of this program relates to the env.ironmenta:l qualification. of sa.fety-re.lated equipment.
In December 1977, the* NRC issued a* generic letter to aH SEP plant licensees requesting that they review the adequacy o.f existing equipment qualification documentation.
NRC review* of licensee responses led to the prepara.tion o:f NUREG-0458, an interim NRC as*sessment of the* environmental qualification of electrical equipment.
On February 8, 1'979, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement <IE> issued' to all licensees of ope*rating plants excep.t those inc:luded. in the System*atic Evaluation Program (SEP) lE Bulletin 79-01, "Environmental Qualificatiori of.
- Class-IE Equipment." This ~ulteti~, together with IE Circular 78-08 issued on May 31, 1978, required the licensees to perform reviews to assess the adequacy of their environmental q~alification program.
On November 13, 1979 the DOR (Division. of Operating Reactors) "Guidelines for Eva.luating Environmental Qualification of class IE Electrical Equipment Equipment in Operating Reactors" were prepared to form the basis for reviewfog equipment in all operating plants.
In October 1979~ the NRC contracted with Franklin Research Center CFRC) for assistance in the deta.iled review of the SEP equipment environmental qualification and prepare the technical evaluation reports CTERs>.
ln February t980, the NRC deci.ded-to include* Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and Zion Units 1 and 2 in. the SEP program for the purpose of, eq).iipment en vi ronment al qualification review-.
Also in February* 1'980, the NRC s.ta.ff. met with personnel from FRC and representatives of the SEP. group in an open session at NRC headqua.rters to review. the program* in relation to the DOR guide:lines.
On May 23, 1980, the Comm:issione*rs issued Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21, which stat.es: that the* DOR guidelines and NUREG-0588 set the requirements.
that lic.ensees and applicants, must meet rega,rding the* environmental quali-fication of sa:fe.ty-rela.ted electrical equ.ipment to satisfy 10 CFR* SO, Appendix. A, General Design Criteria CGDC)-4.
This order required the staff to complete
.. J
- .. safety evaiu~tion reports CSERs> for all operating plants by February 1, 1981.
In additi~n this Order requires that all licensees must have qualified safety-related electri'cal equipment installed in thefr plants by* June 30, 1982.
Supplements to IEB 79-018 were issued for further clarification and defin-ition o.f the. staff's needs.
These suppplemen.ts were issued on February 29, September 30, and October 24, t980~
In addition, the staff issued orders dated August 29, 1980 (amended in September 1980) and* October 24, 1980 to all licensees. The August order requi.red that the licensees provide a. report, by November 1, 1980, documenting the qualification of safety.~related *etect.rical equipment.
The October order required the establishment of a. central file location for the matntenance of all equipment--qua*lification records.
The central file.was mandated to be* established by December 1,* 1'980.
The order also, requ.i red that all safe.ty-re:la,ted etect:rical equ.ipme.nt be qualified by June 30, 1982.
On February 15, 1980 Consumers Power Company CCPC) was formally asked to address the env.ironmenta;l qualiHcation of* safety-related equipment fo*r the Pa,liscades Station. In response. to this request, CPC elect.ed to use informati-on submitt.ed February 24, April 6. and April 12, and November 30, 1978.
On October 7, 1980, CPC provided a completely revised* submittal perta-ining to equipment qua:li fi ca-ti on~
3
2.1 Pl,JRPOSE The purpose of this safety evaluation report CSER> is to identify equipment whose qualificatfon program does not provide sufficient assurance that the equ.ipment is capable of providing the design function in the hostile environ-ments.
The staff position relating to any identified deficiencies is provided i n th i s report
- 2.2 SCOPE The scope of this report includes that equipment which must function to mitigate the consequences of Loss-of-Coolant Accident CLOCA) or a High-Energy-Lin~ Break CHELB) insid~ or outside containment, and whose environment would be adversely affect.ed by that accident.
3.O S:rA~FF EVALUATION The sta,ff' s evaluation* of the l i censee**s responses was accompanied by an on~site inspecti:on of selec.ted C'lass IE equ.ipment and by exami-ning the licensee's report for completeness and acceptability. The criteria: described in the DOR Guidelines ar:'ld* NUREG,-0588*, in part, were used *as a basis. for the sta:ff's. e.v.ailuatfon of the adequacy of the Li'censee qualification p.rogram.
