ML19318C378
| ML19318C378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1980 |
| From: | Naughton W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007010411 | |
| Download: ML19318C378 (21) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:* O _one First Navonal Plaza. Chicago. lilino Commonwealth Edison Address Reply to: Post Othee Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 June 25, 1980 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Byron Station Units 1 and 2 Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Documentation Format for Qualification of Safety Related Electrical Equipment NRC Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455, 50-456, and 50-457 References (a): October 20, 1978 letter from R. S. Boyd to C. Reed (b): April 28, 1980 letter from L. S. Rubenstein to D. L. Peoples
Dear Mr. Denton:
Per References (a) and (b) the NRC Staff requested Commonwealth Edison Company, via Questions 40.01 and 40.77, to provide documentation of the qualification of safety related electrical equipment. Question 40.77 of Reference (b) provided e sample table and fctmat. However, Cummonwealth Edison has alreaoy spent considerable effort in developing a format for its response to Question 40.01. The format is different than that presented by the NRC Staff in Question 40.77. Enclosed is what Commonwealth Edison considers to be its final format for the qualification documentation reouested by the Staff in Question 40.01 and 40.77. Although the format is not identical to the Staff's, the same information is included ard a key to aid the Staff in locating the information sought will be provided. Prior to submittal of the requested information in the form of an FSAR amendment, Commonwealth Edison requests the NRC Staff for its comment! and approval of our format. Commonwealth Edison requests the NRC Staff for an expeditious response to this request since significant information has already been and is continuing to be documented in the enclosed format. ( 8007010 Afll
7.. Mr. Harold R..Denton, Director June 25,-1980 Page 2 Please-address any questions that-you might have concerning this matter to this office. Very tIuly yours, William F. Naught Nuclear Licensing Administrator Pressurized Water Reactors Enclosure-4774A 1 e 4 i e i u
DATE ISSUED: 11-15-79 i \\-{};7 f DATE REVISED: 5-27-80 N T) PROJ. NOS. ~4391/2 &.4683/4 r e. Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 NRC Question 040.1 (3.11), Environmental -Qualification Of Electrical Equipment I NRC Question 1 040.1 (3.11) In order to ensure that your environmental qualification progress conforms with General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 23 of Appendix A and Sections III and XI of Appendiz 3 ~ to 10 CFR, Part 50, and to the national standards menticaed in Part II " Acceptance Criteria" (which included IEEE Standard 323) contained in Standard Review Plan, Section 3.11, the following information on the qualification program is required for all Class lE equipment. 1. Identify all Class IE equipment, and provide the \\ following: a. Type (functiondl designation) b. Manufacturer c. Manufacturer's type number of model number d. The equipment should include the following, as applicable: 1. Switchgear 2. Motor control cent'ers 3. Valve operators 4. Motors 3. Logic equipment 6. Cable 7. Diesel generator control equipment 8. Sensors (pressure, pressure differential ~ temperature, and neutron) 9. Limit switches 10. Heaters 11. Fans \\ 12. Control boards 13. Instrument racks and panels 14. Connectors 15. Electrical penetrations. 16. Splices s 17. Terminal blocks - y e G e a e 6 S e e e e
PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4' Pcgs 2 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 <2. Categorize the equipment identified in (1) above into one of the following categories: a. Equipment that will experience the. environmental conditions of design basis accidents ror which it must function to mitigate said accidents, and that will be qualified to demonstrate operability in the accident environment for the time required for accident mitigation with safety margin to
- failure, b.
