ML19351F455

Separation Audit of Class IE Electric Equipment & Circuits Rept.

ML19351F455
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	01/06/1981
From:	GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT
To:
Shared Package
ML19351F454	List: ML19351F453 ML19351F455 ML19351F458
References
NUDOCS 8101130107
Download: ML19351F455 (10)

Text

, f

(-.)

<J ' '

i SEPARATION AUDIT OF CLASS lE ELECTRIC i

EQUIPMENT AND CIRCUITS REPORT PREPARED FOR SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY V. C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 I

i BY GILBERT ASSOCLSTES, INC.

f I

~

l E 101180 f0$i ii

, 3 Table of Contents Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. SCOPE OF AUDIT 1

3. SELECTION METHOD 2 1

4. AUDIT CRITERLt ,

3 4

, 5. INSPECTION PROCEDURE 3 I

, 6. RESULTS

7.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS ATTACHMENTS 1 Random Sample Method 2 Procedure to Audit Separation of Class lE Electric Equipment and Circuits (without attachments) 3 List of Class lE and Associated Circuits and Equipment Audited I 4 Summary of Discrepancy Types 4

o i

V. C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 SEPARATION AUDIT OF CLASS lE EOUIPMENT AND CIRCUITS

1. INTRODUCTION In response to the United States Regulatory Co= mission (USNRC) request, undated letter fros Mr. B. J. Youngblood to Mr. E. H. Crews, an audit of separation of Class lE equipment and Class lE and associated circuits was performed for the V. C. Su=ner Nuclear Station Unit 1, Docket No .

l 50-395. This report describes the program, procedures and results of g the audit.

The audit was performed by engineering and technical personnel who were not involved in the design and installation of the equipment and systess under audit, cnd who understood the standards, guides and FSAR co= sit =ents relating to the V. C. Su=ser Nuclear Station Unit 1 separation.

2. SCOPE OF AUDIT The audit included a 5% sample of plant-wide installed Class lE electrical equipment including control boards and panels, and Class lE I and associated field routed circuits and control boards and panels internal wiring. Listed below are the categories of circuits and equipment in the sample as well as the source used as the basis for identifying equipment or circuits in each category:

A. All Class lE and associated field routed circuits were identified by utilizing Gilbert Associates, Inc. (GAI) circuit su= mary printouts.

A sort by safeguard code was made and included all safety or associated channels; that is, A, B, C, D, E, J , K , L , M , XA , XB , XC ,

XD and XE.

l i

I

B. Class lE and associated equipment were identified utilizing FSAR Tables 3.9-7, 3.9-8, 3.11-0, and 3.ll-0a and included:

1. Valve operators (motor and solenoid)

2. Motors

3. Instruments

4. Dampers l S. Miscellaneous HVAC (chillers, fan motors)

6. Electrical (switchgear, control centers, inverters, i

penetrations, etc.)

1 i

, 7. Control boards and panels (control switches, indicators, recorders, and internal wiring. These items were identified using vendor prints).

3. SELECTION METHOD The selection method of equipment or circuits from each of the categories identified in Section 2 was by means of random sampling. The selected sample was obtained by utilizing randcm number tables to achieve a sampIe selected in such a way that each element had equal probability of being

! included in the sample. The random numbers satisfied a uniform distribution over a given interval. The rando'n tables were generated by computer algorithm to provide two (2) tables, one table for population sizes of up to 1000 and another for population sizes of up to 10,000.

This method of selection was chosen as it provided samples which were free from sampling bias. Using the procedure of Attachment 1, a 5%

sample was selected from each of the listed safeguard codes in Section 2.A, and each of the equipment categories in Section 2.B. Thus, the selected samples were not only free from sampling bias but also representative.

I

4. AUDIT CRITERIA The criteria and FSAR commitments used as the basis for the audit were as follows:

i A. FSAR Sections 8.3.1.4, 8.3.1.5, Appendix 3A, Reg. Guide 1.75, i Table 8.3-4, Sections 7.1.2.2 and 7.1.2.3.

] B. Electrical Insts .lation Spec. SP-222-044461-000, Rev.10, Sections

1 J 1.24, 1.26 and 1.38.

I 1 C. Drawing D-224-521, Rev. 5 k$

+

j D. Construction Guideline S-200-926, Rev. 2

• I

}

E. Project Design Criteria, Section 4, Rev. dated 12/22/75 (For

, Information Only).

4

5. INSPECTION PROCEDURE The following is a surmary of the procedure used by the auditors at the plant site in checking separation of Class lE and Associated Circuits and Equipment. The inspection procedure is more-fully described in

^

Attachment 2.

1 A. Each audited field run circuit was " walked 'down" starting from the "From" point to the "To" point. Separation and identification (carking) was verified where a circuit ' entered and exited a tray, contuit, room, or equipment. Separation was also verified at any 1

points of intersection with other raceways.

I B. Confor=ance of the selected equipment to the separation and -

e identification requirements of Section 4 was verified by field inspections and measurements.

i i

t

. . . - - - _ _ _ _. _ -~_ - - - - . .__ .. ._

i

< C. For control boards and panels, the selected sample of modules t (switches, indicators, relays, etc.) and internal wiring was i

physically inspected and traced, respectively, to ensure compliance j with Section 4 criteria.

}

2 l

For each audited item an audit report was completed to either confirm conformance 4

with the criteria or documenting the. discrepancy or discrepancies.