During. the* week of January 21, 1'980, NRC and FRC representatives. vis*ited the Pail isades p:lant S>ite, inspec.ted selected sa*fety-related systems and equipment, di scus.sed plant opera,Hng procedu.res. w.i th p L.ant pe.rsonnel, and reviewed ava.i L-ab Le qua'l iffcation documentatfon.
The inspe.ct*i:on* spot check.ed. proper instal La.ti on of equ.ipment, int:erface integrity, and mani:.i.facturers nameplate data.
4
J.
The foll9wing safety evaluation incorporates the CPC submittals and the c
Franklin Research Center technical evaluation report CTER).
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 analyse~ and emergency procedures. The dtspl~y instrumentation selected includes parameters to moni:tor overall plant performance as well as to mon-1-tor performance of the systems on the list. The systems list was established on the basis of the functions that must be performed for m-itlgation of the consequences.. of a LOCA or HELB without regard to location of equ*i*pment relative to a potentially hostHe environment.
The sta*ff has dete.rmined and ve*r.i fi.ed that the systems considered by the li.censee are those required to achieve or support: C1) emergency reactor shutdown, (2.) containment isolation, C3) reactor core coo.ling, C4) c.orr.
tai nment heat removal, CS).
core re.s idua:l heat removal, and (6) prevention of significant releaseo*f radi:oactive materiat to the environment.
In addition to the concerns identified below., the staff's systems revie.w has*
not included those* equ.. ipment items. discussed in Se*ction 5.0 of this. report.
The Licensee subm.ftt.ed an ex.tensive list of' sa*fe.ty-re-lated. electri ca,l equipme.nt.
Thi;s lis.t* was evaluated and fdentical components. with*in 5
a plant area exposed to the same environment were grouped; 78 item types of equipment were identified and assessed by the ste1ff.
~n paragraph 4_.1.1 of the TER FRC has pointed out that valve position indicating switche.s should be reviewed; if failure of a limit switch degrades the safety circuit or provides false information to the operator, qualification should be addressed.
The licensee should provide resolution of this concern.
The systems. and instrumentation list is contained in Appendix o.
3.2 SERVICE CONDITIONS The Commi.ssion Memorandum and Order CCLI-80-21>, dated May 23, 1980 requires that the 00.R* Guidel.ines and the "For Commenr NUREG-0588 are to be used as th~ criteri~ for estabttshing th~ adequa~y of the safety related electri.cal equ.ipment envfronmental qualification program.
These do.cuments provide* the opti.on of es.tabl fshing* a bounding pressure and temperatu.r.e condit*ion based on* plant sped.fie ana.lysis identified in*
the Licensees_ FS:AR' or based* on generic, profi Les using the methods identified in these documents.
On this basi* the staff ha~ assumed~ unless oth~rwise noted, that the analysi*s for develop-ing* the environmental envelopes for Palisa~es relative to the temperature, pressure, *arid the containment spray caust*ics, h~ve been performed fn ac~ordanc~ with the above $tated requirments.
For this review the s*ta.ff reviewed the quaHfication documentation to ensure that the qua11f i cation-spe,cifications enve.lope' the conditions. es.tabl i shed by the licensee-.
The* staff assumed that for plants, ~esigned and equipped with an automatic* containment spray system 1,. wh*ich sa.tisfies the single failure criterion*, the* ma*in steam* line break environmental conditions
- 6.
are enveloped by the large break LOCA environmental conditions.
The st~ff assumed and requires that the licensee verifies, that the co~tainment spray system is not subjected to a disablin~ single component failure and therefore satisfies the DOR Guideline requirements of Se.ction 4.2.1.
E.quipment submergence has also been addressed where the possibility exists that flooding of equipment may result from high energy line breaks CHELB).
3.3 TEftPERATURE, PRESSURE, ANO HUMIDITY CONDITIONS INSIDE CONTAINMENT The licensee has provided the results of accident analyses as follows:
Max. Temp.
C~F>
Max. Press. Cpsig)
. 380 51 53 100%
100%
The* staff has. concluded that the min.imum temperature profile for equipment quatif'ication pu.rposes should include. a: margin to account for higher than average temperatures in the uppe:r* regions of the containment. that. can exist due to stratifi:cati.on especi.aHy follow-ing a postulated MSl:.B.
