ML20003E559
| ML20003E559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1981 |
| From: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Jones OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104060221 | |
| Download: ML20003E559 (22) | |
Text
-_
h hff
- p tic
[0 UNITED STATES
[((
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
m eE W ASMmOTON. D. C. 20555
%.,,. */
I4 arch 27, 1981 Docket No. 50-285 s\\*
no
/
Mr.
- d. C. Jones Division Manager, Production
[
M R O 3198I m b m
Operations Ocaba Public Power District
" M y our [/
v9 1623 Harney Street N
U,/
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
_.T
'C
Dear Mr. Jones:
SUSJECT: ENVIR0tNENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT RE: FORT CALHOUN, LICENSE NO. OPR 40
Reference:
Order for Modification of License Concerning the Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment, October 24, 1980.
This letter transmits the prelininary results cf our revied of environmental cualifications of safety-related electrical eouipnent at your facility.
This evaluation was based on your submittals r:.ceived over the past ncnths.
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 30, 1982. In addition, the Order noted that a licensee is obligated to modify or replace inadequate eauipeent prenptly. -
The staff's review of your submittals has resulted in our identifying a nunber of potential equipment deficiencies involving a lack of proper documentation, inadequate justification of assuned environmental conditions following an accident, and/or inadequate envircnmental testing of equipment, such that conformance to the DOR guidelines, as raquired by the Order, cannot be demonstrated. You are requested to review our 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 state ent, sioned under oath or affirmation sup-porting the safe operation of your faciitty, that takes into account the URC staff's preliminary list of deficiencies.
.810406 0 W 9
J
.. The purpose of this statement is to provide the flRC with needed assurance, by the if censee, regarding the continued safety of the facility until you can provide an item-by-item reevaluation in a detailed dccumentad 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 NRC Regional Office.
Include in the LER the actions you have taken for the immediate resolution of tne matter. A copy of any such LER shculd be sent to the Director, Division of Licensing, Office of !uclear Reactor Regulation.
Please submit a copy of your reply to us via telecopy.
Sincerely,
( 3-, 7. "./. ;.
fr
. * " ~ *.
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Evaluation Report cc w/ enclosure:
See next page i
o Omaha Public Power District cc:
Marilyn A. Tebor Director, Criteria and Standards Division LeBocuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Office of Radiation Progrars (ANR-460) 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington, D. C.
20460 Mr. Emmett Rogert U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chairman, Washington County Region VII Soard of Supervisors ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR Blair, Nebraska 68023 324 East lith Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Omaha Public Power District ATTN: Mr. Spencer Stevens Plant Manager Fort Calhoun Plant 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Director, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control Mr. Frank Gibson P. O. Box 94877, State House Station W. Dale Clark Library Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 215 South 15th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Alan H. Kirshen, Esq.
Fellman, Ramsey & Kirshen 1166 Wocdmen Tower Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Mr. Dennis Kelley U.S.N.R.C. Resident Inspector P. O. Box 68 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023 e
Mr. Charles S. Srinkman Manager - Washington Nuclear Operations C-E Power Systems -
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
"S53 Cordell Avenue, Suite A-1 Sethesda, Maryland 20014 8
--n-
PARTIAL REVIEW EQUIPMENT EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FOR OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN DOCKET N0. 50-285 3 STAFF EQUIPMENT EVALUATION The staff evaluation of.the licensee's response included an onsite inspection of selected Class IE equipment and an examination of the licensee's report for completeness and acceptability.
The criteria described in the 00R guidelines and in NUREG-0588, in part, were used as a basis for the staff evaluation of the adequacy of the licensee's qualification program.
The NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement performed (1) a preliminary evaluation of the. licensee's response, documented in a technical evaluation report (TER) and (2) an onsite verification inspection (March 13-14, 1980) of selected safety-related electrical equipment. The low pressure safety injection-system was inspected..The inspection verified proper installation of equip-ment, overall interface integrity, and manufacturers' nameplate data.
The manu-facturer's name and model number from the nameplate data were compared to infor-mation given in the Component Evaluation Work Sheets (CES) of the licensee's report. The site inspection is documented in a report dated March 26, 1980.
