ML20004D117
| ML20004D117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004D113 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106080406 | |
| Download: ML20004D117 (31) | |
Text
"
[
i e
a e
a O
Safety Evaluation Report By the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Equipment Qualification Branch For Commonwealth Edison Co.
Zion Nuclear Power Station Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-295 Environmental Qualifi:ation of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment 3
4 l
- oc oso9g
i Cont 7nts 1.0 I n t r o du c t i on.......................
1 2.0 Background........................
1 4
2.1 Purpose.....
2.2 Scope........................
4 3.0 S t a f f Evaluat i on.....................
4 3.1 Completeness of Saf sty-Related Equipment.......
5 3.2 Service Conditions.................
6 3.3 Temperature, Pressure, and Humidity Conditions Inside Containment.....................
7 3.4 Temperature, Pressure and Humidity Conditions Outside Containment.....................
7 3.5 submergence.....................
8 3.6 Chemical Sprev....................?
3.7 Aging......
9 3.8 Radiation (Inside and Outside Containment).
10 11 4.0 Qualification of Equipment.
4.1 Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action... 12 4.2 Equipment Requiring Additional Information And/Or 13 Corrective Action..................
4.3 Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally 15 Acceptable......................
16 5.0 Def erred Requi rements................
16 6.0 Conclusions.....................
s s
Contents (Continued)
Appendix A - List of Equipment in Section 4.1, Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action.
... A-1 Appendix B - List of Equipment in Section 4.2, Equipment Requiring Additional Information And/Or Corrective Action............... B-1 Appendix C - List of Equipment in Section 4.3, Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable................... C-1 Appendix D - Plant Safety-Related Systems and Display Instrumentation................ D-1 I
I' I
t i
i
~
~
..~.
=
n 1
l SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION BRANCH FOR COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
ZION NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-295 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
General Design Criteria 1 and 4 specify that safety-related electrical equipment in nuclear facilities must be capable of performing their safety-related function under all normal, abnormal and accident conditions.
The NRC staff has required that all licensees of operating reactors evaluate the qualification of their safety-related electrical equipment which is located in a harsh environment.
2.0 BACKGROUND
In 1977, the NRC staff instituted the systematic evaluation program (SEP) to determine the extent to which the licensing basis for the older operating nuclear plants complies with current licensing criteria. Topic III-12 of this program relates to the environmental qualification of safety-related equipment.
In December 1977, the NRC issued a generic letter to all SEP plant licensees requesting that they review the adequacy of existing equipment qualification documentation. NRC review of Licensee responses led to the preparation of NUREG-0458, an interim NRC assessment of the environmental qualification of electrical equipment.
On February 8, 1979, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) issued to all licensees of operating plants except those included in the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) IE Bulletin 79-01, " Environmental Qualification of 4
1
i Class IE Equipment." This bulletin, together with IE Circular 78-08 issued on May 31, 1978, required the Licensees to perform reviews to assess the adequacy of their environmental qualification program.
On November 13,1979 the 00R (Division of Operating Reactors) "Guideli nes for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of class IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors" were prepared to form the basis for reviewing equipment in all operating plants.
In October 1979, the NRC contracted with Franklin Research Center (FRC) for assistance in the detailed review of the SEP equipment environmental qualification and prepare the technical evaluation reports (TERs).
In February 1980, the NRC decided to include Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and Zion Units 1 and 2 in the SEP program for the purpose of equipment environmental qualification review.
Also in February 1980, the NRC staff met with personnel f rom FRC and representatives of the SEP group in an open session at NRC headquarters to review the program in relation to the DDR guidelines.
On May 23,1980, the Commissioners issued Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21, which states that the DOR guidelines and NUREG-0588 set the requirements that Licensees and applicants must meet regarding the environmental quali-fication of safety-related ele:trical equipment to satisfy 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC)-4.
This order required the staff to complete 2
safety evaluation reports (SERs) for all operating plants by February 1,1981.
In addition this Order requires that all icensees must have qualified safety-related electrical equipment installed in their plants by June 30, 1982.
Supplements to IEB 79-018 were issued for further clarification and definition of the staff's needs. These suppplements were issued on February 29, September 30, and October 24, 1980.