Equipment that will experience environmental conditions of design basis accidents through which it need not function for mitigation of said accidents, but through which it must not fail in a manner detrimental to plant safety or accident mitigation, and that will be qualified to demonstrate the capability to withstand any accident environment for the time during which it must not fail with safety margin to failure. c. Equipment that will experience environmental conditions of design basis accidents through which it need not function for mitigation of said accidents, and whose failure (in any mode) is deemed not detrimental to plant safety or accident mitigation, and need not be qualified for any accident environment, but will be qualified for its non-accident service - environment. d. Equipment that will not experience environmental conditions of design basis accidents and that will be qualified to demonstrate operability .under its normal or abnormal service environment. This equipment would normally be located outside the reactor containment. 3. For each type of equipment in the categories of equipment listed in (2) above provide separately the equipment design specification requirements, including: a. The system safety function requirements. b. An environmental envelope as a function of time which includes all extreme parameters, both maximum and minimum values, expected to occur during plant shutdown, normal operation, abnormal-operation, and any design basis event (including LOCA and MSLB), including post event conditions. E 6 L_.,... w
' ' ~ ' PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 &-4683/4. PAGE 3 Commonwealth Edison Company l Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 l 3. (continued) c. Time required to fulfill its safety function when subjected,to any of th; extremes of the environmental envelope specified above. d. Technical bases should be provided to justify the placement of each type equipment in the Categories 2.b and 2.c listed above. i 4. Provide the qualification test plan, test set-up, test procedures, and acceptance criteria for at least one of each group of equipment of (l.d) as appropriate to the category identified in (2) above. If any method other than type testing was used for qualification (ope' rating experience, analysis, combined qualification, or on-going qualification), describe the method in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of its adequacy. \\ 5. For each category of equipment identified in (2) above, state the actual qualification envelope simulated during testing (defining the duration of the hostile environment and the margin in excess of the design requirements). If any method other than type testing was used for qualification, identify the method and define the equivalent " qualification envelope" so derived. 6. A summary of test results that demonstrates the adequacy of the qua1ification program. If analysis is used for ~ qualification, j'ustification of all analysis assumptions must be provided. 7. Identification of the qualification documents which contain detailed supporting information, including test data, for Items 4, 5, and 6. I In addition, in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50, the staff requires a statement verifying: 1) that all Class IE equipment has been qualified to the program described above, and 2) that the detailed qualification information and test results are (or will be) available for an NRC audit.
RESPONSE
Attachment "A" lists all of the Class IE equipment in the ' Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 design, except tha.t covered by the Nuclear Steam Supply Contract, and provides detailed information reauested. The column headings of the table are R cross-referenced to the specific question subheadings, except i l
w .s PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 s 4683/4 ~ PAGE 4 Commonwealth Edison Conpany - Byron /Braidwood - Unite 1 & 2 RESPONSE (continued) R for the following column headings: Operability Requirements (Time) Time that equipment is required to operate during and subsequent to a design basis event consistent with the plant safety analysis. Distinguish between short term (e. g. trip functions) and long term functional require-ments (e.g. post accident monitoring) if the requirements for accuracy or response time differ for these functions. Accuracy Or Response Time Requirements 4 Provide the accuracy requirements for sensors and transmitters for trip functions and post accident monitoring as used in the plant safety analysis. Note applicability of each if they differ. Provide the' response time requirements for equipment that initiate protective actions as used in the plant cafety analysis. Attachment "B" provides similar information for the equipment covered by the Nuclear Steam Supply contract. e \\ I 's ) e 4 G l-s
J U l as a "U E .E. 2 %" 2 EE
- 9 IE
'9 >= .c. r-r= .c r= s ~ r- = y e e a e e en o u mu u e e.e. r-g l 4 ne .g e se eo e
- e. w 4m.
b.im. .o. 4e u r=
- e w
- e..
.zu e ee a a sm
- e a
a
- r s e.c.o o.
c a e e a m .e o <s e a e m i 1% %.on 39 e. e en a e ao e = Is I e 2 5 Equipment Punctional A$ O *. i o rs E E E I 7,. 2
- Desianation Subdivided By L
Er ~ "T % 8 p a Procurement Specifications e e r !*
- 2 7
7 1 en a* e a w r. o. nw e w l
- 7 I'.
I ~. A e. e o 2m o A l g Manufacturer
- o 7
w e
- c Q
w r i = l ro
- a. y a
r + e-m. e o e 8 3F Manufacturer's Type O* EE And Model Number
- e
= g, .e e E g Equipment Category ? ,a (See NRC Definition) m 5 e Design Specification p Requirements w o 2-se Environmental Test Plan 4 sis Environmental Test "w 7p 7 Set-Up Description 3 "
- 3 3
x Environmental 5 2 O. a Test Procedure O 2 3 ;! - o r-n 4 e, Environmental Test y O E 8" g Acceptance Criteria [ S E * ~N Environmental k 9 eb o Qualification Method $3 5 .= 5
- u m -
ee z Seismic R* 4 EO "n h $, E 7 E Test Plan Q!