No deficiencies were noted.
For this review, the documents referenced above have been factored into the overall staff evaluation.
3.1. Cemaleteness of Safetv-Related Ecuioment In accordance with IEB 79-013, the licensee was directed to (1) establish a list of systems and equipment that are required to mitigate a LOCA and an HELS
' and (2) identify components needad to perform the function of safety-related display information, post-accident sampling and monitoring, and radiation monitoring.
The staff developed a generic master list based upon a review of plant safety analyses and emergency procedures. The. instrumentation selected includes parameters to monitor overall plant performanca as well as to moni or the per-formance of the systems on-the list. The systems list was established en the basis of the functions that must be performed for accident mitigation (without regard to location of equipment relative. to hostile environments).
The list of safety-related systems prolided by the licensee was reviewed against the staff-developed master list.
Based on the licensee's submittal,.the staff has concluded that-the information on safety-related systems included in the submittal is insufficient to verify
~
that those systems.are all tne systems required to achieve or. support:
(1) emergency reactor shutdown, (2) containment isclation, (3) reactor' core ccoling, (4) containment heat removal, (5) ccre residual beat removal, and (6) prevention of'significant ralease of. radioactive material to the environment.
The staff
acknowledges the licensee's effort to include only those safety-related systems located in a potentially harsh environment.
However, this review requires the listing of all safety related systems, both inside and outside potentially harsh environments.
As noted in Appendix D, additional information on core residual heat removal and supporting systems is required to verify the completeness of safety-related systems.
Exceptions to the requirements are discussed in Section 5 of this report.
Display instrumentation which provides information for the reactor operators to aid the-in the safe handling of the plant was not specifically identified by the licensee. A complete list of all display instrumentation mentioned in the LOCA and HELB energency procedures must be provided.
Equipment qualifi-cation information in the form of summary sheets should be provided for all components of the display instrumentaticn exposed to harsh environments.
Instrumentation which is not considered to be safety related but which is men-tiened in the emergency procedure should appear on the list.
For these instru-ments, (1) justification should be provided for not consicering the instrument safety rela.ed and (2) assurance should be providA1 that its subsequent failure will not mislead the operator or aoversely affect the mitigation of the conse-quences of the accident.
The environmental qualification of post-accident samp-ling and menitoring and radiation monitoring equipment is closely related to the review of the TMI Lessons-Learned modifications and will be performed in conjunction with that raview.
The licensee icentified 129 items of equipment which were assessed by the staff.
2.2 Service Cenditions Cc.missicn "emorandum and Order CLI-80-21 requires thaw the COR guidelines and the "Fcr Cc.- e::t" NUREG-0588 are to be used at the criteria fer establishing the adequacy of the safety-related electrical equipment environmental quali-ficatien prcgra..
These documents provide the option of establishin(, a bcunding pressure and temperature condition based on plant-specific analysis identified in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or basId on gueric prc 'iles using the ratheds idantified in these documents.
On this basis, the staff has assumed, unless otherwise noted, that the analysis for developing the environmental envelopes, relative to the temperature, pressure, and the containment spray caustics, has been performed in accordance with the requirements stated above. The staff has reviewed the qualification dccumantation to ensure that the qualification specifications envelope the conditions estab-lished by the licensee.
During this r2 view, the staff assumed that for plants designed and ecuipped with an automatic containment spray system which satisfies the single-failure criterion, the main-steam-line-break (MSLS) environmental conditions a enveloped by the large-break-LCCA environmental conditions.
The staff evaluated the design of the containment spray and found that the system is not subjected to a disabling single-component failure and therefore satisfies the requirements cf Section 4.2.1 of the DOR guidelines.