Use of the*
steam saturation* temperature correspond.fog to the total building pressure*
(partial pressure of ste.am plus partial pressure of ai.r) versus time wi LL provide an acceptable marg.i n for either a* postu.Lated LOCA or MSLB, wh:i ch ever is controlling as to potential adverse envtronmental effects on equipment.
The licensee's specified temperature* <service cond.ition> of 27SoF for LOCA does not satisfy the above requirement.
A ~aturation temperature corresponding to the* pressure* profile C298°'F peak temperature-at 51 psig) should be used instead. The Licensee should update his equipment summary table.s to reflect this change*. lf there is any equipment that doe.s. not meet the sta,ff position;, the licensee must prov.ide either justi-*
fication that the* equipment w.ill perform its intended* function under*
the specified conditions or p.ropose. corrective action.
7
FRC nbtes that for the EEQ review the accidents which were used to evaluate equipment were the LOCA inside containment.
As stated ;.n paragraph 3.2 of th1~ report this plant is equipped with automatic containment spray system, however, the tempe.rature for the MSLB inside containment exceeds the LOCA profile by 100°F for a short time period (about one minute').
The licensee should provide the analysis to verify that the e.ffects of this* short term peak temperature does not affect the environmental qualification of the safety related equipment which were qualified using LOCA profile.
3.4 TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE AND HUMID I.TY CONDITIONS OUTSIDE. CONTAINMENT The Licensee has provided the temperature pressure, humidity* and applicab.te environmental val1Jes assodated with aHELBoutside conta*inment in'the*
following* p Lant* areas.:
- 1.
ESF Room
- 2.
Pipeway (Room 150)
- 3.
Room 118
- 4.
Room. 1'21 A
- 5.
Room 123 6..
Room' 238
- 7.
Room.338 The sta.ff has v.edfi'ed: that the* pa:ramete,rs identified by the licensee for the, MSLB are acceptable.
8'
3.5 SUBMERGENCE The maximum submergence levels have been establish~d 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 CCLI-80-21>, dated May 23, 1980. The licensee's value for maximum submergence is 6 feet above basement floor <elev. 596 feet>.
3.6 Chemical Spray The lic.ensee' s FSAR value for the chemical con cent ration is 1750.;..2000 PPM boron and hydrazine (50 to 100 PPM) plus manually added sodium hydroxide solution to control pH between 7.0 and 8.3.
Th~ chemical concentratio~
corresponds to approximately 0.8 volume percent used by the vendors for qua Li f-i cation tes.ti'ng.*
- 3. 7 Aging The DOR Guidelines., section 7, does not require a qua,lifi'ed life to be established for a.l l safety rela.ted* electrical equ.ipme.nt,.* however the following actions. a.re* required:
- 1. Detailed compa~fson of existtng equipment to the materials identifed in Append.ix c: of the DOR gutdel ines. The first supplement to IEB;..79-018: requires. the* licensees to utilize '
the table and identi'fy. any additiona1l materiails: as a result of the.fr e.ffort.
9
('
- 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 sta*ff 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 equi.pment identified a.s required to maintain their functional operabHity in harsh environments.
The sta-ff will revi.ew the licensees response.;, when submitted, and report its. e.valua,tion in a supplemental report.
3.8 R*AOIATION (lNSUE* ANO. OUTSIDE CONl'MNMENl')
The licensee has provided* values. for radiation levels postula,ted to exist following a LOCA event.
The application and methodology employed tq determine* these va*lue.s have been presented to the Licensee as part of the NRC staff c.ri teri a contained in the DOR Guidelines, NURE.G-0588 and the gu,idance prov*ided in IEB*79-0,1B:,. Supplement 2.
Therefore.,
for this revi*ew., t.he staff has. assumed that the va,lues provided, unles.s othe.'rw.ise* not*ed,.. ha.ve been determined. in a.ccordance w-ith the prescribed cri-te*ria.
The s*taffs* rev*iew a:sse.ssed tha,t the values 'to which equipment*
was qualified, enveloped* the requi.rements identified by the Licensee.*.
10
l,
- 1 The values established by the licensee is 2 x 10 RADS gamma and 8
2 x 1*0 RADS beta for the iht*egrated dose inside containment. These value.s envelope, with margin, the licensees specified values at the equipment 6
location.
A requ.ired value established outside containment of 5 x LO RADS has been used* by the licensee to specify limiting radiation levels within the ESF room.
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.
