ML20062C410

Provides Interim Eval of 780629 Util Class IE Equip Qualification Prog.Recommends Rev of Rept Per Info Requirements in Encl Question

ML20062C410
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins, Cherokee
Issue date:	10/30/1978
From:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Dail L DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 7811080249
Download: ML20062C410 (8)

Text

. .

D # ..,

,,/#a ae glo, uNirsO STATS 5

[kb h hh p j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON. D. C. 205S5 3.

o t

t

.....* OCT 3 01978 Docket Nos: STN 50-491 FIN 50-488.. f~

STN 50-492 STN 50-489 ST.i 50-493 STN 50-490 t

Mr. L. C. Dail, Vice President Design Engineering Department Duke Power Ccmpany P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242

Dear Mr. Dail:

SUIUECT: INTERIM EVALUATION OF CIASS IE EQ'JIPMENT QUALIFICATION PROGRAM - DUKE POWER COMPANY PROJECT 81 (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3)

We have reviewed the Duke Power Company Class IE Equipment Qualification Pregram submitted on June 29, 1978. Your submittal of this program was in accordance with your earlier comitant that we quot.ed in Section 3.11 of our Safety Evaluation Reports, NUREG-0188 and NUREG-0189, March 1977. -

Because several in'.dequacies exist in the report we are providing you with our interim evaluation in the enclosure. We recommend.that you revise the content of your report to confom to the infomation requirements of the attached question and that you rolify the test program to include the required range of energy supply.

To assist us in scheduling the remainder of our review, within sixty days of receipt of this lettor please advise us of the dates by when i complete responses to each of the information request items will be provided.

S cerely i

a w' /ga,(

oteven n. -a s if i Light Water Reactc s Branch No. 4 Division of Project hhnagement l

Enclosure:

Interim Evaluation cc: See next page l

78110 80 A f b

/"'

~

OCT 3 01978 Duke Power Company ,

' ccs: Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

William L. Porter, Esq.

Chairman Associate General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Duke Power Company Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq. Dr. Donald P. deSylva Debevoise & Liberman '

700 Shoreham Building Associate Professor of Marine Science -

806 Fifteenth Street, N. W. Rosenstiel School of Marine and  ;

Atmospheric Science Washington, D. C. 20005 University of Miama William A. Raney, Jr. Miami, Florida 33149 '

i Special Deputy Attorney General Dr. Walter H. Jordan Attorney for the State of '

North Carolina 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Allan S. Rosenthal, Chiarman Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mary Apperson Davis, Chairman Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Yadkin River Committee Washington, D. C. 20555 Route 4, Box 261 Mocksville, North Carolina 27028

. Dr. John H. Buck Thomas S. Erwin, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

P. 0. Box 928 Washington, D. C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 David Springer Richard S. Salzman, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board The Point Farm U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Route 4 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mocksville, North Carolina 27028 William G. Pfefferkorn, Esq. ,

2124 Wachovia Building Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General S. C. Attorney General's Office P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 I .

l

~

l l

l

s

, .' . . . _ _ =

INTERIM EVALUATION OF DLKE PROJECT - 81 OCT 3 01978 QUALIFICATION PROGRAM l

Introduction Duke Power Company, in accordance with a commitment made during the construction permit review for Project-81, has submitted a report

^

which describes the implementation program including the test methods and documentation requirs.ments for meeting IEEE Std 323-1974 as required in Section 3.11 of the Standard Format within six months of issuance of the construction pemit.

Discussion As noted in the cover letter to the report, the report is incomplete and will be supplemented as additional equipment is purchased. However, the report was evaluated as a sample of the scope and content in order -

to determine what additional information was required by the. staff and to enable to the staff to give appropriate guidance to the applicant.

Evaluation The information which is provided in the June 29, 1978 submittal indi-h cates that the Duke approach is generally acceptable. However, the staff notes that the following specific inadequacies exist in the report.

s aub e

e G

w e 45'un beimme- aus emmuse g e e a ,,

e se e B

s -

_.e. . ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , _.; ,

~~

- - OCT 3 01978

1. The report does not provide the specific information which is currently being rec,ueste-: of each applicant as reflect.ed by the attached Standard Questions en Environmental Qualifica-

' tion of Class lE Equipmert.

2. The environmental conditions which are being included are incomplete. Specifically, the range of energy supply (as required by IEEE Std 279-1971 paragraph 3(7)) has not been censidered.

Recommendation It is recommended that the applicant revise the content of the report to conform to the information requirements of the attached question and to modify the test program to includa the range of energy supply. Also the report plus future amendments should be tailored so as to comprise a complete response to the standard question.