Equipment sub ergence has also been addressed where the cessibility exists that ficcding of ecuipment may result from HELSs.
d -
~.-
3.3 Temoerature, Pressure and Humidity Conditions Inside Containment The licensee has provided the results of accident analyses as follows:
Max Temp ( F)
Ma:t Press (osig)
Humidity (%)
LOCA 285 57 100 MSLS 401 (Not Provided) 100 The staff has concluded that the minimum temperature profile for equipment quali-fication 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 satur-atica temperature corresponding to the total building pressure (partial pressure cf steam plus partial pressure of air) versus time will provide an acceptable cargin for either a postulated LOCA or MSLS. whichever is controlling, as to
- otential adverse environmental. effects on aquipment.
The licensee's specified temperature (service condition; of 285 F does not satisfy the.above requirement.
A saturation temperature corresponding to the peak profile (305 F peak-temperature at 57 psig) should be used instead. The licensee should update his equipment summary tables to reflect this change.
If nere is any equipment that does not meet the staff position, the licensee ust prcvide either justification that the equipment will perform its intended function under the specified conditions or propose corrective action.
'l The staff notes that for the EEQ review the accidents which were used to evaluate stuintent were LOCAs inside containment.
As stated in Section 3.2 of this report, this plant is equipped with an automatic containment spray system.
~_15* : fcr a-short time'(about two minutes). The licensee should provide the analysis to. verify that the effects of this short-term peak temperature do not affect the environmental cualification of the safety-related equipment which was qualified using LOCA profile.
Temoerature. Pressure. and Hemidity Conditions Outside Containment 3.4 Tne licensee has provided the temperature, pressure, humidity and applicable environ ent associated with an HELB outside containment.
The following areas
~
L cutside containment have been addressed:
(1). ECCS pump rooms (HPSI, LPSI, and containment spray) Rooms 21 and 22 (2) Main steam and main feedwater piping areas (Rcom 81)-
'(3) ' Ventilation areas c:ntaining safety-related eauipment The staff has verified that the parameters identified by the licensee for the MSLE are acceptable.
M M
3.5 Submercence The maximum submergence levels have been established and assessed by the licensee.
Unless otherwise noted, the staff assumed for this review that the methodology employed by the licensee is in accordance with the appropriate criteria as estab-lished by Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21.
The licensee's value for maximum submergence is at the 1000.9 ft level.
Equip-ment below this level has been identified by the licensee, along with the pro-posed corrective action. The licensee identified eight safety-related electrical components as having the potential for becoming submerged after a postulated event.
The licensee stated that the equipment required to function under submerged concitions has been qualified by test or analysis or by cesign modifications using qualified sealer material. Therefore, conditioned only on the satis-factory resolution and review of the supporting documentation discussed in Section 4 of this report, the staff concludes that the licensee's response satisfies the Commission requirements and is acceptable.
3.6 Chemical Spray The licensee's FSAR value for the chemical concentration is 1700 ppm boric acid solution.
The licensee identified that some of the equipment was tested using different spray solutions ranging between 1000 ppm and 3000 ppm boric acid.
Based on a review of the information submitted by the licensee, the staff concludes that the justification provided in using less severe solutions is incomplete in part.
The staff requires that the licensee amend his. response and justify the qualification adequacy of all the equipment that was subjected to less severe caustic sprays expected at the plant site. The staff will review the licensee's response when it is submitted and discuss the resolution in a supplemental report.
37 ACICU Section 7 of the 00R guidelines does not require a qualified life to be estab-iished for all safety-related electrical equipment.
However, the following actions are required:
(1) Make a detailed ccmpariscn cf existing equipment and the materials identi-fied in Appendix C of the COR guidelines.
The first supplement to IEB-79-01B requires licensees to utilize the table in Appendix C and iden-L tify any additional materials as the result of their effort.
(2) Establish an ongoing progran to review surveillance and maintenance records to identify potential age related degradations.
(3) Establish component maintenance -and replacemert schedules which include considerations of aging characteristics of the installed components.
The licensee identified a'nu-ber of equipment items for wnich a specified cuali-
'ied life ecs Established (fcr examples, 5 years,15 years, or 40 years). In its assessment of these submittals, the staff did net review the. adequacy of t i_-
the methodology ner the basis used to arrive at these values; the staff has assumed that tne established values are based on state-of-the-art technology and are acceptable.
