ML19350A550
| ML19350A550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1981 |
| From: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| LSO5-81-02-030, LSO5-81-2-30, NUDOCS 8103160465 | |
| Download: ML19350A550 (22) | |
Text
Ot t'\\
l
'c
~
g n@ fif.b
. f,a 0 41981b p g3g;;gy ; 31581 mT", /
Docket No. 50-213 Q
xg LSC5-81-02-030 Y'
@k$)
p
% Q*u i9g P
Mr. W. G. Counsil. Vice President A
Nuclear Engineering and Operations
.k a
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co@any Q
Post Office Box 270
- I*
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Dear Mr. Counsil:
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONPENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT RE: HAD0AftflECK PLANT
Reference:
Order for Modification of License Concerning the Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment, October 24, 1980.
This letter transmits the preliminary results of our review of environmental qualifications of safety-related electrical equipment at your facility.
This evaluation was based on your submittals received over the past months.
The facility license was modified by the referenced Order of October 24, 1980, to require that all safety-related clectrical equipment be qualified to specified requirements not later than June 30, 1982.
In addition, the Order noted that a licensee is obligated to modify or replace inadequate equipment p ro@tly.
The staff's review of your submittals has resulted in our identifying a number of potential equipment deficiencies involving a lack of proper documentation, inadequate justification of assumed environmental conditions following an accident, and/or inadequate environmental testing of quipment, such thi*. conformance to the D0R guidelires, as required by the Order.
cannot be: demonstrated. You are requested to review cur identified defi-ciencies, and their ramifications, and provide us your overall finding regarding continued safe operation of your facility. Accordingly, in order to determine whether your license should be modified or suspended, you are required pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), to provide within 10 days of receipt of this letter, a written statement, signed under oath or affirmation sup-porting the safe operation of your facility, that takes into account the NRC staff's preliminary list of deficiencies.
181 o sic 0 %9p
-o
..m
y
'q q
s' g
Mr. W. G. Counsil FtWW 23 The purpose of this statement is to provide the NRC with needed assurance, by the licensee, regarding the continued safety of the f acility until you can provide an item-by-item ree aluation in a detailed documented manner at a later date. A negative finding on your part concerning the safety of continued operation would result in a unit shutdown, and should be reported as a Licensee Event Report (LER) within twenty-four (24) hours of the deter-mination to the appropriate HRC Regional Office.
Include in the LER the actions you have taken for the ininediate resolution of the matter. A copy of any such LER should be sent to the Director, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Please submit a copy of your reply to us via telecopy.
Sincerely.
Orlpnal S4"d U Gus C. Lainas Assistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing Enclosunt:.
Equipment Evaluation Report DISTRIBUTION:
Docket cc w/ enclosure:
NRC PDR See next page Local PDR TERA NSIC ORB #5 RF JLombardo (3)
PDiBenedetto l
DCrutchfield Project Manager HSmith l
0 ELD l
01&E (3)
ACRS (16)
MWilliams-Gray File Xtra Cy (6)
RSchaffptall H
llA0 i
\\.
{
[E@]b,2YPM
/
DI D/SA DLgd;thfield DL:
'DL:0RB:#5/CA DL:0RBs#5/PM l
'HS$1thirf RCarush DNffu
. C ainas~
~
s A / O/81 p/)h/81
- /{t /81
~
L /, ^/81
^ / iS/81 j
- p CE t
[*
UNITED sTATM y
)e(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORWDMMISSION g.
-l WASHINGTON, D. C.255
\\,
/
Februry 13, 1981 Dtcket No. 50-213 LS05-81-02-030 Mr. W. G. Counsil, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Conpany Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Dear Mr. Counsil:
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT RE: HADDAM NECK PLANT
Reference:
Order for Modification of Liceme Concerning the Environmental Qualification of Safety-RelatedElectrical. Equipment. October 24, 1980.
This letter transmits the preliminary resuhs of our review of envircnmental qualifications of safety-related electrical equipment at your facility.
This evaluation was based on your submittals received over the past months.
The facility license was modified by the referenced Order of October 24, 1980, to require that all safety-related electrical equipment be qualified to specified requirements not later than June 3,1982.