In addition, the staff issued orders dated August 29, 1980 (amendeo in -
September 1980) and October 24, 1980 to aLL Licensees. The August order required that the Licensees provide a report, by November 1,1980, documenting the qualification of safety-related electrical equipment. The October order required the establishment of a central file location for the maintenance of all equipment-qualification records. The central file was mandated to be established by December 1, 1980. The order also required that all safety-related electrical equipment be qualified by June 30, 1982.
In a letter dated March 5,1980, the Zion licensee, Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) was formally asked to address the environmental qualification of safety-related equipment for the Zion Station.
In response to this request, CECO subnitted information which was transmitted by a letter dated May 2, 1980.
On June 6,1980, CECO presented a revised submittal, updated with the latest available information pertaining to equipment qualification. CECO submitted additional information on September 24, October 1, October 20, and October 31, 1980.
3
U-l 4
2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this safety evaluation report (SER) is to identify equipment whose qualification program does not provide suf ficient assurance that the equipment is capable of providing the design function in the hostile environ-The staf f position relating to any identified deficiencies is provided ments.
in this report.
2.2 SCOPE function to The scope of this report includes that equipment which must (LOCA) or a mitigate the consequences of Loss-of-Coolant Accident High-Energy-Line Break (HELB) inside or outside containment, and whose environment would be adversely af fected by that accident.
3.0 ST AFF EV ALU ATION The staf f's evaluation of the licensee's responses was accompanied by performing an on-site inspection of selected Class IE equipment and by examining the licensee's report for completeness and accept-The criteria described in the 00R Guidelines and NUREG-0588, iLity.
- in part, were used as a basis for the staff's evaluation of the adequacy j
of the Licensee qualification program.
During the week of June 2,1980, NRC and FRC representatives visited the identified Zion plant site, inspected safety-related systems and equipment, and tabulated safety-related components through discussions with plant personnel, and conducted a general review of CECO's submittal of May 2,1980.
The inspection spot checked proper installation of accessible equipment, and manufacturers nameplate data. The manufacturer and model number 4
1
O s
f rom the nameplate data were compared to information given in the Licensee's submittal.
The following safety evaluation incorporates the CECO submittal and the (TER).
Franklin Research Center technical evaluation report 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 lists of safety related systems and display instrumentation were developed f rom a review of plant safety analyses and emergency procedures. The display instrumentation selected includes parameters to monitor overall plant performance as well as to conitor performance of the systems on the list. The systems list was established on the basis of the functions that must be performed for mitigation of the consequences of a LOCA or HELB without regard to location of equipment relative to a potentially hostile environment.
The staf f has determined and verified that the systems considered by (1 ) emergency reactor the licensee are those required to achieve or support:
shutdown, (2) containment isolation, (3) reactor core cooling, (4) con-tainment heat removal, (5) core residual heat removal, and (6) prevention The j
of significant release of radioactive material to the environment.
staff concludes that the systems identified by the licensee are accept-The systems and instrumentation list is contained in Appendix 0.
able.
i The licensee submitted an exterisive list of safety related electrical This list was evaluated and identical components within equipment.
5
l a plant area exposed to the same environment were grouped; 96 item types of equipment were identified and assessed by the staff. Items with exceptions are discussed in section 5.0 of this report.
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 licensee's FSAR or based on generic profiles using the methods identified in these documents.
On this basis the staf f has assumed, unless otherwise noted, that the analysis for developing the environmental envelopes for Zion 1 relative to the temperature, pressure, and the containment spray caustics, has been performed in accordance with the above stated requirements.
For this review the staff reviewed the qualification documentation to ensure that the qualification specifications envelope the conditions established by the licensee. The staff assumed that for plants, designed and equipped with an automatic containment spray system, which satisfies the single failure riterion, the main steam line break environmental conditions are enveloped by the large break LOCA environmental conditions. The staff assumed and requires that the licensee verify, that the containment spray system is not subjected to a disabling single comaonent f ailure and therefore satisfies the DOR Guideline requirements of Section 4.2.1.
j Equipment submergence has also been addressed where the possibility exists i
that flooding of equipment may result from high energy line breaks (HELB).