For this review, however, the staff requires that the licensee submit supple-mental information to verify and identify the degree of conformance to the above requirements.
The response should include all the equipment identified as re-quired to maintain functional operability in harsh environments.
The licensee indicated that this phase of the respcnse is cutstanding and that the review is in progress.
The staff will review the licensee's response when it is submitted and ciscuss its evaluation in a supplemental report.
3.8 Radiatien (Inside and Outside Containment)
The licensee has provided values for the radiation levels postulated to exist following a LOCA.
The application and methodology employed to determine these values were presented to the licensee as part of the NRC staff criteria cen-tained in tne CCR guidelines, in NUREG-0588, and in the guidance providea in IES-79-01S, Surmlement 2.
Therefore, for this review, the staff has assumed that, unless otnerwise noted, the values provided have been determined in accor-dance with the crescribed criteria.
The staff review determined that the values to which ecuiprent was qualified enveloped the recuirements identified by the licensee.
The value recuired by the licensee inside containment is an integrated cose of 3 x 106 rads.
~his value dces not envelope the DDR guideline requirements (4 x 107 rads) anc therefore is not acceptable.
The racii.icn service condition previded by the licensee is icwer than provided in the guidelines for ga.ma and beta radia-icn.
The licensee is requested to either ; evide justificatica for using,ne 1:ver service condition or use the guidelines for both gam.a and teta radiatica.
If the fcrcer option is cnosen, then the analysis--including the basis, asst.mptions, and a sample calculatien--should be provided.
A required value outside containment of 4 x 108 rads has been used by the licensee to specify limiting radiation levels within the icw-and high pressure safety injecticn ECCS system pump rooms of the auxiliary cuilding (Roca 13).
This value appears to censicer the radiation levels influe,ced by the source term methodeicgy associated with post-LOCA recirculation fluid lines and is therefore acceptable.
4 QUALIFICATIC'? 0F _ EQUIPMENT
-.The folicwing subsections present the staff's assessment, cased on the licensee's submittal, of tne qualificatica status of safety-related electrical equip ent.
The staff has separated-the safety-related equipment-into three categories:
(1) equipment requiring immediate corrective action, (2) e:uipment requiring additicnal qualification information and/or corrective action, and (3) ecuip-ment censicerec acceptable if the staff's concern identifisc in Section 3.7 is satisfactorily resolved. _
I
In its assessment of the licensee's submittal, the NRC staff did not review the methodology employed to determine the values established by the licensee.
However, in reviewing the data sheets, the staff made a determination as to the stated conditions presented by the licensee. Additionally, the staff has not completed its review of supporting documentation referenced by the licen-see ('
' example, test reports).
It is expected that when the review of test repor > is complete, the environmental qualification data bank established by the s aff will provide the means to cross reference each supporting document to the referencing licensee.
If supporting documents are found to be unacceptable, the licensee will be required to take additional corrective actions to either establish qualifica-tien or replace the item (s) of concern.
This effort will begin in early 1951.
An appendix for each subsection of this report provides a list of equipment for which additional inforcaticn and/or corrective action is required.
Where ac;ropriate, a reference is provided in the appendices to identify deficiencies.
It should be noted, as in the Cocmission Memorandum and Order, that the deficien-cies identified do not necessarily mean that equipment is unqualified.
- However, they are cause for concern and may require further case-by-case evaluation.
4.1 Ecuicment Recuirina Irmediate Corrective Action
.;eliberately left Diank.
- 4. 2 Ecuictent Recuirinc Additiensi Information and/or Corrective Actica Appendix B identifies equip Ent'in this category, includin; a tabulation of
' deficiencies.
The deficiencies are noted by a letter relating to the legend (identified below), indicating that the information provided is not sufficient for the qualification parameter er condition.
Legend R
- radiation T
- temperature QT qualification time ET - required time p
pressure H
- humidit; CS - chemical spray
_g.