- I z,
a e z Seismic Test 7 E~ !! S 2 E E s g ; 7.' 3 E Set-Up Description 3 E n"~*
- a" z
seismic Test j ,, y,< Procedure ,,$aa,l g Seisele Test j =
- m 3m Acceptance Criteria a
3 rec y{o*
- 2, 4
Seismic Qualification y'* Herhon g $ $ n~ 3 b Ci* x Q.5.1 ' e. E E<,$, E..o Environmental
- 2..E.".
d S.g = e FC12 4 Q.s.2 y.% I. o g Seismic 3"o a gfI% M Test Results e..Ir o E7 Suavna ry ?. 3,.. = s z Analysis Assumptions E Justification
- 7 *.7.a.?
List Of ? ,og7 Qualification Documents v -a ,c ;j, Has Eauipment Seen R t., *. o Qualified To The Program pg i% Deserthed (Yes or No)? a s R2** la Detailed Qualification 4 """ g Information And Test ggggg Q "E
- 7 Results Available For M,. m n a.
7 6 = ** h NRC Audit fYes or No)? .E.I E e E.5 3 E m ss Oper.shility Renuirements (Time) eN ],.
- g:
.,* 9.. e e o en s w a= a a ". O E Accuracy or Response Time { .n Id Eo Y 7 .a
- s. u f oi
=ru Detailed Response $ 7 E hgh Paac Numbers $h T a 7 1; n. ~s~ E
. - - ? ATTACID1ENT "A"- s - DATE ISSUED - 11-19-79 ~ DATE REVISED: SM-PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4 PAGE-2852-1 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 NRC QUESTION 040.1 (3.11) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQOIPMENT-l. EQl".PMENT IDENTIFICATION Functional Designation ' Instrumentation Cab 1'e ~ Manufacturer Samuel Moore & Company l Manufacturer's Type" Identification \\ ~ See Table 1 N. Manufacturer's Model Identification See Table 1 1 2. EQUIPMENT CATEGORY PER NRC DEFINITION See Table 1 e 4 i \\ I e 0 e \\ 9 G e 4 ? O 4 9 'p' e e + e p y O o O is 4 4 4 o O e .t.
AIIACRMENT "A" PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4 PAGE 2852-2 Commonwealth Edison Comnany Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 NRC OUESTION 040.1 (3.11) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EOUIPMENT i TABLE 1 Functional Designation Manufacturer's Manufacturer's Equipment Category (Cable Description) Type Number Model Number Per NRC Definition Instrumentation Cable 24166 1970-61232-002 (Item 1 12 Pr - #16 TW, (Byron) Shielded, 600 Volt) 1970-61232-001 (Braidwood) Instrumentation Cable 16166 1970-60832-002 (Item 2 8 Pr - #16 TW, (Byron) Shielded, 600 Volt) 1970-60832-001 (Braidwood) Instrumentation Cable 08166 1970-60432-102 (Item 3 4 Pr.- #1o TW, (Byron) Shielded, 600 Volt) 1970-60432-002 (Braidwood) Instrumentation Cable 04166 1970-60232-002 (Item 4 2 Pr - #16 TW, (Byron) Shielded, 600 Volt) 1970-60232-001 (Braidwood) Instrumentation Cable 03166 1962-68350-003 (Item 5 3/c - #16 TW, (Byron) Shielded, 600 Volt) 1962-68350-001 (Braidwood) Instrumentation Cable 02166 1952-68350-004 (Item 6 1 Pr - #16 TW, (Byron) Shi41ded, 600 Volt) 1952-68350-002 (Braidwood) Instrumentation Cable 24206 1920-01262-002 (Item 7 12 Pr - #20 TW, (Byron) Shielded, CR-C). 1920-01262-001 (Braidwood) ,v Instrumentation Cable 16206 1920-00862-003 (Item 8 8 Pr - #20 TW, (Byron) Shielded, CR-C) 1920-00862-001 (Braidwood) O e m es = **
- wN
+ ATTAC10!ENT "A" PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4 PAGE 2852-3' Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 NRC QUESTION 040.1 (3.11) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EOUIPMENT TABLE 1 (continued) i Functional Designation Manufacturer's Manufacturer 1s Equipment Category (Cable Description) Type Number Model Number Per NRC Definition l Instrumentation Cable 08206 1920-00462-002 (Item 9 4 Pr - #20 TW, (Byron) Shielded, CR-C) 1920-00462-001 (Braidwood) Instrumentation Cable 02206 1920-01350-002 (Item 10 1 Pr
- 20 TW, (Byron)
Shielded, CR-C) 1920-01350-001 l __ (Braidwood) ? I \\ i i e I ~