4.O QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT The following subsections are the staff's assessment, based on the l i censee**s submittal, and the Franklin TER of the qualification status of safety-related ele~~rical equipment.
The staff has separated the-safety-related equipment into three categories C1) equipment requ.iring* i*mmediate corrective action, C2> equipment requiring additional qualiflcation information and/or corrective action, and (3) equipment considered acceptable conditioned only on the satisfactory resolution of the staff's concern ident*ified in Section 3.7.
The NRC staff in its assessment of the licensees submittal and the TER did not review~ the methodology employed to determfoe the values estab-lished by the licensee~ However, in reviewing the TER a determination was-made. by the. sta.ff as to. the stated. c.onditions presented by the licensee.
Additiona,lly,. the detailed revi-ew. o*f supporting documentation referen*ced by the licensee: Ce-*. g;., test reports) has been completed* by FRC.
11
I*
- t.
The environmental qualification data bank to be establis.hed by the staff will provide the means to cross reference each supporting docu-ment to the referencing licensee.
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.Cs> 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 Commissi.on Memorandum and Order, that the defi.ciencies identified do not necessarily mean that equ*i*pment.is unqualified.
However, they are cause for concern and may require further case-by-case evalua.tions.
4.,1 EQUIPMENT REQU*IRING I:MMED!Aq'E CORRECTIVE A*CTlON Appendix A identifies equipment Cif any) in this category. The licensee*
was requested to perform a review of the* facility's sa.fety-related electri*cal equ.ipment.
The licensees* rev.iew of th*is 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, h*as not identified any sa,fetr*rebited electrical equipment which is known not to be able*.to perform* i.ts intended sa:fety func.tion during the t*ime: pe.riod in which it is. requ.i red to ope*rate*.
12
-4.2. EQUIPMENT _Rl;~U~RING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION Appendix 8 identifies equipme.nt in this category including the tabulation of their deficiencies.
The deficiencies are noted by a letter relating to the legend, identified below, including that insufficient information has been provided for the qualificati.on parameter or condition.
R -
Rad.i at ion T - Temperature QT - Qualification Time RT -
Requi,red Time P - Pressure H - Humidity ccs - Chemical Spray A ~ Material Ag,i ng Eva.Lua ti on, Rep lacemerit Schedule, Ongoing Equipment Surve:i l Lance S - Submergence M - Margin I -
HELB Evaluation Outside Contafoment Not Completed GM - Qualification Method RPN -
Equipment Reloca.tion or* Rep Lacement, Ade.qua:te Schedule* Not Provided EXN -
Exe.mpted Eql.li pment Jus.ti fi.ca.tion Inadequa,te*
SEN. -
Sepa.ra:te Ef*fec.ts: Qua;lifica-tion Ju$tification* Inadequate Ql -
Q1:1a-L i fica-tion* Infonna,t:i.on Be*ing< Developed*
RPS - Equipment Reloca*tion or Rep la.cement Schedule Provided.
13-
.~s noted in Sectfon 4~0, these deficiencies do not necessarily mean that the equipment is unqualified.
However, they are cause for concern and require further case-by-case evaluations.
The staff has determined that an acceptable basis to exempt equipment from qualification, in whole or part, c.an be established provided the following can be estab-lished and verified by the licensees:
en Equipment does not provide essential safety functions in the harsh environment and failure of it in the harsh environmen~ will not impact safety related functions or mislead an operator.
C2a)
Equipment performs its functio.n prior to its exposure to the harsh environment and the adequacy for the time margin provided is adequately justified,. and C2b)
Subsequent failure of the equipment as. a: result of the harsh environment does not degrade other s*afety functions. or mis.lead the operat*or.
C3>
- Th.e safety-related function can be* accomplished by some other designated equipment that has been adequately qualified and satisfies the single fa.i lure. crite.ria.*
C4>
Equipment not subjected to. a harsh environment as a result of the postu.Lated, accident.
The licensee is. therefore* required to supplement the information presented by providing. the'i.r* resolu.tions to the! defi-cienci-e.s identified which should include a description of the* cor*rective* action and schedules for its comp-let ion C'as* applicable>>, etc. The s.ta*ff wi l l review.* the Li*censees response., when subm:itted, and report on the reso.lution in a supplemental report *.