6
\\
3.3 TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE, AND HUMIDITY CONDITIONS INSIDE CONTAINMENT The Licensee has provided the results of accident analyses as follows:
Max. Temp.
(*F)
Max. Press. (psig)
Humidity LOCA 271 47 100%
MSLB (Not provided)
The staff 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 acceptable margin for either a postulated LOCA or MSLB, whichever is controlling as to potential adverse environmental effects on equipment.
The Licensee's specified temperature (service condition) of 271* F does not satisfy the above requirement. A saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure profile (2958F peak temperature at 47 psig) should be used instead. The licensee should update his equipment summary tables to reflect this change. If there is any equipment that does not meet the staff position, the licensee must provide either justification that the equipment will perform its intended function under the specified conditions or propose corrective action.
3.4 TFMpER ATURE, PRESSURE AND HUMIDITY CONDITIONS OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT The Lic-nsee has provided the temperature pressure, humidity and applicable environmental values associated with a HEL8 outside containment in the following plant areas:
7
I 1.
Upper Safety Valye Room 2.
Lower Safety Valve Room 3.
Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Tunnel 4.
Tendon Tunnel 5.
Aux. building (elev. 579 feet) 6.
Aux. building (elev. 592 feet) 7.
Seal water heat exchanger rooms.
8.
Pipe tunnels and penetration areas 9.
Centrifugal charging pump rooms 10.
RHR heat exchanger rooms 11.
Boric acid evaporator and RAD waste rooms The staff has verified that the parameters identified by the licensee for the MSLB are acceptable.
3.5 SUBME RGENCE The maximum submergence levels have been established and assessed by the licensee. The staff assumed for this review, unless, otherwise noted, that the methodology employed by the licensee is in accordance with the appropriate criteria as established by the Commission Memor-andum and Order (CLI-80-21), dated May 23,1980. The licensee's value for maximum submergence is 3.5 feet (elev. 581.5 feet).
The licensee has identified 4 equipment item models below this level.
The staff concurs with the Licensee's position as presented in the TER, 8
(1 ) operation is not required post LOCA and is therefore exempt from qualification, one item, and (2) failure due to submergence does not result in degradation of the capability to attain safe shutdown, one item. Based on the TER the staff has determined that qualification is required for two items; interim justification for continued operation has been provided by the licensee.
The licensee should provide an assessment of the f ailure modes associated with the submergence of equipment. Assurance should also be provided that the subsequent f ailure of this equipment will not adversely af fect any other safety functions or mislead an operator. Additionally, the licensee should discuss operating time across the spectrum of events in relation to the time of submergence. If the results of the licensee's assessment are acceptable, then the equipment may be exempt from the submergence parameter of qualification.
3.6 Chemical Spray The licensee's FSAR value for the chemical concentration is 2500-3000 PPM boric acid solution corresponding to approximately 1.2 volume percent used by the vendors for qualification. testing.
3.7 Aging The DOR Guidelines, section 7, does not require a qualified life to be established for all safety related electrical equipment, however the following actions are required:
9
1.
Detailed comparison of existing equipment to the materials identifed in Appendix C of the D0R guidelines. The first supplement to IEB-79-018 requires the licensees to utilize the table and identify any additional materials as a result of their effort.
2.
Establish an ongoing program to review surveillance and maintenance records to identify potential age related degradations.
3.
Establish component maintenance and replacement schedules which include considerations of aging characteristics of the installed components.
For this review the staf f requires that the licensee submit supplemental j
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 functional operability in harsh environments.
)
The staff will review the licensee's response, when submitted, and report its evaluatier. in a supplemental report.
3.8 RADI ATION (INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT)
The licensee has provided values for radiation levels postulated to exist following a LOCA event. The application and methodology employed to determine these values have been presented to the lice isee as part of the NRC staff criteria contained in the DOR Guidelines, NUREG-0588 and the guidance provided in IEB-79-018, supplement 2.