l - ~ n i anu u.i... t a PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4 PAGE 2852-4 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 NRC QUESTION 040.1 (3.11) ENVIRONMENTAL OUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 3. SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION Functional Designation Instrumentation Cable Specification No. & Title i F/L-2852 - Instrumentation Cable 3.a SYSTEM SAFETY' FUNCTION REQUIREMENTS 3.b SPECIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ENVELOPE NOR!!AL ABNORMAL (Post LOCA) Pressure -0.1 - +0.3 psig 50 psig - 1st 3 hours 20 psig - next 21 hours 5 psig - thereafter upto 1 year Temperature 65* - 122*F 325'F - 1st 3 hours 225'F - next 21 hours 150*F - thereafter upto 1 year e en e e .. g 7
~
- ~
ATTACHMENT "A" PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4, PAGE 2852-5 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 NRC OUESTION 040.1 (3.11) ENVIRONMENTAL OUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 3.b SPECIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ENVELOPE (continued) NORMAL ABNORMAL (Post LOCA) , Radiation 11 Mega Rads 200 Mega Rads with maximum rate of 1.6 Mega Rads per hour Relative Hdmidity 0 - 70% 100% Chemeial. Spray 2 Exposure 0.50 gallon / min /ft, of alkaline soduim hydroxide / boric acid spray solution with i a pH value between 8.5 to 10.5. The initial i spray will last the first hour after Loss Of ) Coolant Accident. Subsequent spray cycles are likely during the remaining twelve (12) months. s l j 1 1 2 e e 4 m i e 1 r
e- ..una...i '.n l PROJ. NOS.143902 & 4683/4 PAGE' 2852-6.. Commonwealth Edison Company. .I ~ ~ ' Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 1 NRC QUESTION 040.1 (3.11) .ENVIRONMEN'i.4L OUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT . 3.c TIME _TO FULFILL SAFETY ' FUNCTION l .g.. j R Orre, year
- a..,
l 3,. ' - ' ~.. ,p ^t ~ \\ r ~ N.,. 3.d TECHNICALNJUSTIFICATION 'FOR 'SAFETF' FUNCTION REQUIRDfENTS LATER I,. ' ~., o .4 .g- \\ .s s '\\ 1,. j q .s i
ATTACHMENT "A" PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4. 4 2852-7 Commonwealth Edison Compa... Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 / NRC QUESTION 040.1 (3.11) ENVIRONMENTAL OUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 4. QUALIFICATION METHOD Environmental Test Plan Qualification tests on instrumentation cables supplied for Byron /Braidwood Projects was done by Isomedix, Inc. in accordance with the test plan described in the qualification document, dated June, 1978, (See Sub-Item 2 of Section 7 of this response). Isomedix, Inc. tested the following cables to establish the qualification of the instrumentation cables supplied on Byron /Braidwood Projects: TV6 conductor, black and white, 16 gauge, 7 strands, tinned copper, j20 mil, EPDM, primary insulation with 10 mils Hypolon primary jacket with 16 gauge drain and shield, and 45 mil Hypolon jacket. ~ The sequence of various tests carried out on the test sample was radiation, thermal aging, second dose of radiation, exposure to design basis event conditions (post loss of coolant accident continued for 30 days), hi-potential withstand test, design basis event exposure (post loss of coolant accident condition continued for another 70 days), and voltage withstand-test. Measurements were taken in the beginning, at various stages, and at the end of various tests to establish insulation resistance. Leakage current was measured at the end of voltage withstand test. Details on flame tests of the instrumentation cables have not yet been submitted by the vendor. ) Environmental Test Set-Up Description The cables were coiled around mandrels approximately 20 inches in diameter i during the post loss of coolant accident test. The mandrels with the cables, were located in a sealed pressure vessel. The ends of the cable were connected to terminal blocks mounted on the vessel head. The cables were placed in a corrugated carton during radiation exposure. Environmental Test Procedure The instrumentation cable test sample was aged by a simulated thermal aging process. The data of test results was plotted on arrhenius plot in order to establish 40 year instrumentation cable life. This arrhenius' plot is an attachment to Samuel Moore's letter dated August 31, 1979, (Document No. 1 described in Section 7 of this response).
