ML20009F184
| ML20009F184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009F183 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107300089 | |
| Download: ML20009F184 (31) | |
Text
._..
s.
b i
a 4
I i
Safety Evaluation Report By the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation For Jersey Central Power & Light Company 7
l Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-219 Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment i
i l
f I
Dated: June 10,1981 j
81073000Ey7 ' 9106'10 PDR ADOCK /)500021Y PDR p
.w.,.
er
-y.nm---
...q wy
.vy>>..,.,--y 94--a+.p
%g-erg--em*-ws=eme--gat"-*f W9*
W T'
- TM'
- -""N9NFf*M'fT C'W-N-w"
"+-N--@
7PP""*1--y F*
F'*"'**-*'T
-'"-" " * "7P*
s.
Contents I nt roduc t i on........................
1 1.0 Background........................
1 2.0 Furpose.......................
4 2.1 Scope.........................
4 2.2 4
3.0 Staff Evaluation..
5 3.1 Completeness of Saf ety-Related Equipment.
..................7 3.2 Service Conditions Temperature, Pressure, and Humidity Conditions Inside 3.3 8
Containment.
Temperature, Pressure and Humidity Conditions Outs',fe 3.4 9
Containment.
Submergence.....................
9 3.5 10 3.6 Chemical Spray...................
10 3.7 Aging........................
11 Radiation (Inside and Outside Containment).
3.8 12 4.0 Qualification of Equipment..............
+
13 Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action...
4.1 Equipment Requiring Additional Inf ormation And/Or 4.2 14 Corrective Action..................
Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally 4.3 16 Acceptable......................
17 5.0 D ef erred Requi rements................
18 6.0 Conclusions.....................
Contents (Continued)
Appendix A - List of Equipment in Section 4.1, Equipment
~'
A-1 Requiring Immediate Corrective Action.
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, Eqt'#9 ment Considered Acceptable or Conditionall)
Acceptable................... C-1 Appendix 0 - Plant Saf ety-Related Systems and Display Instrumentation................ D-1 t
--,,------,,n,,._
,-.,-.__.,..--._.-,.,-,n..,
,.w.._.
-e
S AFETY EV ALU ATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLE AR REACTOR REGULATION FOR J EF,SEY CENTR AL POWER & L'IGHT C0ff ANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLE AR POWER STATION 000(ET No.
50-219 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 saf ety-related electric'al equipment which is located in a harsh environment.
2.0 BA0(GROUND 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.
(IE) issued to On February 8,1979, the NRC Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement all licensees of operating plants except those included in the Systematic j
e e
Evaluation Program (SEP), IE Bulletin 79-01, " Environmental Qualification of 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 DOR (Division of Operating Reactors) " Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Clast IE Electrical Equip-ment in Operating Reactors " were prepared to form the basis f' reviewing equipment in aLL operating plants.
In October 1979, the NRC contracted with Franklin Research Center (FRC) f,or 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 staf f met with personnel f rom FRC and.
)
representatives of the SEP group in an open session at '4RC headquarters to review the program in relation to the DOR guidelines.
On May 23,1980, the Commissioners issued Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21, which states that the D0R guidelines and NUREG-0588 set the requirements that Licensees and applicants must meet regarding the environmental quali-fication of safety-releted electrical equipment to satisfy 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC)-4. This order required the staff to coms;ete 2
safety evaluation reports (SERs) for all operating plants by February 1,1981.
13 addition this Order requires that all licensees have qualified safety-related electrical equipment installed in their plants by June 30, 1982.
Supplements to IEB 79-01B were issued for further clarification and definition of the staff's needs. These supplements were issued on February 29, September 30, and October 24, 1980.
In addition, the staff issued order dated August 29,1980 (amended in September 1980) and October 24, 1980 to all licensees. The August order required that the 1.censees provide a report, by November 1,1980, documenting the qualifi-cation 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.
On Feb. 21,1980, J ersey Central Power and Light Company (J CP&L) was formally asked to address the environmental qualification of safety-related equipment for the Oyster Creek Station. In response to this request, J CP&L elected to use information previously submitted in Feb. and Dec.1978. On Apr.11 and May 7,1980 J CP&L provided additional information. On October 28,1980 a completely revised and expanded submittal was provided by the licensee.
i
e e
2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this safety evaluatica report (SER) is to identify equipment whose qualification program does not provide sufficient assurance that the equipment is capable of providing the design function in the hostile environ-The staff position relating to any identified deficiencies is provided ments.
in this report.