In addition, the Order noted that a licensee is obligated to modify or replace inadequate, equipment pronptly.
The staff's review of your submittals has roulted in our identifying a number of potential equipment deficiencies involving a lack of proper documentation, inadequate justification of msumed environmental conditions following an accident, and/or inadequate emironmental testing of equipment.
such that conformance to the 00R guidelines,as required by the Order, cannot be demonstrated. You are requested to review our identified defi-ciencies, and their ramifications, and provth us your overall finding l
regarding continued safe operation of your ilmility. Accordingly, in order l
to determine whether your license should be adified or suspended, you are l
required pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), to proide within 10 days of receipt of this letter, a written statement, signed ander oath or affirmation sup-porting the safe operation of your facility,that takes into account the l
NRC staff's preliminary list of deficiencies.
l l
l
Mr. W. G. Counsil February 13, 1981 The purpose of this statement is to provide the NRC with needed assurance, by the licensee, regarding the continued safety of the facility until you can provide an item-by-item reevaluation in a detailed documented manner at a later date.
A negative finding on your part concerning the safety of continued operation would result in a unit shJtdown, and should be reported as a Licensee Event Report (LER) within twenty-four (24) hours of the deter-mination to the appropriate NRC Regional Office.
Include in the LER the actions you have taken for the immediate resolution of the matter. A copy of any such LER should be sent to the Director, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Please submit a copy of your reply to us via telecopy.
Si
- erely, Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Equipment Evaluation Report cc w/ enclosure:
See next page e
Mr. W. G. Counsil February 13, 1981 cc w/ enclosure:
Day, Berry & Howard U. S. Environmental Protection Counselors at Law Agency One Constitution Plaza Region I Office Hartford, Connecticut 06103 ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR JFK Federal Building Superintendent Boston, Massachusetts 02203-Haddam Neck Plant RFD #1 Resident Inspector Post Office Box 127E Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station East Pampton, Connecticut 06424 c/o U. S. NRC East Haddam Post Office Mr.. Janes R. Himmelwright East Haddam, Connecticut 06423 Northeast Utilities Service Conpany P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Russell Library 119 Broad Street Middletown, Connecticut 06457 Board of Selectmen Town Hall Haddam, Connecticut 06103 Connecticut Energy Agency ATTN: Assistant Director Research and Policy Development Department of Planning and Energy Policy 20 Grand Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Director, Criteria and Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-460)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.
20460
e PARTIAL REVIEW Equipment Evaluation Report By the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation For Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company.
Haddam Neck Plant..
Docket No. 50-213 Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related C.lectrical Equipment Dated: February 13, 1981 1
4
_E
..,s
PARTIAL REVIEW EQUIPMENT EV4LUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FOR CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET No. 50-213 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFIC ATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRIC AL EQUIPMENT 3.0 STAFF EVALUATION The staf f's evaluation of the licensee's responses was accomplished by performing an on-site inspection of selected Class IE equipment and by examining.the licensee's report for completeness and NUREG-0588, in part, were used as a basis for the staf f's evaluation of the adequacy of the licensee's qualification program.
During the week of June 30, 1980, NRC and FRC representatives visited the Haddam Neck plant site, inspected safety-related systems and equipment, ide nt i-fied and tabulated safety-related components through discussions with plant personnel, and conducted a general review of CYAPCO's submittal of June 2,1980.
The inspection verified proper installation of equipment, overall interf ace integrity, and manufacturers nameplate data. The manuf acturer and model number f rom the nameplate data was compared to information given to the Licensee's submittal.
The following evaluation incorporates the CYAPC0 submittal and the Franklin Research Center technical evaluation report (T ER).
3.1 COMPLETENESS OF SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT In accordance with the 00R 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 list of safety-related systems and display instrumentation provided by the licensee was reviewed against the staf f developed master list. Based upon information in the Licensee's submittal, the equipment location references and subsequent conversations with the Licensee, the staf f has verified and determined that the systems included in the Licensee's submittal are those required to achieve or support:
(L) emergency reactor shutdown, (2) containment i so la tion, (3) reactor core cooling, (4) con-tainment heat removal, (5) core residual heat removal, and (6) prevention of significant release of radioactive material to the environment. However, since transmitting the Draft Interim Technical Evaluation Report, the licensee has added several safety-related equipment items to its qualification list, requested that some previously listed be exempted, and lef t other items unaddressed.