The value required by the 10 l
r
8 Licensee inside containment is an integrated dose of 1 x 10 R AD S.
1 i
This value envelopes the DOR Guideline requirements and is therefore 1
7 acceptable. A required value outside containment of 2 x 10 RADS has been used by the licensee to specify limiting radiation levels within the centrifugal charging pump rooms of the auxiliary building. This value appears to consider the radiation levels influenced by the source term methodology associated with Post-LOCA recirculation fluid lines and is there-fore acceptable.
4.0 QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT The following subsections are the staff's assessment, based on the licensee's submittal, and the Franklin TER of the qualification status of safety-related ele trical equipment.
The staff has separated the safety-related equipment into three categories (1 ) equipment requiring immediate corrective action, (2) equipment requiring additional qualification information and/or corrective action, and (3) equip-ment considered acceptable conditioned only on the satisfactory resolution of the staf f's concern identified in Section 3.7.
The NRC staff in its assessment of the licensee's submittal and the TER did not review the methodology employed to determine the values estab-lished by the licensee. However, in reviewing the TER a determination was made by the staff as to the stated conditions presented by the licensee. Additionally, the detailed review of supporting documentation referenced by the licensee (e.g., test reports) has been completed by FR C.
11
The environmental qualification data bank to be established by the staff will provide the means to cross reference each supporting docu-ment to the referencing licensee.
Where supporting documents were found to be unacceptable, the Licensee wiLL be required to take additional corrective actions to either establish qualification or replace the item (s) of concern. An appendix for each subsection is attached which provides a list of equip-ment which requires additional information and/or corrective action.
Where appropriate, a reference is provided in the appendices to identify deficiencies. It should be noted, as in the 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 Appendix A identifies equipment (if any) in this category. The Licensee was requested to perform a review of the f acility's saf ety-related electrical equipment. The Licensee's review of this equipment has not identified any equipment requiring immediate corrective action and therefore no Licensee event reports were submitted. In addition the staff, in this review, has not identified any safety-related electrical equipment which is known not to be able to perform its intended safety function during the time period in which it is required to operate.
12
_y_,__
4.2 EQUIPMENT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/0R CORRECTIVE ACTION Appendix B identifies equipment in this category including the tabulation of their deficiencies. The deficiencies are noted by a letter relating to the legend, identified below, including that insufficient information has been provided for the qualifiestion parameter or condition.
R - Radiation T - Temperature GT - Qualification Time RT - Required Time P - Pressure H - Humidity CS - Chemical Spray Material Aging Evaluation, Replacement Schedule, Ongoing Equipment 4
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 J ustification Inadequate SEN - Separate Ef fects Qualification Justification Inadequate QI - Qualification Information Being Developed RPS - Equipment Relocation or Replacement Schedule Provided.
j 13
J As noted in Section 4.0, these deficiencies do not necessarily mean that the equipment is unqualified. However, they are cause for concern and require further case-by-case evaluations. The staff has determined that an acceptable basis to exempt equipment from qualification, in whole or part, can be established provided the following can be estab-lished and verified by the licensee:
(1)
Equipment does not provide essential safety functions in the harsh environment and failure of it in the harsh environment will not impact safety related functions or mislead an operator.
(2a) Equipment performs its function prior to its exposure to the harsh environment and the adequacy for the time margin provided is adequately justified, and (2b) Subsequent f ailure 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 criteria.
(4)
Equipmer.t 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 deficiencies identified which should include a description of the corrective action and schedules for its completion (as applicable), etc. The stafi wiLL review th'e licensee's response, when submitted, and report on the resolution in a supplemental report.
14
It should be noted that where testing is presently being conducted, a condition may arise which results in a determination by the licensee that the equipment does not satisfy the qualification test requirements.
For that equipment the licensee will be required to provide their proposed corrective action, on a timely basis, to assure that qualifi-catich gan be established by J une 30, 1982, 4.3 EQUIPMENT CONSIDERnD ACCEPTABLE OR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE Based on the staff's review of the licensee's submittal and the TER the staff identified the equipment in Appendix C as (1) a ceptable on the basis that the qualification program adequately enveloped the specific environ-mental plant parameters, or (2) conditionally acceptable subject to the satis-factory resolution of the staff's concern identified in Section 3.7.