9 4

.7 e

I -

=p= ee -+* .. ..

STANDARD QUESTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF OCT 3 01978 CLASS IE EQUIPMENT -

In order to ensure that your environmental qualification program conforms with General Design Criteria 1, 2, 4 and 23 of Appendix A and Sections _. .,

III and XI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and to the national standards. .

nentioned in Part II " Acceptance., Criteria" (which includes IEE'E Std 323) ceatained in Standard Review Plan Section 3.11, the following information on the qualification program is required for all Class 1E equipment.

1. Identify all Class 1E Equipment, and provide the following: .

. a. Type (functional designation) ,

b. Manufacturer , ~

c. Manufacturer's type number ar:d model number .

d. The equipment should include the following, as applicable: .

1) Switchgear

. 2) Motor contrcl centers

3) Valve operators

4) Motors

5) Logic equipment

6) Cable

7) Diesel generator control equipment

8) Sensors (pressure, pressure differential, temperature andneutron) 4 9) Limit Switches -

10) Heaters

11) Fans

12) Control Boards

13) Instrument racks and panels '

14) Connectors

15) Electrical penetrations .

' 16) Splices -

17) Terminal blocks '

t l .

~

' 2- 0CT 3 01978

2. Categorize the equipment identified in (1) above into one of the following categories:

a. Equipment that will experience the environmental conditions of design basis accidents for which it must function to mitigate said accidents, and that will be qualified to demonstrate operability in the accident environment for the .

J time required for accident mitigation with safety margin to failure., -

~

~

b. Equipment that will experience environmental conditions of -

design basis accidents through which it need not function .

for mitigation of said accidents, but through which it must not fail in a manner detrimental to plant safety or accident mitigation, and that will be qualified to demonstrate the .

capability to withstand any accident environment for the time duri.ng which it must not fail with safety margin to failure.

- c. Equipment that will experience environmental conditions of -

design basis liccidents through which it need not function for mitigation of said accidents, and whose failure (in i

any mode) is deemed not detrimental to plant safety or i accident mitigation, and need not be qualified fer any accident environment, but will be qualified for its

~

ncn-accident service envircnment.

1 d. Equipment that will not experience environmental conditions of design basis accidents and that will be qualified to t _ . , _ , , ,_ _

• = = * * * * = = = = . * * * += -...

l 1

.-. s 1

OCT 3 01978

~

demonstrate operability under its normal or abnorm.a1 service 4

environment. This equipment would normally be located outside the reactor containment.

3. For each type of equipment in the categories of equipment listed

^

in (2) above provide separately the equipment design specification.

. . requirements, including:

a. The system safety function requirements. , ,

b. An envircnmental envelope as'a function of time which includes all extreme parameters, both maximum and minimum values,-e.x-pected to occur during plant shutdown, normal operation, abnornal operation, and any design basis event (in:1uding LOCA -

and MSLB), including post event conditions.

c. Time required to fulfill its safety function when subjected to L

any of the extremes of the er.vironmental envelope specified above.

d. Technical bases should be provided to justify the placement of .

j each, type equipment in the categories 2.b and 2.c listed above.

4. provide the qualification test plan, test set-up, test procedures,

and acceptance criteria for at least tne.cf each group of equipment

.a t

-4 OCT 3 01c79 of (1.d) as appropriate to the category identified in (2) above.

If any method other than type testing was used for qualification (operating experience, analysis, combined qualification, or on-going qualification), describe the method dn sufficient detail . ..

to permit evaluation of its adequacy.

5. For each category of equipment identified in (2) above, state the actual qualification envelope 'sirulated 'd'uring~ testing '(defining ..

the duration of the hostile environment and the margin.in excess -

of the design requirements). If any method other than type . test- _ . .. -

ing was used for qualification, identify the rethod and define the equivalent " qualification envelope" so derived. .

• 6. A summary of test results that demonstrates the acequacy of the

~

qualification program. If analysis is used for qualification. .

justification of all analysis assumptiens must be provided.

Identification of the qualification documents which contain detailed k' '-

• 7.

supporting information, including test data, for items 4, 5 and 6.

- In addition, in accordance with the require.ments of Apperdix B of 10

> CFR 50, the staff requires a statement verifying: 1) that all Class .

1E equipment has been (OL) or will be (CP) qualified to the prcgram l - described above, and 2) that the detailed qualification information i

l and test results are (or will be) available for an NRC audit. . .

j J

l I

• For applications for construction permits, it is acceptable to state that items 6 and 7 will be supplied in the initial applica ,, __ _ ,,

tion for an operating license. - - - - _ . - . . - _ _. . .

-