FRC has generated a revised equipment list addressing all of the equipment in the containment, RHR system and charging system. The licensee in several instances has determined that certain equipment items can be exempted f rom qualification, because they are backed-up by redundant unqualified equipment.
FRC concludes that CYAPCO's position is not satisf acto ry because it does not provide sufficient assurance that the redundant equipment will perform its safety f unction. The licensee should provide additional infor-mation to address this concern. The systems and instrumentation list is contained in Appendix D.
2
The licensee submitted a list of safety-related electrical equipment.
This list was evaluated and identical components within a plant area exposed to the same environment were grouped; 50 item types of equip-ment were identified and assessed by the staff.
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 staf f has assumed, unless otherwis;e noted, that the analysis for developing the environmental envelopes for Haddam Neck relative to the temperature, pressure, and the containment spray caustics, have been performed in accordance with the above stated requirements.
For this review the staf f reviewed the qualification documentation to ensure that the qualification specifications envelope the conditions established by the licensee. During this review the staf f assumed that for plants, designed and equipped with an automatic containment spray system, which satisfies the single f ailure 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 3
system is not subjected to a disabling single component f ailure and therefore satisfies the 00R Guideline requirements of Section 4.2.1.
\\
Equipment submergence has also been addressed where the possibility j
l 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 follous:
Max. Temp.
( 'F)
Max. Press. (psig)
Humidity LOCA 264 38 100%
MSLB Not Stated The staf f 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 will provide an accep-table margin for either a postulated LOCA or MSLB, whichever is controlling as to potential adverse environmental ef fects on equipment.
The licensee's specified temperature (service condition) of 264*F does not satisfy the above requirement.
Furthe rmo re the licensee specified pressure is low as compared to the plants of similar design. The licensee is requested to verify that the pressure profile in the Equipment Qualification submittal of November 1,1980 was calculated beacd r1 the code rr.auirements defined in the NUREG-0588.
If by using these codes the peak containment pressure is stiLL 38 psig then a saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure 4
profile (284*F peak temperature at 38 psig) should be used. If however the calculated peak pressure is higher than 38 psig then the saturation temperature corresponding to the new pressure profita should be used.
The licensee should update his equipment summary table to reflect this change. If there is any equipment that does not meet the staf f position, the licensee must provide either justification that the equipment will perform its intended f unction 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 HEL8 outside rentainment in the following plant area:
1.
Primary Auxiliary Building.
The staf f 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 ** f f assumed for this review, unless otherwise noted, that the met ogy employed by the licensee is in accordance with the appropriate c
'ia as established by the Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-80-21), dated May 23, 1980. The licensee's value for maximum subeergence is 2.68 feet above containment floor (4 feet 2 inch elev.). The licensee has not identified any equipment items below this level.
5
l l
l 3.6 CHEMICAL SPRAY The Licensee's value for chemical concentration of unbuf fered boric acid in water is 2600 PPM of boron. The system is manually operated and is not regarded by the Licensee as being safety related, however since spray is available and could be used any equipment upon which it impinges must be qualified for the spray parameter. The licensee should provide additional inf ormation to resolve this concern.
3.7 AGING The 00R 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 comparisons of existing equipment to the materials identified in Appendix C of the 00R Guidelines. The first supplement to IEB-79-01B requires the Licensees to utilize the table and identify any additional materials as a result of their effort.
- 22. Establish an ongoing program to review surveillance and maintenance records to identify potential age related degradations.
3.
Establish component maintenance and replacement schedules whi+:h inctude considerations of aging characteristics of the installed components.
6
For this review the staf f 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 f unctional operability in harsh environments.
The staf f will review the licensees response, when submitted, and report its evaluation in a supplemental report.
3.8 R ADIATION (INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT)
The licensee has provided values for radiation levels postulatec 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 staf f criteria contained in the DOR Guidelines, NUREG-0588 and the guidance provided in IEB-79-019, Supplement 2.