--......: :... -. ~.. au
.=
1 4
A
- material-aging evaluation; replacement schedule; ongoing equipment surveillance S
- submergence M
- margin I
- HELB evaluation outside containment not completed QM qualification method RPN - equipment relocation or replacement; adequate schedule not provided EXN - exempted equipment justification inadequate SEN - separate-effects qualification justification inadequate QI qualification information being developed RPS - equipment relocation or replacement schedule provided As noted in Section 4, these deficiencies do not necessarily mean that the equip-ment is Jnqualified.
However, the deficiencies are cause for concern and require further case-by-case evaluation. 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 established and verified by the licensee:
(1) Equipment does not perform essential safety functions in the harsh environ-ment, and equipment failure in the harsh environment will not impact safety-related functions or mislead an operator.
(2a) Equipment performs its function before its exposure to the harv anviron-ment, and the adequacy for the time margin provided is adequate,y justified, and (2b) Subsequent failure of the equipment as a result of the harsh environment does not degrade other safety functions or mislead the operator.
(3) The safety-related function can be accomplished by some other designated equipment that has been adequately qualified and satisfies the single-failure criterion.
(4) Equipment will not be subjected to a harsh environment as a result of the postulated accident.
The licensee is, therefore, required M supplement the information presented by providing resolutions to the defs
'cies identified; these resoluticns should include a description of the correct
- m. tion, schedules for its completion (as applicable), and so forth. The st 11 review the licensee's response, when.it is submitted, and discuss the rt tion in a supplemental report.
It should be noted that in cases where testing is being cenducted, a condition-may arise vehich 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 the proposed corrective action, on a timely
-basis, to ensure that qualification can be established by June 30, 1982.
4.3 Eauiccent Considered Acceotable or Conditionally Acceotable-Eased on the staff review of the licensee's submittal, the staff identified the equi:: ment " Acpsndix C as (1) acceptable on the basis. hat the qualifi-cation prc; ram adequately enveloped the specific anviron ental plant parameters,.
or (2) conditionally acceptable subject to the satisfactory resolutier, cf the staff ccacern icentified in Sectien 3.7. u
For.the equipcent identified as conditionally acceptable, the staff determined that the licensee did not clearly (1). state that an equipment material evaluation was concucted to ensure that no known materials susceptible to degradation because of aging have been
- used, (2) establisn an ongoing program to review the plant surveillance and main-tenance records in order to identify equipment degradation which may be age related, and/or (3) propose a maintenance program and replacement schedule for equipment identi-fied in item 1 or equipment that is qualified for less than the life trf the plant.
-ne !icensee #s, therefore, required to supplement the information presented
'cr equipment-in this category before full acceptance of tnis equipment can be esta:11shed.
The staff will review the licensee's response when it is suomitted and discuss the resolution in a supplemental report.
5 CE? ERRED REQUIREMENTS 1
- EE 73-013, Supolement 3 has relaxed the time constraints for the submissica f tre information associated with cold shutdown equipment and TMI lessons-
- earned modifications.
The staff has required that this information be provided
- y Febr'uary 1,1951. The staff will provide a supplementc1 safety evaluation at:ressing these concerns.
d r
.g.
APPENDIX B Equipment Requiring Additional Information and/or Corrective Action (Category 4.2)
LEGEND:
Designation for Deficiency R
Radiation T-Temperature QT - Qualification time -
RT - Required time P-Pressure H-Humidity CS - Chemical spray A - Material aging evaluation, replacement schedule, ongoing equipment surveillance 5-Submergence M-Margin
'I - HELB evaluation outsice containment not completed
'QM - Qualification method RPN - Equipment relocation or replacement, adequate. schedule not provided EXN - Exempted equipment justification inadequate sSEN - Separate effects qualification justification inad' equate QI - Qualification information being developed RPS - Ecuipment relocationuor replacement schedule provided Item Equipment Manufacturer Model Deficiency C-27 LSolenoid Valve Valcor RPN,QM-S C-28
, Solenoid Valve ASCO.
NP8320A185E RPN,QM-S R1-1 Solenoid Valve' ASCO HTX831429 T,P,EXN,R-M R1-2 Limit Switch Fisher
_304 T,P,EXN,R-M Governor Co.