ATTACle!ENT "A" PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4' PAGE 2852-8 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 t NRC OUESTION 040.1 (3.11) ENVIRONMENTAL OUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT f[ I 4. QUALIFICATION METHOD 1 Environmental Test Procedure (continued) Cobalt-60 source of gamma radiation was used to-expose the instrumentation -cable test sample at an exposure rate of approximately 0.75 mega rads per hour. After the receipt of the test sample in the test lab, insulation resistance - measurements were carried out and the test sample was exposed to 25 mega rads radiation. After the radiation exposure, the cables' insulation resistance measurement was made again at ambient room temperature conditions. Thereafter, the test sample was thermally aged for 7 days at a temperature of 121*C. After accelerated thermal aging, the test sample was cooled to room temperature, and the insulation resistance measurements were done. After aging, the test sample was again exposed to radiation at a rate of.75 mega rads per hour until the accumulated dose was 175 mega rads resulting in a total of 200 mega rads, including the 25 mega rad radiation dose administered earlier. The cable was cooled to ambient temperature conditions and insulation resistance measuremen,ts were done. Thereafter, the cable test sample was mounted on a mandrel and the mandrel das placed within a pressure vessel and'the temperature within the vessel was increased to 140*F. At this point steam was admitted in the vessel increasing the temperature to 340*F and increasing the pressure to 105 pounds per square inch gauge in 5 minutes. The profile of pressure and temperature in the pressure vessel after this time period is shown in attached Figure 1. After running the test for 30 days, the test sample was cooled to room temperature and insulation resistance measurements were done. The voltage withstand test was performed on.the cable sample after it was immersed in a coiled form in water. Later, post loss of coolant accident. simulation for 70 days es schieved by exposing the cables to 200*F. During this 200*F temperature expo'sure, an air 2 supply was used to provide 10 pounds of pressure throughout the test time period. The insulation resistance measurements were performed at various stages during and after the test and also the voltage withstand test was done at the end of 70 days post loss of coolant accident simulation test. The results of this test are described in Samuel Moore's addendum, dated September, 1978, (Document No. 3 listed in Section 7 of this response). 1 \\' o ~~. . =...
+ Y hdJ. - huh s) / A/ 4 u - euws, -. - PAGE --2852-9 iI Commonwealth Edison Company '-Byron /Braidwood - Units 1. & 2 .NRC QUESTION p 040.1 (3.11) ,ENVIRONMI:NTAL OUALIFICATION OF' ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT I 4., QUALIFICAITON METHOD (continued) . Environmental Test Acceptance Criteria The insulation resistance measurement carried out on the test sample during j and after various tests, and the leakage current through the cable during
- t-the voltage withstand test performed after the two stages (30 hours and '
70 hours) post loss of coolant accident simulation were used to establish the success of performed tests. The results of measurement are described in the submitted vendor documents described in Section 7 of this response. \\ Environmental Qualification Method Prototype Test e e e e C t o d 4 e e 0 4 8 g e
~ %. m...u.n .s -PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 &~4683/4' + PAGE 2852-10' - Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units' 1 & 2' 'NRC QUESTION 040.1'(3.11) 7 . ENVIRONMENTAL OUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 5.- Environmental Qualification Envelope Descri.-ion The post loss of coolant accident simulation temperature and pressure values are shown on Figure 1 of this response. This profile-is for_a 30 day simulation test and has been reproduced from Page 2-6 of Samuel Moore's qualification document, dated June, 1978, (Item-2'of Section 7 of this response). ' Simulation of post loss of coolant accident-conditions for 70 days was done at 200*F temperature and 10 psig pressure. The test sample was irradiated at a rate of.75 mega rads per hour in two During the first part of the irradiation,-the tota 1' administered stages. p radiaticn dose was 25 mega rads, whereas the second irradiation resulted e in an administered dose of 175 mega rads. During the post loss of coolant accident simulation, the test sample was sprayed with chemical solutions, whose specification are given in the-submittedqualificationdocumentsfItems2and3ofSection7)atarate of.15 gallons per minute per feet of the surface area of the mandrel. e a .t. e 1 J k,-__