2.2 SCOPE The scope of this rep.rt includes that equipment which must function to (LOCA) or a mitigate the consequences of Loss-of-Coolant Accident High-Energy-Line Break (HELB) inside or outside containment, and whose envir;nment would be adversely affected by that accident.
3.0 STAFF EV ALUATION The staf f's evaluation of the licensee's responses was accompanied 1
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 DOR Guidelines and NUREG-0588, i
ability.
l in part, were used as a basis for the taff's evaluation of the adequacy t
of the Licensee qualification program.
~ _- -
During the week of March 10, 1980, NRC and FRC representatives visited the Oyster Creek plant site, inspected safety-related systems and equipment, and conducted a general review of J CP&L's 1978 and 1979 submittdls.
The inspection spot checked proper installation of accessible equipment, The overall interface integrity, and manufacturers nameplate data.
manufacturer and model number from the nameplate data were compared to information given in the Licensee's submittal. NRC and FRC representatives held a subsequent meeting at J CP&L's headquarters to discuss the information provided by the licensee in April and May 1980.
The following safety evaluation incorporates the J CP&L submittals and the Franklin Research Center technical evaluation report (TER).
3.1 COMPLETENESS OF SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT In accordance with the DOR 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 includcs parameters to monitor overall plant performance as well as to i
monitor performance of the systems on the list. The systems list i
5 l
1 1
)
was established on the basis of the functions that most be performed for mitigation of the consequences of a LOCA or HEL8 without regard to location of equipment relative to a potentially hostile environ-ment. The staif has determined and verified that the systems considered by the licensee are those required to achieve or s pport:
(1 ) emergency e
reactor shutdown, (2) containment isolation, (3) reactor core cooling, (4) containment heat removal; (5) core residual heat removat, and (6) prevention of significant release of radioactive material to the environment. In addition to the concerns identified below the staff's systems review has not included those equipment items discussed in section 5.0 of this report. The systems and instrumentation list is contained in Appendix D.
The licensee submitted an extensive list of safety-related electrical equipment. Identical components within a plant area exposed to the rame.
environment were grouped; 62 item types of equipment were identi'ied and assessed by the staff. Subsequent discussions with the licensee oy FRC have indicated that motor control centers and possibly some switch-gear have been overlooked as required equipment loicated in " harsh" areas I
4 and necessary to place the plant in hot shutdown status. Also, the licensee should investigate if the torus vacuum relief valve system should have qualified equipment. In addition, FRC has observed that the torus vacuum relief valve solenoid and differential pressure transmitter were possibly overlooked in the Licensee's submittal. The licensee should resolve these concerns.
6
s 3.2 SERVICE CONDITIONS 1.he Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-80-21',, dated May 23,1980 requires that the D0R Guidelines and the "For Comment" NUREG-0588 are to be used as the criteria for establishing the adequacy of the safety related electricas 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 otherwise noted, that the analysis for developing the environmental en relopes for Oyster Creek relative to the temperature, pressure, and the containment spray caustics, have 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 f ailure criterion, the main steam line break environmental condith are enveloped by the large break LOCA environmetnal conditions. The staff assumed, and requires that the licensee verifies, that the con-7
tainment spray system is not subie.ted to a disabling single component f ailure and therefore satisfies the D0R Guideline require-ments of Section 4.2.1.
Equipment submergence has also been addressed where the possibility 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 follows:
Max. Temp.
(F*)
Max. Press. (psig)
Humidity LOCA NOT STATED MSLB 335 23.3 100%
The staff has concluded that the minimum temperature profile for equipment qualification purposes should include a margin to account for analytical uncertainties in the calculated temperature profiles for postulated accidents.
A margin of 20'F above the steam saturation temperature corresponding to the calculated pressure profile up to the time that the sprays are effer*ive is considered to be appropriate for either a postulated LOCA or MSLB, uhichever is controlling as to potential adverse environmental effects on equipment.
The licensee's minimum temperature profile for qualification purposes includes least as large as would result from the staff's recommendation.
a margin at Therefore we conclude that the specified temperature profile is acceptable.
8 i
3.4 TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE AND HUMIDITY CONDITIONS OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT The licensee has provided the temperature pressure, humidity and applicable environmental values associated with a HELB outside containment in the following plant areas:
1.
Reactor Building (Outside Containment Drywell) 2.
Steam Tunnel The staff has verified that the parameters identified by the licensee for the MSLB are acceptable.