14
It should be noted that where testing is presently being conducted, a condition may arise which 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 staff's review of the licensee's submittal and the TER the staff identified the equipment in Appendix C as (1) acceptable on the basis that the qualification program adequately enveloped the specific environ-mental plant parameters, or C2> conditionally acceptable s~bject to the satis*
factory resolution of the staff concern identified in Section 3. 7.
For the equ.ipment identified as cond.itiorially acceptable the sta*ff deter-m-ined t°hat* the licensee* did not clearly:
Ct>
state that a material evalua:tion on their equipment was conducted to assure that no known materials susceptible* to degradation due to. agi*ng have been used. in their equipment.
(2) establish an ongoing program to review the surve*i l lance and maintenance records of their plant in order to identify equipment.
degradation wh,i ch may be. ag.e re-lated, and/or C3>
- propose a ma1intenance prog.ram and: replacement schedule for equipment I
identifi:ed in it*em, 1 or equ-ipment that is< qualified for less than the life* of the* plant.
The license.e is the*refore requ.ired to supplement the informat.ion presented for equipment in this category before full accep.t*ance of this. equ.ipment can be established. The stan w.ill rev.iew the* Licensees response, when subm:itted and report on the resolutio.n in supplemental report.
15
5.0 DE FER RED REQUIREMENTS
__ IE Bulletin 79-018, Supplement 3 has relaxed the time constraints for the submission of the information associated with cold shutdown equipment and-TMI Lessons Learned modifications.
T'o perm.it 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 evaluatton addressing these concerns.
6.0 CONCLUSION
S The staff has determined that the licensee's listing of safety-related systems and associated el~ctri~~l equipment, whose ability to function in a harsh environment following an accident is required to mitigate a LOCA or HELB, ts complete and acceptable except as noted in Section 3 of this report. The staff has also d.etermined that the environmental service condi*tions to be met by the electrica,l equipment in the harsh accident environment are appropriate e.xcept as noted in Section 3 of th-is report. Outstandi'ng informa.tion identified in Se:c.tion 3 should be provide.d w.ithin 90 days of receipt of this SER.
The staff has rev*iewed the qua:liflcation of sa:fety-related electrical equipment to the extent defined by this SER and has found no outstanding items which would require immediate corrective action to assure sa*fety of plant operation.
However, the staff has* de.termfoed that many items of safety-related e*le.ctri*cal equ.ipment identified by the* licensee fo.r this review do not have* adequate' documentati"on to ensure that the.y are* capab:le of wi*thstanding the harsh environmental service conditions*.
This: review was based on a* compari"son of the qualification va.Lues w.i-th the speci fi'ed*
environmental va!lues. required' by.the design which were p*rovided in the licensee's summary sheets;*
16
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.
Within this period, the licensee should either provide docu~entatton of the missing qualification information which demonstrates that such equipment meets the DOR Gu-idelines on NUREG-0588 or commit to a corrective action Cre*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 ope*ra.tion until such corrective action is comp.lete.
Subsection 4.3 identified acceptance and conditional acceptance based on noted-de:fic.iencies:.
Where addftional information is required, the licensee should respond w*ithin 90 days of receipt of this. SER by provfd.i ng assurance that these conce*rns: w,H l be* satisfactori Ly resolve.d by June 30, 1982.
The staff issued to the license* sections 3 and 4 of this report and*
requested, under the provisions of 10 CFR S0.54(f), the licensee to review the deficiencies enume.rated and the ram:ffications thereof to.
determ-ine whether safe operation of the facility would be. impacted in consideration of the deficiencies.. The* Licensee has completed a pre-lim*ina*ry review, of the identiHed deficiencies. and has determ*ined:
that,. a*fter due* consideration of the deficiencies and their ramification, continued sde* ope.ration would not be adversely affected.
Ba~ed 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 May 23, 1980 CCLl-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 facili~y* pending completion of these corrective actions. This con-clusion is based on the following:
(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 ~eplaced or relocated, thus. i.mprovi.ng the facilfti es capability to fun ct ion following a LOCA or HELB, and (3) the harsh envir-onmental conditions for wh-ich 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 serv*ice cond.itions for this equipment.
18
../
.ll APPENDIX A List of Equipment in Section 4.1 Equipment Requiri~g Immedi~te Corrective Action TER Item No.
Equipment Description Manufacturer
- No Equipment in this Category A-1 Model/
Type
. *.~*
. :,,:/.