RS-1 Motor Operator Limitorque
'SMB-003 T,P,R,EXN-S-1 Limit Switch' Fisher Control 304 T-M,EXN
~
5-2 5olenoic Operator.
ASCO
-WPET-831429 QM-
.B-1
-. - ~
APPENDIX B (Continued)
,i.
Item Equipment Manufacturer Model Deficiency I-26 Solenoid Valve-ASCO WPHT-831429 QM,R-M I-15.
Limit Switch Fisher 304 R-M Governor Co.
I-27 Solenoid Valve
-ASCO WPHT-831429 R-M I-7 Limit Swi*.ch Fisher 304 R-M Governor Co.
R1-3 Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX831429 R-M,T,P,QM-EXh j
- R1-4 Unit Switch Fisher 304 R-M,T,P,QM-EXN Governor Co.
- 2-1 Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX831429 R-M,T,P,QM-EXN
?.2-2 Limit Switch Fisher 204 R-M,T,P,QM-EXN Governor Co.
R4-1 Motor Allis 030 R-M,T,P,QM-EXN 4
Chalmers Co.
i
- -2.
Solenoid Valve ASCO HTXS31429 T,P.QM-EXN R4-3 Limit Switch Microswitch EZE6 T,P,0M-EXN,R-M F4 Limit Switch Fisher 304 R-M,T,P,QM-EXN Governor Co.
5-8' Level Transmitter GE/MAC 555 T,P
' S -4 Meter /HVAC Trane SCMZ-304 QM-T,P-S-5 Fan Motor.
ILG Industries QM,T,P l
R3'-2 Limit Switch '
Fisher 304 QM-EXN,P,T I
Governor Co.
C-16
. Temperature Sensor Alison.
ASL-120(132)
QM Control Inc.
L
. Temperature Sensor-Alison ASL-72(192)
QM Control Inc.
l l.
B-2 l
L.
APPENDIX 8 (Continued)
Item Equipment Manufacturer Model Deficiency C-18 Temperature Sensor Alison AS L-60-S S QM Control Inc.
R2-3 Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX831429 T,P,QM-EXN R2 Limit Switch Fisher 304 T,P,QM-EXN Governor Co.
R4-5 Solenoid Valve ASCO LS8316C44 R-M,P,T,QM-EXN R4-6 Limit Switch Hcneywell OPAR30 P,T,QM-EXN R3-1 Solenoid Valve ASCO WPHT831429 P,T,QM-EXN I-8 Limit Switch NAMCO 01200G R-M I-9 Limit Switch NAMCO D1200G R-M R2-5 Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX(HT)
P,T,QM-EXN R2-6 Limit Switch Fisner 304 P,T,QM-EXN Governor Co.
R2-9 Limit Switch Fisner 545 P, T, Qf'- EXN Gcvernor Co.
R4-7
' Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX-531429 P,T,QM-EXN R4-8' Limit Switch Fisher 304 P,T,QM-EXN Governor Co.
t l'
C-6 Cable Splices T-M i
C-0 Flow Transmitter Foxcoro E130H R,5-SEN I-3G Solenoid Valve
?.SCO HTX831429
' R-M l
I-13 Limit Switch NAMCO D2400X R-M l
Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX831429 R-M I-2
[
I-14 Limit Switch Microswitch OP-AR7112 R-M I
-I-15 Solenoid Valve ASCO-
.HT8321A5 R-QM l
i I-11.
' N A's C;-
01200G R
l E-3 1
j APPENDIX B (Continued)
Item Equipment Manufacturer Model Deficiency I-20 Solenoid Valve ASCO LB8316C44 R,QM I-25 Solenoid Valve ASCO HT8321A5 R,QM I-6 Limit Switch Microswitch 51ML1 R-M I-18 Solenoid Valve-ASCO LB9316C44 R,QM I-5 Limit Switch Microswitch 51ML1 R-M R1 Mctor Operator Limitorque SMS-000 T,P,QM-EXN R1-14 Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX831429 T,P,QM-EXN R1-15 Limit Switch NAMCO D2400X T,P,QM-EXN,R-M R7-1 Solenoid-Valve ASCO HTX 7,P,QM-EXN,R-M R7-2 Limit Switch NAMCO D1200C T,P,QM-EXN,R-M R4-9 Solencid-Valve ASCO HTX T,P,QM-EVA F.4-10 Limit Switch Fisher 20:
T,P,QM-EXN Governor Co.