The staf f's review assessed that the values to which equipment was qualified, enveloped the requirements identified by the licensee. The values established by the 6
7 Licensee are 8.4 x 10 R ADS GAMMA and 4.79 x 10 R ADS BETA inside con-tainment. The radiation service condition provided by the licensee is lower than provided in the D0R Guidelines for GAMMA and BETA radiation.
The Licensee is requested to either provide justification for using the lower service condition or use the service condition provided in the DOR Guidelines for both GAMMA and BETA radiation. If the former option is chosen then the analysis including the basis assumptions and a sample calculation should be provided. A required value established 6
outside containment of 6.5 x 10 RADS gamma has been used by the licensee 7
)
t
}
to specify limiting radiation levels within the auxiliary building. This value acpears to consider the radiation levels influenced by the source term methodology associated with Post-LOCA recirculation fluid lines and is therefore ac cept ac le.
I 4.0 QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT i
The following subsections are the staf f's assessment, based on the licensee's I
j submittal, and the Franklin TER of the qualification status of safety-related elect rical equipment.
The staff has separated the safety-related equipment into three categories (1) equipment requiring immediate corrective action, (2) equipment requi ring additional qualification information and/or corrective action, and (3) equip-ment considered acceptable conditioned only on the satisf actory resolution of the staf f's concern identified in Section 3.7.
The NRC staf f in its assessment of the licensees submittal and the TER did not review the methodology employed to determine the values established by the licensee. However, in reviewing the TER a determination was made by the staf f as to the stated conditions presented by the licensee.
Additionally, the detailed review of supporting documentation referenced by the licensee (e.g., test r"co <s) has been completed by FRC.
The environmental qualification data bank to be established by the staf f wiLL provide the means to cross reference each supporting document to the j
ref erencing Licensee.
Where supporting documents were found to be unacceptable, the licensee will be required to take additional corrective actions to either establish
- I g
6
~I l
qualification or replace the item (s) of concern. An appendix for each subsection is attached which provides a list of equipment which requires additional information and/or corrective action. Where appropriate, a reference is provided in the appendices to identify de f i c i enci es.
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 4.2 EQUIPMENT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION Appendix 8 identified 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 parameter or condition.
l R - Radiation T - Temperature QT - Qualification Time RT - Required Time 9
I l
P - Pressure H - Humidity CS - Chemical Spray
]
A Material Aging Evaluation, Replacement Schedule, Ongoing Equipment Surveillance S - Sumergence M - Margin 1 - HELB Evaluation Outside Containment Not Completed QM - Gualification Method RPN - Equipment Relocation or Replacement, Adequate Schedule Not Provided l
EXN - Exempted Equipment Justification Inadequate SEN - Separate Ef fects Qualification Justification Inadequate QI - Qualification Inf ormation Being Developed RPS - Equipment Relocation or Rep'.acement Schedule Provided.
As noted in Section 4.0, these deficiencies do rat 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, can be established provided the following can be estab-lished and verified by the licensees:
i (1)
Equipment does not provide essential safety functions in the harsh environment and f ailure of it in the harsh environment will not impact safety related functions or misled an operator.
I (2a) Equipment performs its function prior to its exposure to the harsh environment and the adequacy for the tirr.f margin provided is adequately justified, and 1
L 10 l
l
t (2b) Subsequent f ailure of the equipment as a result of the harsh environment does not degrade other safety functions or mislead the operator.
I (3)
The safety-related function can be accomplished by some other designated equipment that has been adequately qualified and satisfies the single f ailure criteria.
(4)
Equipment not subjected to a harsh environment as a result of the postulated accident.
The licensee is therefore required to supplement the information presented by providing their resolutions to the def ciencies identified which should include a description of the corrective action and schedules for its completion (as apolicable), etc. The staf f will review the licensees response, when submitted, and report on t'he resolution in a supplemental report.
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 i
j proposed corrective action, on a timely basis, to assure that qualifi-i cation can be established by June 30, 1982.