v ATTACIDtENT A" .PR?J. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4 PAGE 2852-11 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 NRC OUESTION 040.1 (3.11) f ENVIRONMENTAL OUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT j 6. Environmental Qualification Test Resnlt Summary 1 According to the submitted qualification document, the vendor claims that Cable Sample 7 successfully completed the 100 day loss of coolant accident simulation'cfter exposure to a total accumulated dose of 200 mega rads of Cobalt-60 gamma radiation and a conditioning of 120*C for 7 days. At the conclusion of the loss of coolant accident period, a high voltage withstand test was performed with the cable samples wrapped around a mandrel-whose diameter was 40 times the' diameter of individual cable. The high voltage ac withstand was performed with the cables immersed in water. The test sample successfully completed the voltage withstand test for 1 minute at rated ac voltage, for 1 minute at twice rated ac voltage, and for 5 miautes at 80 volts ac per mil as required in IEEE Standard 383-1974. According to tha vendor the difficulties experienced by certa;n conductors of the cable test sample do not affect the re -its of the qualification tests. Further clarification of the test difficulties with certain conductors of Cable 7 during the 30 day simulation test as well as the 70 day simulation test have been requestioned from the vendor and these clarification details will be incorporated into this response when available. t P D e e a e 9 4 O 9 0 i e e J ' M^ w.. _ _i _ - -~.s.. -~ ~ s- <...s.-- -e ..m 2-
ATTACIDtENT "A" - PRvJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4683/4 2852-12 PAGE l Commonwealth Edison Company _ Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 NRC QUESTION 040.1 (3.11)' ENVIRO'O! ENTAL OUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUII' MENT l 7. VENDOR SUBMITTED QUALIFICTION DOCUMENTS 1. Samuel Moore's' letter, dated August 31, 1979. 2. Qualification Test Of Electric Cables Under A Simulated LOCA/DBE By Sequential Exposure To Environments Of Radiation, Thermal Aging, Stdam And Chemical Soray, dated June, 1978. 3. Addendum to June. 1978, LOCA/DBE Report, dated September 19, 1978. e 0 e O r 1 4 0 e 9 h v
y C-PAGE 2852-13 g,g ...........,u,,. ou,4 t l !~ f. LOSS-OF-COOLANT 'l 2 I, ' l T ERMAL APING ANE ACCIDENT SIMULATION RA]DIATION EXPOSUF.E l ( SAMPLES.2, ' 4, 7 g 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,13 AND 15) I ELECTRIgAL l..f-? LOADING NONE RATED VOLTAGE & 0.5 AMP. 1 l l Y l l 4 TOTAL RADIATION [,NONE 25MRADS!,NONE 75 MRAD NONE l ! ~. DOSAGE -l l l ~- l CHEMICAL-SPRAY BORIC ACID (!! B 0 ) AND SODIUM l .} l. 3 3 {,i* l l l THIOSULFATE (Na2S 03) BUFFERED WITH SODIUM 2 CHEMICAL SPRAY 1 NO 4E HYDROXIDE (NaOH) l g l ? 1:'. l l 3409F/105PSIG/100% r lS E ~ -320 F/75PSIG/10'0% 0 l ' 'i) SAND 10l l 2,5,8 r I i 0 I 300 F/55PSIG/100% 'i,. l'63 C l ~ l .I { --h l l h 250 F/15PS'IG/100% 0 . pi [Efi - l(3250F) l y'j l y l l o o e., 2000F/10PSIGA 7,,j,) j7 DAYS l' c 1 ,/j x B t 8.i 4 100% ] - s,4 l SAMPLE! l CORE o c; C.((] lU u l 4 AND 9 l o o / l TEMPERATURE / -[Q PRESSURE / ,!(1500C l [ l 6 8 3020F),g 7 DAYS y i RELATIVE {g } ;c:j l 3 L210C a l HUMIDITY 0 .T PROFILE (2S0 F) m 3AMPLES m I l L 7 % 7 g-y 2,4,5, y l 7,8,9,. b 2 0 140 F I [34 HOU 234.4 0 !!OUR'i i j 4: ~ l l 90 F l I 900F i I I I I 7 DAYS 7 DAYS 311R. 8HR. llHR. 15HR. 4 DAYS 30DA' ; PROFILE OF TEST PHASES FOR SAMPLES 2, 4,517,8, 9, 10, 12, 13 AND 14 FIGURE 1 - IEEE 323 LOCA SIMULATION PROFILE
- ... s...y
....i... y.
a a....- .. L a 'PROJ. NOS. 4391/2 & 4'683/4 ~* PAGE 2852-14 (FINAL). 1 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood - Units 1 & 2 -NRC QUESTION 040.1 (3.11) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT R OPERABILITY REQUIRDENTS (TIME) Instruments connected to the purchased instrumentation cables may be required to operate for a naximum time period of one year in an environment as defined in Section 3.14 Par,es 2852-4 and 2852-5 of this response. O y e e e L 6 l e f
- i l
a N e + -.}}