ML20125B154
| ML20125B154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1985 |
| From: | Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125B156 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506110332 | |
| Download: ML20125B154 (16) | |
Text
--,
O PS G Company Public Serwce E!ectric and Gas 80 Park Plaza. Newar k, NJ 07101/ 201430-8217 MAILING ADDRESS / P.O. Box 570, Newark, NJ J7101 Robert L. Mitti General Manager Nuclear Assurance and Regulation June 6, 1985 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Attention:
Mr. Walter Butler, Chief Licensing Branch 2 Division of Licensing Gentlemen:
EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354-Pursuant-to discussions with D.
Wagner and H. Garg on June 5, 1985, enclose please find one (1) copy each of the Sample ~ Equipment Environmental Qualification Review Check-lists and the Environmental Design Criteria for the Hope Creek Generating Station; Report No. 10855-D7.5, Rev. 2.
Should you have any. questions in this regard, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
/
VA C
D.
H. Wagner USNRC Licensing Project Manager A.
R.
Blough USNRC Senior Resident Inspector oNg IM 18 1 1 \\
fDR 4
The Energy People A
9'>4912 (4M) 7 83
m'-
w..
- a-Mr. WalterL8atler, Chief:
2 6/6/85 BC[ General, Manager.-! Engineering General Manager - Hope Creek Operations Project Manager?- Hope' Creek:(w/o attach)
Site Engineering l Manager.- Hope ' Creek -
- Chief Project ~ Engineer.- Hope Creek
' Associate General Solicitor
- B.; G. Markowitz
- Bechtel' Powe: ~ Corporation Conner & Wetterhahn.
?R. Green (NJ. State Bureau of. Rad. Prot.)
Site Licensing Group PSE&G Bethesda Office
'J. J.--Wroblewski R. ' F..Drewnowski (w/o attach)
C. Lambert CARMS
-_NAR Dept. File.(yellow)
~
- Lic~ File'NRC. Letters (pink)
~
- JES:bp IM 18 2
3.
Vendor Print No.:
i Document No.:
EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION
~
REVIEW CHECKLISTS General The environmental qualification review checklists have been developed as an aid for reviewing safety related equipment qualification plans and reports and for assurance that all applicable requirements have been considered, evaluated and achieved or deficiencies identified.
Applicable checklist (s) shall be completed.
1.
Qualificacion document reviewed is:
Test Plan Test Report Title Date 2.
Qualification Method / Test Plan Type test.
(Complete checklist 1).
Operating experience.
(Complete Checklist 2).
Analysis.
(Complete Checklist 3).
Combination of above.
(Complete applicable checklists).
Mild environment.
(Complete Checklist 4)
Test plan (Complete Checklist 5) 3.
Is the qualification document traceable to the equipment being qualified?
i Yes No l
4.
What portions of the qualification document need clarification or justification.
4.1 If minor, do you consider the qualification document acceptable?
5.
Qualification document has been reviewed to:
NUREG 0588, Cat. I NUREG 0588, Cat. II DOR Guidelines Reviewed by Date 7
Checked by Date e-s.
,,m.,-_----.m--,y-
,,ww.,-.w..--._,_,
v--,
y,,,_.,c,_,__..e.
._,,s
__,--__...----,r-w-,,,,-
Pcgo 1
~
CHECKLIST 1
~
QUALIFICATION BY TYPE TESTING I EVAL lSECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IYlNINAlPAGE NOlREMARKS II I I
i 1.0 Test Sequence l I I l
l l l l l
l 1.1 Is test sequence specified in Section 6.3.2 l l l l
l of IEEE 323-74 and/or in daughter standard used?
I I I l
l 11I I
i 1.2 If not, is the test sequence used justified l l l l
l as most severe?
ll l I
l i I l l
l 1.3 Is same test specimen used throughout the l l l l
1 complete test sequence?
I l l l
l l l l l
I 2.0 Margin l l l l
l l l l l
l 2.1 Do margins compare to the suggested margins l l l l
l per Section 6.3.1.5 of IEEE 323-1974 and/or l l l l
l in daughter standard?