I 4.3 EQUIPMENT CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE OR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE l
l l
Based on the staf f's review of the licensees submittal and the TER the I
l staf f 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 (2) conditionally acceptable subject to the satis-l l
f actory resolution of the staf f concern identified in Section 3.7.
l 11 l
I l
For the equipment identified as conditionally acceptable the staf f deter-mined that the Licensee did not clearly:
state that a material evaluation on their equipment was conducted t
(1) to as.ure that no known materials susceptible to degradation due i
(
to aging have been used in their equipment.
establish an ongoing program to review the surveillance and i
(2) maintenance records of their plant in order to identify equipment degradation which may be age related, and/or schedule for equipment l
(3) propose a maintenance program and replacement 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 in this category before full, acceptance of this equipment can for equipment The staf f wilL review the Licensees response, when subritted, be established.
and report on the resolution in a supplemental report.
5.0 DEFERRED REQUIREMENTS IE ButLetin 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 staf f wilL require that the SEP plant reviews have been amended.
The staff wilL provide a this information be provided by February 1,1981.
supplemental safety evaluation addressing these concerns.
l 12 t
I k
APPENDIX B List of Equipment in Section 4.2, Equipment Requiring Additional Information And/Or Corrective Action I
NOTE: (R) Licensee has committed l-to replace equipment i
I LEGEND:
DESIGNATION FOR Deficiency R - Radiation M - Margin T - Temperature I - HELB Evaluation Outside QT - Qualification Time Containment Not Completed RT - Required Time QM - Qualification Method f
P - Pressure RPN - Equipment Relocation or Replacement, H 4-Humidity Adeqtate Schedule Not Provided CS - Chemical Spray EXN - Exempted Equipment Justification A - Material Aging Evaluation, Inadequate Replacement schedule, Ongoing SEN - Separate Ef fects Qualification Equipment Surveillance Justification Inadequate S - Submergence QI - Qualification Inf ormation Being Developed RPS - Equipment Relocation or Reptar,ement Schedule Provided TER Equipment Model/
Item No.
Description Manufacturer Type Deficiency (R) 33 MOV Crane Teledyne ST-4-5 QI (R) 34 SOV Operator ASCO 83-16-A-74 QI 45 Cable Rockbestos Firewall SR QI,QM,A RSS-6-LO4 1
h 49 Cable /Connecto r Rockbestos N-4 4079-03 QM t
(R) 60 MOV Limi to rque SMB-0 QI (R) 1C MOV Limi torque SMB-0 QM,A,R (R) 3A MOV Teledyne T-4-10 QM,A i
j (R) 38 MOV Teledyne T-4-15 QM,A j
(R) 3C MOV Teledyne T-4-3 0 QM,A B-1 f
4 APPENDIX 8, Continued TER Equipment Model/
Item No.
Description Manu f acturer Type Deficiency 15 Motor Westinghouse Type CSP QM,A 1
MOV Limi torque SMB-0 QM,A,R 6
Terminal Block GE EB25 A, QM,T, C S, R 7
Terminal Block Westinghouse 805432 A, QM,T, C S, R (R) 10 Transmitter Hagan PMD477315 QI (R) 13 Transmi tter Foxboro 611GM-DSI 2M,QT,R (R) 14 Transmitter Foxboro 613HM-HSI QM,A,QT,R (R) 19 Transmitter Foxboro NE11-GH-QM,A H1M2-B-E 28 MOV
. Crane Chapman DR-33714 QI 12 Limit Switch NAMCO EA180 QM,A l
31302 (R) 43 MOV Crane Teledyne K583514 QI,A l
DR33714 l
44 Solenoid Valcor V526-QI,A 60423A (R) 47 Cable Samuel Moore UNK A, QM,T, QT,R (R) 48 Cable Colli er NNA Triplexei A,GM,T,QT,R 51 Terminal Block Marathon 6012 A, Qm,T, C S, R (R) 53 Transmitter Hagan 2920-15 QI (R) 62 Cab le Samuel Moore Type NSF QI B-2
APPENDIX C List of Equipment in Section 4.3 Equipment Considered acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable TER Equipment Model/
Item No.
Description Manu f acturer Type Deficiency 5
Electrical Conax DWG. No.