For the equipment identified as conditionally acceptable the staf f deter-mined that thi licensee did not clearly:
(1 )
f cate that a material evaluatiori on their equipment was conducted to assure that no known materials susceptible to degradation due to aging have been used in their equipment.
(2) establish an ongoing program to review the surveillance and maintenance records of their plant in order to identify equipment degradation which may be age related, and/or (3) propose a maintenance program and replacement schedule for equipment 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 for equipment in this category before full acceptance of this equipment :an be established. The staff will review the licensee's response, when submitted, and report on the resolution in a supplemental report.
15
5.0 DEFERRED REQUIREMENTS IE Bulletin 79-018, Supplement 3 has relaxed the time constraints for the submission of the information associated with cold shutdown equipment and TMI Lessons Learned modifications. To permit a uniform program schedule the SEP plant reviews have been amended. The staff required that this information be provided by February 1,1981. The staff wiLL provide a supplemental safety evaluation addressing these concerns.
6.0 CONCLUSION
S The staff has determined that the licensee's listing of safety-related systems and associated electrical equipment, whose ability to function in a harsh environment following an accident is required to mitigate a LOCA or HELB, is complete and acceptable. The staff has also determined that the environmental service conditions to be met by the electrical equipment in the harsh accident environment are appropriate except as noted in Section 3 of this report. Outstanding information identified in Section 3 should be provided within 90 days of receipt of SER.
The staff has reviewed the qualification of safety-related electrical equipment to the extent defined by this SER and has found no outstanding items which would require immediate corrective action to assure safety of plant operation. However, the staf f has determined that many items of safety-related electrical equipment identified by the licensee for this review do not have adequate documentation to ensure that they are capable of withstanding the harsh environmental service conditions. This review was based on a comparisor. of the qual 1'ication values with the specified environmerital values required by the design which were provided in the i
licensee's summary sheets.
16
Subsection 4.2 identified deficiencies that must be resolved to establish the qualification of the equipment; the staff requires that the information lacking in this category be provided within 90 days of receipt of this SER.
Within this period, the licensee should either provide documentation of the rdssing qualification information which demonstrates that such equipment meets the DOR Guidelines on NUREG-0588 or commit to a corrective action (re qualification, replacement, relocation, and so forth) consistent with the requirements to establish qualification by June 30, 1982. If the latter option is chosen, the licensee must provide justification for operation until such corrective action is complete.
Subsection 4.3 identified acceptance and conditional acceptance based on noted deficiencies. Where additional information is required, the licensee should respond within 90 days of receipt of this SER by providing assurance that these concerns will be satisfactorily resolved by June 30, 1982.
The staf f issued to the licensee sections 3 and 4 of this report and requested, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f), the licensee to review the deficiencies enumerated and the ramifications thereof to determine whether safe operation of the f acility would be impacted in consideration of the deficiencies. The licensee has completed a pre-Liminary review of the identified deficiencies and has determined that, af ter due consideration of the deficiencies and their ramification, continued safe operation we would not be adversely affected.
17
f Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that conformance with the above requirements and satisf actory completion of the corrective actions by June 30, 1982, wiLL ensure compliance with the Commission Memorandum and Order of May 23,1980 (CLI-80-21) and with the Licensing brders issued by NRR on October 24, 1980. The staf f further concludes that there is reasonable assurance of continue'd safe operation of this facility pending completion of these corrective actions. This con-clusion is based on the following:
1 (1 ) that there are no outstanding items which would require immediate corrective action to assure safety of plant operation; (2) some of the items found deficient have been or are being replaced or relocated, thus improving the facility's capability to function following a LOCA or HEL8, and (3) the harsh environmental conditions for which this equipment must be qualified result from low probability events. Events which might reasonably be anticipated during this very limited period would lead to less demanding service conditions for this equipment.