(Also refer to NUREG 0588 l l l l
l Section 3(4)]
l l l l
l l l l l
l 2.2 If not, is justification provided for deviations? l l l l
l l l l l
l 3.0 Aging i I l l
l l l l l
l 3.1 Thermal Aging l l l l
l l l l l
l 3
3.1.1 Which methodology is used for thermal l l l l
l aging?
Il l l
l l l 1 I
I Arrhenius l l l l
l n Degree Rule (Needs Justification) l I l l
l Other l l 1 I
l l l l l
l 3.1.2 Time and temperature used for aging l l l l
l l l l l
l
'C Hours l l l l
l l l l l
l Note:
Aging time of less than 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> is l l l l
l not acceptable.
l l l l
l 3.1.3 To what period of qualified life does _the aging.
] l l _l
. I l l l l
l bring the equipment?
years.
l l l l
t NA - Not Applicable; CTP - Comment to Project; CTV - Comment to Vendor; Y - Yes; N - No; EVAL. - Evaluation i
i Vendor Print No.:
Document No.:
~.
f.,
Pago 2
~
CHECKLIST 1 QUALIFICATION BY TYPE TESTING i EVAL.lSECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS lYLNINAIPAGE N0l REMARKS i
i l
i l
I 3.1.3 Are the acceleration rate and activation i
I energy used, justified and documented?
i i
l 1
i i
l I
i 3.2 Mechanical and Electrical Aging i l l l
l l
I I
i 3.2.1 Is mechanical wear simulated?
i i
l l
l l
1 l
i 3.2.2 Is electrical contact degradation i I(
l simulated?
j j j
(
l i I I
3.2.3 Is the selection of number of operating
( l l l
cycles for accelerated rate justified i I I I
I and documented?
Ii1 l
l l 1 1 I
I Note: This aging is applicable to electro-1 I I i
i mechanical eq)uipment (e.g., switches, i I j i
i relays, etc.
I i
I I
I I
I I
3.3 Radiation Aging
[ l l
i II I
I 3.3.1 What is the total radiation (TID Rads) l l 1 l
l co which the equipment is irradiated?
i i l I
i l i I I
I Rads i I I I
l l l l l
1 3.3.2 What is the dose rate and duration used?
l l
l l
I I
I I
Rads / Hour Hours i II I
i i li I
I i 1 i l
i 3.3.3 Does the test TID exceed the required l
l l
values?
I l
I III I
I 3.3.4 What is the radiation source?
j i i i
IIl l
Cobalt-60 1I I
I Other (needs justification)
I I
i i
3.3.5 Is Beta radiation adequately addressed?
I I
I I
ili l
i 3.3.6 Is neutron radiation adequately addressed?
Il l 1
1 Vendor Print No.:
Dotwent No.:
Pcgo 3 CHECKLIST 1
~
QUALIFICATION BY TYPE TESTING l EVAL.lSECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS lYlNlNAlPAGE NO REMARKS I l l l
3.5 Synergism l l l l
l l l l l
l 3.5.1 Are synergistie effects (when these l l l l
l effects are known to have a significant l l l l
l effect on equipment performance) consi-l l l l
l dered and accounted for in precondi-l l l l
l tioning and testing of equipment?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 3.6 Maintenance and Replacement Schedule l l l l
l l II l
l 3.6.1 Has the equipment maintenance and l l l.l l
replacement schedule (for components l l l l
l less than 40 years life) been estab-l l l l
l lished and provided?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 4.0 Vibration (Non-Seismic) l l l l
' l l l l l
I 4.1 Is the equipment aged for non-seismic vibration l l l l
l per IEEE 323-74 and/or daughter standard?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 5.0 Humidity l l l l
l l l l l
l 5.1 Is the effect of humidity during normal oper-1 I l l
l ation and design basis event considered?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 6.0 Dust l l l l
l l I I l
l 6.1 Is dust environment condition considered I i l l
l and addressed?
l l l l
l l l l l
1 7.