A Penetration F35A;FVIE 8
Cable Ke ri te UNK A
9 Cab le Brand Rex UNK A
21 Spli ce Raychem Type A
WCSF-N 46 Electrical Litton CIR-06V1-20-15S A
Connector CIR-02V 1-20-15P 50 Elect rical Ideal Catalog A
Connector / Splice No.30-210 2A Transmitter Foxboro 63t'2A5 28 Transmitter Foxboro UNK 11 Transmitter Foxboro 613-M 12A Transmitter Foxboro 611-GH 128 Transmitter Foxboro 611-GH 17 Tempe rature Taylor Type Element D120 20 Tempe rature Thermoelect ric SD2522A Element 23 SOV Operator ASCO GP-91-465 (A) 25 Power Westinghouse 9910082G01 l
Detector l
26 Power Westinghouse 9910084G01 l
Detector C-1
APPENDIX C, Continued TER Equipment Model/
Item No.
Description Manu f acturer Type Defici ency G
27 Tempe rature Sandelius TP-T-133 Indicator 29 MOV Limitoroue SMB-000 30 MOV Limi to rque SMA-0 31 MOV Limi to rque SA-3 40 Radiation Monitor Tracer Labs TA66 57 Transmitter UNK UNK 59 Solenoid UNK UNK l
l C-2 i
t
I i
APPENDIX D 1
i I
A.
Safe Shutdown Systems I
l System Term Function Reactor Protection / Trip Systems S
Trips reactor when predetermined I,
setpoints are exceeded.
l Main Steam (MSIV's Safeties, I
Releases er.ergy (steam) for plant Atmospheric Relief s)*
cooldown/ Isolates MS during MSLB/
HELB accidents.
Auxiliary Feedwater and Steam I/L Provides steam generator makeup Generator Feedwater*
water during cooldown/Long-term chemical control.
Chemical and Volume (charging L
Provides reactor makeup water during portion) cooldown/long-term chemical control.
L Long-term heat removal capability.
Service Water System L
Transfers heat to the river, Lake, or other heat sink.
High Pressure Safety Injection
- I Provides high pressure RCS water makeup source.
L Provides power to vital equipment and ci r cui ts.
Reactor Coolant System (Pressurizer I
Power operated relief valve for releas-PORVs)*
ing RCS pressure by venting energy to the PRT or Containment.'
+ System required for cold shutdown only.
- System which function both for safe shutdown and also for accident mitigation.
- Instrumentation required for accident mitigation purposes only.
(S) Short Term Less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
(I) Intermediate Term Up to 30 days.
i l
(L) Long term 30 days plus.
l I
D-1 L
i I
i
}
f APPENDIX 0, Continued i
B.
Accident Mitigating Systems (LOCA, MSLB, FWLB) i!
System Term Funct ion Low Pressure Safety Injection L
Provides cooling water to the coee post-ac cident.
Containment Isolation L
Isolates containment penetrations in case of accidents.
Containment Air Recirculation I
Post-accident containment heat removal System and atmosphere control.
l Fe edwate r S
(Regulating Valves and Motor Operated Backup Valves) Isolates feedwater Lines in case of line break)
Hydrogen Purge System I
Post-LOCA hydrogen control.
Containment Radiation Monitoring L
(Equipment Hatch Area Radiation Monitor)
Room Ventilation Coole rs I/L (SI,RHR, centrifugal charging pumps, switchgear, diesels) Cooling to vital equi pme nt.
Post-accident Sampling and L
Self-expla nato ry Monito ring i
l, ll l'
+
t 4
s D-2 I
l i
o APPENDIX D, Continued C.
Accident Mitigation and Safety Shutdown Instruments (LOCA, MSLB, FWLB) a l
Pressurizer Pressure L
i Containment Pressure **
I i
Steamline Flow **
L Containment Sump **
L Pressurizer Level I
Reactor Coolant System Wide Range Pressure L
Reactor Coolant System Temperature (cold leg temperature)
L Steam Generator Level L
Auxiliary Feedwater Flow and Discharge Pressure and Demin Water L
Storar,e Tank Level L
RHP Flow or Discharge Pressure L
Service Water System Pressure L
Diesel Generator Output I
Emergency Bus Energized Indication L
o D-3 i
._