e 18
d l
APPENDIX A 4
LIST OF EQUIPMENT IN SECTION 4.1, EQUIPMENT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE CORRECf1VE ACTION TER EQUIPMENT MODEL/
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION MANU FACTURER TYPE NO EQUIPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY
)
I P
i
)
i
APPENDIX B List of Equipment in Section 4.2, Equipment Requiring Additional Information And/0r Corrective Action LEGEND:
Designation for Deficiency R - Radiation M - Margin I - HELB Evaluation Outside T - Temperature GT - Qualification Time Containment Not Completed RT - Required Time QM - Qualification Method RPN - Equipment Relocation or Replacement, P - Pressure H - Humidity Adequate Schedule Not Provided CS - Chemical Spray EXN - Exempted Equipment J ustification A - Material Aging Evaluation, Inadequate Replacement Schedule, Ongoing SEN - Separate Ef fects Qualification Equipment Surveillance Justification Inadequate QI - Qualification Information Being Developed 5 - Submergence RPS - Equipment Relocation or Replacement Schedule provided TER EQUIPMENT MODEL/
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION M ANU FACTURER TYPE DEFICIENCIES 20 Junction box UNK E8-215 Q M,Q I,S, CS 21 Junction box UNK EB-214 Q M,G I,S, CS 22 Junction box UNK EM-47150 Q M,Q I,S, CS 23 Junction box UNK UNK Q M,Q I,S, CS 38 J unction box UNK EM-47150 Q M,Q I,S, CS Term nal block Marathon 6000 QM,QI,5,CS 50 Junction box UNK EM-47150 cI,S,CS,A Terminal block Marathon 6000 QI,S,CS,A 51 Junction box UNK EB-214 QI,S,CS,A Terminal block Marathon 6000 QI,S,CS,A 55 Junction box UNK EM-47L50 QI,S,CS,A B-1
APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)
TER EQUIPMENT MODEL/
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION MANU F ACTURER TYPE DE FICIENCIES 71 Junction box UE EB-215 QI,S,CS,A Terminal block Marathon 6000 72 Junction box UE EM-47150 QI,S,CS,A Terminal block Marathon 6000 73 Junction box UNK EB-215 QI,S,CS,A Terminal block Marathon 6000 74 Junction box UNK EB-214 QI,S,CS,A Terminal block Marathon 6000 48 J unction box UNK EM-47150 QI,S,CS,A Terminal block Marathon 6000 7
SOV operator ASCO 8300 QI,A,T,P,CS, R,M,Q M,Q T 53 SOV operator ASCO HPX-8320A25 QI,A,T,R LB-83146 LB-831654 HPX-8320A26 66 SOV operator ASCO 8316E34 QI,A,T,R 37 Remote shutdown UNK UNK QI,A panel 34 Electrical Westinghouse VX-252 QI,A,T,P,R,M,QM indicators QT 6
Motor Westinghouse 585.5 CSP Q I, A,Q M I
42 Motor UNK 36MP /184 A,R l
56 Motor Westinghnuse HSDP QI,A i
B-2
Appendix 8, Continued TER EQUIPMENT MODEL/
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION MANU FACTURER TYPE DEFICIENCIES 16 Electrical D.G. O 'Brien Type 4.1 A,CS,R penetrations 17 Electrical D.G. O'Brien Type 3.1 A,CS,R penetrations 18 Electrical D.G. O'Brien Types 2.1,
A,CS,R penetrations 2.2, 2.3 19 Electrical D.G. O'Brien Type 5.1 A,CS,R penetrations 39A MOV Limitorque SMB-3-100 QI,A,T,P,R,M,QT 1A MOV Limitorque SMB-3 QI,A,T 52C MOV Limitorque SMB-1 Q I,Q M, A,T,P,R, M, QT 520 MOV Limitorque SM8-0 Q I,Q M, A,T,P,Q T, R,
M 52E MOV Limitorque SMB-00 Q I,Q M, A,T,P,QT,R,
M 522 MOV Limitorque SMB-000 QI,QM,A,T,P,QT,R, M
60 MOV Limitorque SMB-0 QI,QM,A,T,P,QT,R, M
43A Temperature United Electric C-300 QI,QM,A,R switch 12 Resistance S0STMAN UNK QI, A,S,CS,R temperature detectors 69 Electrical Weschler UNA QI,QM,A,T,P,QT,R, indicator M