3.5 SUBMERGEN CE The maximum submergence levels have not been established and assessed by the licensee. Based on the licensee's submittal, the staff concludes that insufficient information has been provided to perform an evaluation.
The licensee must address this concern and provide assurance that no safety-l related equipment identified for this review wiLL be subjected to a sub-mergence condition.
The licensee should provide an assessment of the f ailure modes associated I
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 9
l L
~
' ~ ~
r
s to the time of submergence. If the results of the licensee's assessment jare acceptable, then the equipment may be exempt from the submergence parame+er of qualification.
i
.6 CHEMICAL SPRAY The licensee uses demineralized water containing sodium dichromate solution.
However, the exact concentration was not provided. Therefore, for the purpose of this review, the effects of chemical will be considered unresolved.
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:
L.
Detailed comparison of existing equipment to the materials identifed in Appendix C of the 00R 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 re,iew 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.
10 l
For this review the staff 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 functional 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 ADI ATION (INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT)
The Licensee has provided _alues for radiation Levels postulated 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 ir the 00R Guidelines, NUREG-0588 and the guidance provided in IEB-79-018, Supplement 2.
The value required by the 7
Licensee inside containment is an integrated dose of 5.7 x 10 RADS. This value envelopes the DOR Guideline requirements and is therefore acceptable.
6 A required value outside containment of 1 x 10 RADS has been used by the Licensee to specify Limiting radiation levels within the southeast corner room in the reactor building. This value appears to consider the radiation levels influenced by the source term methodolony associated with post-LOCA recirculation fluid lines and is therefore acceptable.
l r
11 l
L
s 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 electrical 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 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 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 FRC.
The environmental qualification data bank to be established by the staff wiLL provide the means to cross ref erence each supporting docu-ment to the referencing Licensee.
12
Where supporting documents were found to be unacceptable, the Licansee 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 aporopriate, 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 requesteo to perform a review of the f acility's safety-related electrical equipment. The licensees review of this equipment has not identified any equipment requiring immediate corrective action and therefore no licensee event reports were submitted. In addition the staf f, in this review, has not identified any saf ety-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.
13
~.
4.2 EQUIPMENT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AN9/0R CCRRECTIVE ACTION 1
Appendix B identifies equipment in this category, including the ttabulation 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.
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 - HEL8 Evaluation Outside Containment Not Completed l
QM - Qualification Method RPN - Eqvipment Relocation or Replacement, Adequate Schedule Not Provided EXN - Exitmpted Equipment J ustification Inadequate SEN - SeJarate Ef fects Qualification Justification Inadequate QI - Qualification Information Being Developed RPS - fiquipment Relocation or Replacement Schedule Provided.
l 14
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 licensees:
(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.
(2 a) Equipment performs its function prior to its exposure to the harsh environment and the ao*quacy for the time margin provided is adequately 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 criteria.
Equipment not subjected to a harsh environment as a result of (4) the postulated accident.
15
~
_j
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 staff will review the licensees response, when submitted, and report on the 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 proposed corrective action, on a timely basis, to assure that qualification can be established by J une 30, 1982.
4.3 EQUIPMENT CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE OR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE Based on the staf fs review of the licensees submittal and the TER the staff identified the equipment in Appendix C as (1) acceptable on the 5 asis that the qualification program adequately enveloped the specific environ-mental plant parameters, or (2) conditionally acceptable subject to the satis-f actory resolution of the staff concern identified in Section 3.7.
16
For the equipment identified as conditionally acceptab'.e the staf f deter-mined that the licensee did not clearty:
(1) state that a material evaluation 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 can be established. The staff wiLL review the Licensees response, when submitted, and report on the resolution in a supplemental report.
5.0 DEFERRED RE3OIREMENTS 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 staf f wil'l provide a supplemental safety evaluation addressing these concerns.
17
a e
6.0 CONCLUSION
S The staf f has determined that the Licensee's listing of safety-reitted systems and associated electrical equipment, whose ability to function in a harsh environment following an accident is required to mitigate a LOCA or HEi.8, is complete and acceptable except as noted in Section 3 of this report. 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 this 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 staff 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 l
of withstanding the harsh environmental service conditions. This review was based on a comparison of the qualification values with the specified i
l environmental values required by the design which were provided in the i
Licensee's summary sheets.
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.
18
Within this period, the Licensee should either provide documentation of the missing qualification information which demonstrates that 'such equipment meets the 00R Guidelines or NUREG-0588 or commit to a corrective action (re qualification, replacement, relocation, and so forth) consistent with the requirements to establish qualification by J une 30,1982. If the latter option is chosen, the Licensee must provide justification for operation until such cc
- tive action is complete.