...1 APPENDIX B List o:f Equipment in Section 4.2, Equipment Requiring Additional Information And/Or Corrective Action LEGEND:
Designation for Deficiency R - Radiation T - Temperature QT -
Qualifi~ation Time RT - Required Time P - Pressure H - Humidity CS - Chemical Spray A - Material Aging Evaluation, Replacement Schedule, Ongoing Equipment Surveillance S - Submergence TER EQUIPMENT ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION 2
sov Operator 3
sov Operator 4
sov Operator 32 Cable 33 Cable 35 Motor (R)40A SOV. Operator (R'.)408.
sov, Operato.r (R)4.1 sov. Operator (R)42 SOV* Operato.r (R)45 sov Ope*rator (R)46 sov Operator NOTE: CR) Licensee has committed to replace equipment M - M.argin I - HELB Evaluation Outside Containment Noi 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 - Qualification Information Being Developed RPS - Equipment Relocation or Replacement Schedule provided MODEL/
MANUFACTURER TYPE DE FI CI EN CI ES i\\SCO NP.-831'654E Qzl ASCO WPX-HAV--
QI 202-301-F ASCO HTX-8320A16V QI ROME UN<
QM ROME UNK Q.M GE SK40SYK232 QM,A*
ASCO LB8316C-44 Q,I AS.CO LB8316C'-3'4 QI ASCO LB831.6C-36 QI ASCO LB831'6C*46 QI ASCO LB83612.
QI*
ASCO HPX8'320A26 QI B-1
APPENDIX B {CONTINUED)
TER EQUIPMENT ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION 50 Motor 51 Motor CR>S3A SOV Operator CR)6'1*
Transmitter 67B.
Transducer CR>76B 76C CR>7.6D 7oE CR)76F 79 90C 21 22 28 31' 34 (R)52 CR> sa*
CR>62A 628 62C 63 SOV Operator SOV Operator SOV Operator SOV Ope ra:tor SOV Ope.ra,to.r Cable Transmitter Connector Terminal Blocks Cable Ca Me*
Cable Motor Transm*i tt.er TransmHter Transm.i tter Transmitter Transm.i tter MODEL/
MANUFACTURER TYPE DEFICIENCIES Westi~ghouse 68F13512 QI,A GE 5KB188 QI 47A100 ASCO HT8320A22 QI Foxboro 613DM A,QT,R,QM Fi.scher Controls E/P-546
- QI,A,R ASCO ASCO WPHT8300-B6I-R*F QI WPHT8300-B61-R F QI ASCO WPHT8300-B61-RF QI ASCO WPHT8300-B61-R F Q.I AS.CO WPHT8300-B61.-R*F QI
- ROME*
UNK QI Rosemount 1153A A,QT Amphenol 74868-U59-A,...U GM,P Wes.tinghouse 805432 A,.GM,QT, P
- Anixter Wire UNK Q:I,QM,A Universal Wire UNK T'ime Wire UNK QI GE SK256YK161 Ql Fischer Porter SOEP1072A QI Fischer Porter 13D2465BA Q.I,S Fischer Porter SOEP1031B QI Fischer Porter UNK QI Fischer Porter 1 OB2466AAA81 QI,S B-2
APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)
TER EQUIPMENT MODEL/
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER TYPE DEFICIENCIES CR)65 Transmitter Foxboro 613HM QI I
68 Positioner Masoneilan 8012 QI CR)69 Alternator Square D 9038 Ql,A,R CR)70 Positioner Honeywell M-233 Ql,A,QT,R I.
71 Thermostat Johnson T-7170 QI 74 Temperature Rosemount 104-V ex QI 75 Rad Monitor Vi ctoreen 847-1 QI,QM,A,T,P,M CR)89
- r ransmi tter Foxboro 611GM A,QT,CS,R 90A Transmitter Foxboro 611GH QI,S 908 T ransm-i t.ter Foxboro UNK QJ,S,R 48 Motor Louts-Allis 828925001
. QI B-3
- APPENDIX C List of Equipment in Section 4.3 Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable TER EQU*IPMENT MODEL/
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER TYPE DEFICIENCIES 17A Electrical Penetration Viking 29-0004-0000 A
178 Electrical Penetration V.ik i ng UNK A
17C Electrical Penetrati'on Viking UNK A'
17D Electrical Penetration Viking UNK
.A 18 Electrical P~netration Viking UNK A
19 Elecfrical Penetration Viking 29-0001-0000 A
20 Electrical Perietration Viking 29-0008-0000 A
258 Cables GE.
UNI<
A 26 Cables Okonfte UNK A'
27 Cable.s Okonite UNK A
29 Cables Anaconda UNK A*
30 Cables Rockbestos, FirewaH III A
.77 Cables Rockbestos UNI<
A 78 Cables.