I-24 Solenoid Valve ASCO L55316C44 R-QM I-12 Limit Switch NAMCO D1200G R
I-21 Scienoid Valve ASCO LS8316C44 R-Qfi I-10 Limit Switch NAMCO D12003 R
Ri-5 Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX831429 T,P,QM-EXN R1-6 Lin,it Switch Fisher 204-T,P,QM-EXN Governor Co.
R1-12 Motor Operator Limitorque SMS-2 T,?,QM-EXN R1-13 Position. Switch Fisher 546 T,P,QM-EXN,R-M Governor Co.
R2-7
' Solenoid Valve-ASCO.
HTX831429 T,P,QM-EXN
.B-4
^
APPENDIX B (Continued)
Item Equipment Manufacturer Model Deficiency R2-8 Limit Switch Fisher 304 T,P,QM-EXN Governor Co.
R4-11 Solenoid Valve ASCO HTX T,P,QM-EXN R4-12 Limit Switch Fisher 304 T,P,QM-EXN Governor Co.
i I-29 Solenoid Valve ASCO WPHT831429 R-M
-I-17 Limit Switch Fisher 304 R-M
}_
Governor Co.
I-28 Solenoid Valve ASCO WPHT831429 R-M I-16 Limit Switch Fisher 304 R-M Governor Co.
R4-13 Sole.,oid Valve ASCO HTX831429 T,P,QM-EXN I
R4-14 Limit Switch Microswitch BEZ6-2RQ2 T,P,QM-EXN,R-M C-21 Pressure Transmitter Foxboro E11GM SEN 0-23 Heaters E. I.
Cartridge R,P,QM i
Wiegard Co.
C-22 Pressure Transmitter' Foxboro-E11GM SEN(R)
'C-20.
Pressure Transmitter Foxboro E11GM SEN(R)
C-35 ~
Level Transmitter Foxboro E13DM,DH SER-R R3-3
-Solenoid Valve ASCO LB8320A26
. P,T,QM-EXN,R-M R3-4 Li,mit Switch N/.MCO '
D2400X P,T,QM-EXN,R-M LR1-7 Solenoid Valve ASCO HT831479 P,T,QM-EXN R1-8' Limit Switch
' Fisher 304-P,T,QM-EXN,R-M Governor Co.
R1-9 Solencid Valve ASCO HT831429
. P,T,QM-EXN R1-10 Limit Switch Fisher
. 304 P,T,QM-EXN,R-M Governcr Co.
B-5
,m---,
w -,,
+-v-
.m
- ~.
t
+
M APPENDIX B (Continued) 4 4
Ite::t Equipment Manufacturer Mocel Deficiency 7
C-2SA Sciencic Valve ASCO
' NPS320A185 RPN t
C-29 Solencic Valve ASCO 3
i 1
4 I
1 t.
1 i'
- E f
i e
i t
t t
i 4
1 3
i J
k F
- j..
f.-
P k
6 l'.
P h
i
- 1 e w
-, set w r w w-e
-ve,,
ww---o-,
r w a
r+~~+
,r----r
-n,
-e e,-w.+
--me,,m-ww
-v ewov-w-
,w-,
r-e--
-ww-
- -.. ~...
APPENDIX C Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable (Category 4.3)
LEGEND:
Designation for Deficiency R-Radiation T-Temperature QT - Qualification time RT - Required time
-P-Pressure
-H - Humidity CS - Chemical spray A-Material aging evaluation, replacement schedule, ongoing equipment surveillance S-Submergence M-Margin I-HELS evaluation outside containment not completed QM - Qualification method RPN - Equipment ' relocation or replacement, adequate schedule not provided EXN - Exempted equipment justification inadequate SEN
_ Separate effects qualification justification inadequate QI - Qualification information being developed EPS - Equipment relocation or replacement schedule provided Item Equipment Manufacturer Model Deficiency C-19 Fan Moter Reliance 60-30-1200 A
C-32 Fan Motor Reliance
- 4830-20-M:4 A
I-4 Motor GE 5K815526A25
- I-22 Solenoid Valve ASCO LB8316C44 I-22 Solenoid Valve ASCO LB8316C44 C Electrical
-Conax Penetrations C-1
. - ~
- =.:- ;:..:.