Subsection 4.3 identified acceptance and conditicnal acceptance based on noted deficiencies. Where additional information is required, the Licensee should respor.d within 90 days of receipt of this SER by providing assurance that these concerns wiLL be satisf actoriLy resolved by J une 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 facility would be impacted in consideration of the deficiencies. The Licensee has completed a preliminary review of the identified deficiencies and has determined that, after due consideration of the deficiencies and their ramification, continued safe operation would not be adversely affected.
19
_=
Based on these considerations the staff concludes that conformance with a
the above requirements and satisfactory 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 orders issued by NRR on October 24,1980. The staff further concludes that there is reasonable assurance of continued safe operation of this f acility pending completion of these corrective actions. This conclusion is based on the j
following:
4 that there are no outstanding items which would require imme-Jiate (1) corrective action to assure safety of plant operation; some of the items found deficient have been or are being replaced (2) or relocated, thus improving the facilities capability to function following a LOCA or HEL8, and the harsh environmental conditions for which this equipment must be (3)
Events which might qualified result f rom low probability events.
reasonably be anticipated durin0 this very limited period would lead to less demanding service conditions for this equipment.
f i
I l
20
APPENDIX A List of Equipment in Section 4.1,
Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action Model/
TER Equipment Item No.
Description Manufacturer Type NO EQUIPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY 3
A-1
f APPENDIX B List of Equipment in Section 4.2, Equipment Requiring Additional Inf ormation And/or Corrective Action NOTE: (R) Licensee has committed to replace /requalify LEGEND:
DESIGNATION FOR Deficiency R - Radiation M - Margin T - Temperature 1 - HELB Evaluation Outside QT - Qualification Time Containment Not Completed RT - Required Time QM - Qualification Method P - Pressure RPN - Equipment Relocation or Replacement, H - Humidity Adequate Schedule Not Provided CS - Chemical Sprav EXN - Exempted Equipment Justification A - Material Aging Evaluation, Inadequate Replacement schedule, Ongoing SEN - Separate Ef fects Qualification Equipment Surveillance Justification Inadequate S - Setaergence QI - Qualification Information Being Developed RPS - Equipment Relocation or Replacement Schedule Provided TER Equipment Model/
Item No.
Description Manufacturer Type Deficiency 1
Pressure Switch Dresser 1593VX QI (R, 4C MOV Operator Limitorque SMB-000 Q I,Q M 11 Temperture Rochester UNK QI Detector 19 SOV Operator ASCO 8344-827 QI,A,R 20 30V Operator ASCO 8344-A27 QI,A,R 21 A SOV Operator ASCO 83148 QI,A,R 21B SOV Operator ASCO 83148 QI,A,QM,T,P, QT,R B-1
APPENDIX 8, Continued TER Equipment Model/
Item No.
Description Manufacturer Type Deficiency 22A SOV Operator ASCO WP8300 QI,A,R B6IRU 22B SOV Operator ASCO WP8300 QI,A,R 86IRU
~
23 SOV Operator ASCO WPLB83177 QI,A,R 26 Solenoid Atkonatic 15-702-8 QI,A,R 27 SOV Operator ASCO LB82627 QI,A,R 28 Temperature Fenwal 17002-40 QM,A Switch 318 SOV Operator ASCO 206-832-3RU QI,CS,M 328 SOV Operator ASCO 206-301-3RU QI,CS,M 33 Position Switch NAMCO SL3-C58W QI (R) 34C MOV Limitorque SMB-0 QI,QM,A,R 35 SOV operator ASCO LM8-31424 QI,A,R r
36 SOV Operator ASCO WP8300861U QI,A,R 37 MOV Limitorque S MB-1 QI,A,R,M,R,T 40 MOV Limitorque SMB-2 QI,QM,A, 42 SOV Operator ASCO WT8300 QI B61RV 43 SOV Operator ASCO NP8320 QI,CS,M,R,T A187E (R) 44 MOV Limitorque SMB-2 QI,Q M, A,R 46 Electrical Cannon CA3106E; QI,A,R Connector CA3100K 47 Electrical cannon CA06RX QI,A,R Connector CA3100RX B-2
APPENDIX B, Continued TER Equipment Model/
Item No.