4

!I t

6. RESULTS i

A total sample of 564 Class IE and associated circuits and equipment were i

! field audited. Of this number, 394 were field routed circuits; 170 were

) the electrical equipment noted in Section 2.B; and the audit of 17 circuits, i

2 control board modules, and 1 control board internal wire could not be f

4 completed due to access, incomplete construction or other problems and i

were replaced by alternates. Of the total, 155 field routed circuits

{

and 100 electrical equipment we: found to have ao discrepancies. The I remaining audited items had one or more discrepancy detailed below and in i

Attachment 3 with Attachment 4 providing a summary of discrepancy types for each safeguard and associated channels and category of electrical equipment.

't Attachment 4 provides field results and does not include resolutions or documentation completed prior to the audit. This information is de' tailed-i below and in Attachment 3.

i l Generally, the discrepancies were one of the following:

I 4 A. Separation problem. .For field' routed. circuits it-was predominantly-insufficient distance / barrier between their raceways and a raceway of l .

a redundant channel or insufficient separation inside the' equipment.

where they terminated (i.e., "From" or "To" equipment). Insufficient; i

distance / barrier was also the problem for the other electrical equip-.

ment, where this discrepancy was reported.

A 4

- . _ - _ _ , . . . - . . _ .,__a._.~.w.~._ . _ . . . , ,,.a._.,_. - . _ . _

> B. Wrong circuit / equipment identification or color coding.

C. No identification on ends of circuit or "From-To" equipment.

D. No color coding - In cases where a field routed circuit was being audited, the circuit had no discrepancy other than the "From" or "To" equipment was not color coded.

Referring to Attachments 3 and 4, there were 134 circuits with marking, and I

with marking and separation discrepancies. One hundred four (104) of these were cases with marking (i.e., B, C, or D) discrepancies of the circuit's 3

j "From" or "To" equipment only. The remaining 30 cases, in addition to marking discrepancies of the "From" or "To" equipment also had a separation discrepancy.

In all of the preceding 30 cases, the separation discrepancy was unrelated to and not a result of any marking discrepancy. For marking discrepancies, South Carolina Electric and Gas QC memorandum CGSD-902-QC identified and reco==endei.

corrective action for generic equipment tagging and color coding discrepancits prior to this audit.

In total, 87 cases of circuits separation (A) discrepancies were identified in-cluding the 30 noted above. Of this total, 21 were the same discrepancy (i.e.,

g common separation problem; refer to note 6 of Attachment 3) the preceding 21 and an additional 12 separation discrepancies had been identified and documented for correction prior to this audit. Attachment 3 lists this documentation. Of the remaining 54 separation discrepancies, 21 were in cabinets covered by I

WCAP-6892-A and were also previously documented; and 5 have not yet been con-firmed by engineering as discrepancies. Therefore, 28 cases with category A discrepancies were discovered which apparently have not been previously identified.

These cases did not constitute significant violations of the separation criteria identified in Section 4 of this report.

i b

For the Section 2.B equipment, of the 170 audited items,100 had no discrepancies and 3 could not be audited. Of the remaining 67, there were 55 cases with mark-ing discrepancie; umy , 5 cases of marking and separation discrepancies, and 7 cases of separation only discrepancies. As noted above, the marking problems were previously recognized. Of the 12 separation problems, all but 1 were pre-viously identified and documented. Two (2) of the twelva were in cabinets j covered by WCAP-8892-A. The one remaining separation discrepancy, not previously identified also did not constitute a significant violation of Section 4 criteria.

F. SUSD!ARY AND CONCLUSIONS The audit of Class IE and associated circuits and electrical equipment satis-fled the requirements of the USNRC letter f rom Mr. B. J. Youngblood. The audit results indicate a trend towards two (2) types of deficiencies. The first was a lack of color coding as required by the criteria in Section 4 of this report. The second was of possible separation prablems inside certain Westinghouse supplied panels. As previously noted, however, the lack of color coding of the discrepancies found did not contribute to or re-sult in separation discrepancies. Also note that UCAP-8892-A covers-the I

Westinghouse panels and engineering evaluations of discrepancies related i

i to these panels which was initiated prior to this audit is not yet complete.

The remaining discrepancies were randomly occurring and did not constitute l significant violations of the separation criteria.

l l

The nature of the discrepancies founc indicate that the South Carolina Elec-i tric and Gas separation program generally provided an installation that l

l met the requirements of Section 4 separation criteria. In view of this and l

since the sample selection was random and representative, no qualitative benefit would be gained at this time by an overall expansion of the sample.

I l

i 1

However, the following recommendations are made:

A. The established program of equipment tagging and color coding to comply with the requirements of the Section 4 criteria be completed.

B. Complete the engineering evaluations including those of the Westinghouse cabinets noted above.

C. Correct the discrepancies identified by this audit.

i I

A

Attachment 1 Random Sample Methed 4

I The procedure for selecting a random sample is as follows:

1. Define the population to be inspected (i.e. , total number of items i

in the category).

i

2. Assign each item in the population a unique number of one (1) to l N, where N is the population total.

3. Determine the sample size: .05 x (population)

4. Select the items to be inspected using the Random Sample Tables.

The Random Sample Tables used for this audit are printed from a computer program. Two printouts have been.done, one for a maximum of 1000 population, and one for a maximum population of 10,000. Proceed in an organized manner, by column, skipping over any number beyond the range of the population at hand.

4 i