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Item Equipment Manufacturer Model Deficiency C-4 Adhesive Sealant Dow-Corning RTV-3144 A
C-36 Cable Splices Amp & Amer.
AMP-CAT-321280 Pamcor C-34 Cable Splices Feeder Cables
-C-37 Vent Fan Splices Dow-Corning RTV-31c5 C-7 Terminal Blocks States M-25014(16)
(18)
C-8 Terminal Boxes Hoffman C-9 Cable Cerro-Wire A
& Cable-C-10 Cable Cerro-Wire A
& Cable C-11 Cable Cerro'Uire A
& Cable C-12 Cable-Cerro-Wire A
& Cable C-13 Cable Anaconda Wire Triplexed A
I-3 Motor GE SK815524A51 C-14 Motor Operator
'imitorque SMB-0 A
C-15 Motor Operator timitorque SMB-0 A
I-1 Motor GE-SK818837A38 C-1 Motor Operated Valve
.Limitorque SMB-0 A
C-2 Motor Operated Valve Limitorque SMB-3 A
S-12 Solenoid Valve Valcor A
5-13 Limit Switch Fisher 304 Controls 11 Scianoid vaive ASCO LES316C36 C-2
-.. >- -. w ~. - - - -. -.- ~.. -.
. ~ -..
~ -..
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Item Equipment Manufacturer Mcdel Deficiency S-20 Motor Operator Limitorque SM3-000 A
5-14 Solenoid Valve ASCO WPHT831429 S-15 Limit Switch Fisher 304 Gcvernor Co.
5-16 "o Or Operated Valve Limitorque SM3 A
S-9 M :cr' Operated Valve Li-itorque SMS S-5 Solenoid Valve ASCC HTX
'S-7 Scienoid Valve ASCC HT3320A8 S-16 Motor Operated Valve Lim:crque SM3 A
S-10 Lirit Switch Fister 3C4 Gcvernor Co.
I
^3
w -..
- = = - -
APPENDIX D l
Safety-Related Systems List FUNCTION SYSTEM Emergency Reactor Shutdown Reactor Coolant Reactor Protection Safeguards Actuation Chemical and Volume Control I
Containment Isolation Chemical and Volume Control Main Stecm Feedwater and Blowdown Containment Spray Demineralized Water System Containment Hydrogen Furge Instrument Air High Pressure Safety Injection Low Pressure Safety I-jaction Nitrogen Supply Plant Air Sampling Raw Water
. Waste Disposal Auxiliary Feedwater Reactor Core Cooling High Pressure Injection Lcw Pressure Injection Safety Injection Tanks Centainment Heat Removal Containment Spray Containment HVAC Core Residaal Heat Removal 2 Low Pressure' Injection (Part of Shutdown Cooling)
Power Operated Relief Valves Main Feedwater Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Ccmponent Cooling Water Raw Water line haC staff recognized that there are differences in ncmenclature of systems because-of plant vintage and engineering design: consequently, scme systems.
cerforming identical or similar functions may. have dif'erent names.
In those instances it was necessary to verify the system (s) function with the es;:ns'ble IE regicnal reviewer ant /cr the licensae.
CAdditicnal systems-information needed-for this function.
D-1
_ -....... _.. ~
APPENDIX 0 (Continued)
FUNCTION SYSTEM l
Prevention cf Significant Containment Hydrogen Purge Release of. Radioactive Sampling Material to Environment Radiation Monitoring Post Accident Sampling and Monitoring Containment Spray (Iodine Removal) 2 Supporting Systems Control Roco Ventilation C-E
_._,.._a
_ a,
,