Description Manufacturer Type Deficiency 5.1 Cable Tensolite UNK QI,A,R 55 Relief Valve Dresser 1525VX QI,GM,A,R Operator 6
Transmitter GE GE/MAC 551 QI 7
Transmitter GE GE/MAC 551 QI 8A Transmitter GE GE/MAC 553 QI 88 Transimtter GE GE/MAC 553 QI 8C Transmitter GE GE/MAC 553 QI 8D Transmitter GE GE/MAC 553 QI 8E Transmitter GE GE/MAC 553 QI 30 Motor GE SK81884 QI 2 A103 45 Electrical GE F-01 QI,QM,A,CS r aetrations e
48 Terminal Block GE EB Q I, A,Q M,CS,R 56 SOV operator ASCO UNK QI,A,R 24 SOV operator ASCO 831424 QI,A 25 SOV operator ASCO X8301 A42 QI,A 10A Pressure Switch GE GE/MAC 552 QI 108 Pressure Switch Mercoid 9-51/D AW-43 QI 14A Pressure Switch Barkdale B2T-A12SS QI 15 Pressure Switch Barkdale E2T-M12SS QI 18 Level Switch Yarway C2337 QI B-3
APPENDIX C LIST OF EQUIPMENT IN SECTION 4.3 EQUIPMENT CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE OR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE LEGEND: A - Material Aging Evaluation TER Equipment Model/
Item No.
Description Manufacturer Type Deficiencies 2
S0V Operator AS CO NP-8344 A
A70E 31A SOV Operator ASCO 206-832-3RU A
32A SOV Operator ASCO 206-301-3RU A
34B MOV Limitorque SMB-0 A
49 Cable GE Vulkene A
S1-58145 50 Cable GE Vulkene A
S1-58073 53 Cable Rockbestos UNK A
3A MOV Limitorque SMB-00 A,R 3B MOV Limitorque SMB-00 A,R 4A MOV Limitorque SMD-000 A
4B MOV Limitorque SMB-000 A,R 34A MOV Limitorque SMB-0 A
52 Cable Kerite FR A
54 Splice Raychem WCSF A
39 Motor GE 5K81884 1 C45 l
C-1 g
f APPENDIX D Plant Safety-Related Systems and Display Instrumentation A.
Safe Shutdown Systems Term Function System Reactor Protection System
- S Trips reactor when predetermined setpoints are exceeded.
Isolation Cor. denser
- I Emergency heat sink on loss of main condenser and normal feedwater.
Dimineralized Water Transfer +
I Makeup water to the condenser hotwell and isolation condenser.
Service Water System I
Cooling water to various heat loads, normal and emergency.
Radiation Monitoring ++
L Self-explanatory Sampling ++
L Self-explanatory Emergency Diesel AC Power System +
I Emergency electrical power source for vital equipment.
125-V dc Power Supply S) stems
- L Provides backup power to'certain vital equipment and circuits.
Emergency Power Distribution L
Electrical power the various electrical equipment.
System
- Review of this equipment deferred until af ter February 1,1981, as
+
referenced.
i
++ To be added as TMI-2 requirement.
- Systems used for both safe shutdown and accident mitigation.
- Instruments needed for accident mitigating 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 (I) Intermediate Term Up to 30 days.
(L) Long Term 30 days plus.
D-1 l
APPENDIX D, Continued B.
Accident Mitigating Systems (LOCA, MSLB, FWLB)
System Term Function Safeguards Actuation System S
Initates safety-injection upon exceeding certain monitored pararaeter setpoints.
Reactor Depressurization System S
Relieves reactor steam to the suppression pool to lower reactor vessel pressure for LPCI/ Core Spray operation.
Post-accident reactor makeup water source.
Main Steam Isolation L
Shuts MSIV's to isolate main steam line break.
Containment Isolation L
Isolates containment penetrations in case of accidents.
Post-accident containment pressure / fission product control.
Standby Gas Treatment +
1 Limits gaseous atmospheric releases from containment / reactor building atmosphere.
Combustible Gas Control I
Hydrogen removal system D-2 l
3 APPENDIX D, Continued C.
Accident Mitigation and Safety Shutdown Instruments (LOCA, MSLB, FWLB)
Reactor Water Level Reactor Steam Pressure Containment Drywell Pressure **
Containment Torus Water Level **
J Containment Spray Flow **
Isolation Condenser Shell-Side Water Level l
Emergency Service Water Pump Discharge Pressure Containment Spray Pump Suction Pressure **
Demineralized Wats.- Pump Dicharge Pressure a
D-3 1
...