75 Electrical D.G. O'Brien Type 1.1 QI,A,QM,CS,R penetration 76 Electrical D.G. O'Brien Type 5.2 QI, A,Q M,CS,R penetration 44 Hydrogen GE SK182 QI,A,R recombiner CK742 blower 8-3
APPENDIX 8, Continued MODEL TER EQUIPMENT ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION MANU FACTURER TYPE DEFICIENCIES 5
Limit Swtich NAMCO E A180 A,QM,CS 11 Level Transmitter BARTON 386 QI,QM,A,QT,CS 8A Transmitter Fischer & Porter 1082496 QI,QM,A,QT,CS, P 8BABBB-NS M,5 10A Transmitter Fischer & Porter 10B2491V QI,QM,A,QT,CS, C88-NS M
10B Transmsitter Fischer & Porter 13D2495K Q I,Q M, A,Q T,CS,
88ABBB-NS M,S 100 Transmitter Fischer & Porter 50-EP1041 QI,QM,A,QT,CS, 8CX A-NS M
31 Motor Westinghouse HSDP Q I, A,T SBDP 58 Motor UPK Type 8 Q I, A,Q M,T,P,Q T,
R,M 61 Motor Westinghouse T8FC QI,A 70 Pressure Switch Barksdale 9672-3 QI,GM,A,T,P,QT, R,M 33 Transmitter Fischer & Porter 1082495 QI,QM,A,QT,M 648 MOV Limitorque SMB-00-15 Q I,Q M, A,T,P,Q T,
R,M 65 SOV Operator ASCO HPX-8320 QI,A,T,P,QT A25, A26 67 SOV Operator Ross 233693 QI,A,T,P,QT,R 9
Level Switch Magnetrol A-153-FEP /
P,QT,S,CS V PX -Y -3X 3
SOV Operator ASCO LB831654 QI,A 82 SOV Operator ASCO THT-8316 Q I, A,T,P,Q T, CS,
-C34 R
67 Pressure Fischer & Porter 50EP104 RPS LBCX A Transmitter 8-4 l
t
APPENDIX C LIST OF EQUIPMENT IN SECTION 4.3, EQUIPMENT CONSIDERED ACCEPTA8LE OR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT ABLE LEGEND: A - Material Aging Evaluation TER EQUIPMENT MODEL/
DEFICIENCIES ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION MANU F ACTURER TYPE 24 Cable Boston Insulated CSPE/LSPE A
Wire & Cable Co.
78 Cable Boston Insulated CSPG /LSPE A
Wire & Cable Co.
25 Cable Kerite Corp.
V arious A
28 Cable Kerite Corp.
Various A
26 Splices Raychem Corp.
WCSF (N)
A 27 Splices Kerite Corp.
UNK A
77 Cable Anaconda V arious A
79 Cable Okonite V a rious A
80 Cable Rockbestos V arious A
81 Cable Samuel Moore V arious A
32A MOV Limitorque SMB-2 A
52A MOV Limitorque SMB-0 A
52F MOV Limitorque SMB-000 A
52G MOV Limitorque SMB-00-15 A
64A MOV Limitorque SMB-2 A
10 MOV Limitorque SMB-1 A
32C MOV Limitorque SMB-00 A
32D M0V Limitorque SMB-000 A
32E MOV Limitorque SM8-000 A
j 398 M0V Limitorque SMB-000 A
57 POV Limitorque SMB-00 A
C-1
APPENDIX C, Continued TER EQUIPMENT MODEL/
DE FICIENCIES ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION MANU FACTURER TYPE 2
Limit Switch NAMCO DX-2400' 13 Humidity sensor Taylor 10H5 14 Resistance UE 3 Wire temperature detectors 36A Distribution Fischbach-8/M-C458 panel Hatfield 35 Pressure switch United Electric J 110-164 45 Radiation Nuclear GM-912, Detector Measurement S C-2-15, SC-23 54A Control panet Westinghouse U K TBDP 59 Thermostat Penn A-28-AA37 88 Flow Fi sche r-Port er 50EP1031 transmitter BCX A-NS 10C Transmitter Fi sch er-P orter 1082496 88A888-NS 46 Pressure Fi sche r-Po rt er 50EP10971 transmitter 63 Flow Fi scher-Port er 108296 transmitter PBBABB8 32B MOV Limitorque H-3BC 18 MOV Limitorque SMB-3-80 1C MOV Limitorque SMB-1 1F MOV Limitarque SMB-4 1G MOV Limitorque SMB-00 4
SOV Operator ASCO THT-8316 54-C34 IE MOV Limitorque SMB-2 C-2 i
(
APPENDIX D Plant Safety-Related Systems and Display Instrumentation A.