Rockbestos I
UNK A*
83 Cables Okonite UNI<
A 84 Cables Am*. Insul. Wire ES-06612-002-000 A 23 CaMes GE UNK A*
24 Cable GE UNK A'
25A Cable GE*
UNI<
A 36 Hyd*roge.n Recombi ner We.stinghouse.
A A
55 MOV L imitorque.
SM8-00-15 A
57 MOV Li m*i torque SM8,..000 A
c-1
'.l
!iJ.
...:i_,
APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)
~--
TER EQUIPMENT MODEL/
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
- MANUFACTURER TYPE DEFICIENCIES 80 Cable Moore 1890-9 A
82 Cable GE UNK A
87 MOV Li mi torque SMB-3-100 A
88 MOV Lim.itorque SMB-3-100 A
1 sov Operator ASCO LM83161"4 6A Solenoid Magnetrol 18A43 68 Solenoid Magnetrol
- 18AR43A 59 Transmitter Fi sch er Porter 50EP1042*A 67A Transducer Fische.r Controls E/P-546 73 Detector Rosemount 104-VCX C-2
~-
'U"-'
Ai
'~
APPENDIX D A. Saf.e Shutdown Systems System Term Re~ctor Protection/Trip Systems*.
S Shutdown Cooling Systems+
L Primary Coolant *System I
Chemical and Volume Control Systems*
L Component Cooling Water System L
Service Water System L
Prima.ry Sampling System*
L Con.tafoment Ai.r Conditioning/
I/L Ventilation S,ystem*.
Auxiliary Feedwater System*
I/L
+
Sy.s.tem required for cold shutdown only.
Function Trip reactor when predetermined set points are exceeded.
Long term heat removal capability Transfers reactor heat to the steam.
generators Provides reactor makeup water dudng
.cooldown/long-term chemical control.
An intermediate cooling loop between the RHR system and other primary heat loads and the service wate.r sys.tems.
Transfers heat from the component cooling heat exchangers to the dver, lake, or other heat s-ink.
Self-e-xplanatory.
Provides steam generator makeup water for decay heat removal and plant cool down.
Systems us.ed for both sa.fe shutdown and a~cident mitig.ation purposes.
Instruments; u'ti l ized for accident mitigation purposes only.
CS> Short Term.
Less than 24 !'tours,
~---------~
CH Interimedi ate Term Up to 30 days CL) Long T~rm 30 days plus
~-----------
D-1
'J~
1.' 43;; * '"
I APPENDIX D (CONTINUED)
B.
Accident Mitigating Systems CLOCA, "SLS, FWLB)
System Term
- High Pressure Safety Injection System
- I Low Pressure Sa.fety Injection System*
Iod1.ne Removal System I
/
Containment.Isolation System L
Mdn Steam Line Isolation Sys.tem.
L Pressurizer Relief. System I
Hydrogen Control System
,l Engineered Safeguards Room Ai r I/L Conditioning/Ventilation System 0-2 Funct.ion Provides high pressure cooling water to the core post-accident Provides cooling water to the core*
post-accident Post-accident contai.nment pressure and f hsion product control Post-accident iodine removal.
Isolates ccontainmenf penetrations* in case of accidents.
Shu*ts MSIVs on ma,; n steam line brea~.
Vents: RCS sys.tem pressure to the containment via a hoLd:ing tank.*
Post-a.ccident hydrogen removal.
Set f-explanatory
\\
(
APPENDIX D CCONTINUED)
C.
Accident Mitigating and Safe Shutdown Instruments CLOCA, MSLB,, FWLB)
Primary System Temperature*
Pressurizer Pressure Pressurizer Lev,l Safety Injection Tank Level**
Containment Sump Level*
Steam Gene~ator -Feedwater Flow Steam Generator Leve*l Steam-Generator Pressure Steam Generator *st.earn Flow Power Range* Sa*f ety Channel Power Range Neutron Ch,annel Pressurize:r Spray Flow
)
Conta*innient Radiation Monitor**
Containment Pressure**
ESF Room Temperature**
D--3*.
)