Safe Shutdown Systems System Term Function RP - Reactor Protection / Trip (1)
S Trips reactor when predetermined set points are exceded MS - Main Steam (PGIVs, Safeties, I
Releases energy for plant cculdown Atmospheric Relief s) (1 )
CV - Crib House Ventilation L
Cools service water pump motors FW - Steam Generator Feedwater/
I/L Provides makeup water to steam Auxiliary Feedwater (1) generator for cooldown VC - Chemical and Volume C"ntrol L
Provides reactor makeup water and (charging portions) 01 )
long-term chemical control RH - Kesidual Heat Removal L
Provides long-term heat removal (required for cold shutdown)
RC - Reactor Coolant L
Transfers heat from core to steam generator CC - Component Cooling L
Removes heat from core to steam generator-SW - Service Water L
Takes heat from component coolant heat exchanger to heat sink DG - Diesel Generator (1)
S/I Provides emergency onsite power DC - 125 V DC Power Supply (1)
L Provides back-up power DO - Diesel Oil (1 )
S/I Provides lubrication for emergency dienels AP - Auxiliary Power Distribution L
As indicated AR - Area Radiation Monitoring (1 )
I/L Detects radiation diesels LEGEND:
(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 (L) Long Term 30 days plus NOTE:
(1) used for accident mitigation and safe shutdown (2) The NRC staf f recognized that there are differences in nomenclature of systems because of plant vintage and engineering design, consequently some systems performing identical or similar functions may have different names. In those instances it was necessary to verify the system (s) func-tion with FRC Jnd/or the L'censee.
D-1
Appendix D, continued 8.
Accident Mitigating Systems (LOCA, MSLB, FWLB)
System Term Function CI - Containment Isolation Valve L
Isolates containment penetration RV - Reactor Containment Fan Coolers, I
Removes post LOCA containment heat Hydrogen Purge and Hydrogen and controls hydrogen Recombiners SI - Safety Injection and Accumulators S/a Provides post accident cooling water to core Pressurizer Pressure Relief I
Power operated relief valves relieve RCS pressure PR - Post-Accident Sampling and Monitar-L As indicated ing/ Containment Radiation Monitor CS - Containment Spray I
Provides post-accident containment provides and iodine control IW - Isolation Valve Seal Water I
Seals penetration with high pressure water PP - Penetration Pressurization I
Seals electrical penetration with high pressure air or nitrogen IP - Vital Instrument Power Supply (1)
L As indicated AV - Pump Room Ventilation Coolers I/L As indicated (RHR/SI/SC/CCP)
PV - Control Room Ventilation L
As indicated OV - Auxiliary Electrical Equipment L
As indicated Room Ventilation TV - Turbine Building Ventilation L
As indicated D-2 1
App;ndix D, continu;d C.
Safe Shutdown / Accident Mitigating Instruments (LOCA, MSLB, FWLB)
Inst rument s T2rm Pressurizer level I
Pressurizer pressure L
RCS Te.nperature L
Containment pressure (2)
I Steam line pressure L
Steam line flow S
Containment spray flow (2)
I Safety injection flow (2)
I Penetration pressurization (2)
I Isolation valve seal water pressure (2)
I Sump level (2)
L Steam generator level L
Auxiliary feed system flow L
Secondary storage tank level L
Chemical and volume control flow I
RWST Level I
BIT (Boron Injection Tank) (2)
S Residual Heat Removal Flow L
Component Cooling Water Flow L
Service Water System L
Legend:
S - Short term less than 24 hr.
I - Intermediate term up to 30 days L - Long term more than 30 days NOTE:
(2) Requi.ed for accident mitigation only l
D-3