Testing Under Normal and DBA Conditions l l l l
l l l l l
1 7.1 DBA Simulation l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.1.1 For equipment located inside containment l l l l
l or subject to KELB did the test tempera-l l l l
l ture-pressure profile envelop the l l l l
l required profile?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.1.2 If not, are the deviations justified?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.2 Installation l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.2.1 Is equipment tested in a manner that l l l l
l simulates its expected installation?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.2.2 If not, is analysis performed and justi-l l l l
l fication provided to show that equip-l l l l
l ment's performance will not be affected l l l l
l by other installation configurations?
l l l l
1 Vendor Print No.:
Docwent No.:
~
Pcg3 4 CHECKLIST 1
~
QUALIFICATION BY TYPE TESTING I EVAL.lSECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IYlNlNA1PAGE NOl REMARKS
~
l I I I
I Il l l
l
[
7.3 Test Instruments Calibration l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.3.1 It, test equipment calibrated against l l l l
l auditable calibration standards?
I l l l
l l l l l
l 7.3.2 Is documentation to verify such ca-l l l l
1 libration available for audit?
l l l l
l l l l 1
1 7.4 Monitoring l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.4.1 Is the equipment electrically energized l l 1 l
l during test?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.4.2 Are simulated loads applied during test?
l l l l
l 1 I I l
l 7.4.3 Are input signals applied during test?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.4.4 Are power supply extremes applied during l l l l
l test?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.4.5 Is the temperature to which the equipment l l l l
l is qualified when exposed to the simu-l l l l
l lated accident environment determined by l l l l
l temperature readings sufficiently close l l l l
l to the equipment to characterize actual l l l l
l environment?
l l l l
l 1
l l 1 l
l 7.4.6 If not, is heat transfer analysis l l l l
l performed to determine temperature 1l l l
l at the equipment?
l l l l
l l 11 I
I 7.4.7 Are performance characteristics or l l l l
l the functional operability of the l l l l
l equipment verified throughout its l l l l
l range of required operability?
Ill l
l l l l l
l Before testing l l l l
l Periodically during testing I l l l
l After testing l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.4.8 Is the operability status of the l l l l
l equipment monitored during test?
l l l l
l l l l l
l Vendor Print No.:
Doewent No.:
Pcgo 5 CHECKLIST 1 QUALIFICATION BY TYPE TESTING l EVAL.lSECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS lYININAIPAGE NOl REMARKS I I I l
l 7.5 Spray l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.5.1 Is the equipment qualified for l l l l
l l l l l
l Chemical spray (PWR) l l l l
l Domineralized water spray (BWR) l l l l
l None of the above l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.5.2 Is the concentration of chemicals used at I l i l
I least as severe as that resulting from l l l l
l the most limiting mode of plant operation? l l l l
l l 1 I I
I 7.5.3 Is most severe chemical spray envi-1 l l l
l ronment which results from single i l l l
l failure in the spray system assumed?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.5.4 Is spray incorporated at or near the l l l l
l maximum pressure and temperature l l l l
l conditions that would occur when spray l l l l
l system actuates?
I l l l
l l I I I
I 7.6 Submergence l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.6.1 Is the equipment subjected to submergence? l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.6.2 If yes, is equipment required to l l l l
l function after submergance?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.6.3 If yes, is equipment located in qualified l I I l
l watertight enclosures?
l l l l
l l 1 I I
I 7.6.4 If yes, are watertight enclosures quali-l l l l
l fied by test or analysis to demonstrate l l l l
l the adequacy of such protection?
l l l l
l l 1 I I
i 7.6.5 If not located in watertight enclosures, 1 I l l
l is equipment demonstrated to be qualified l l l l
l by test for the seal integrity and func-l l
- 1. l l
tional operability for the duration l l l l
l required?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.7 Disassemble and Inspection l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.7.1 After testing, is the equipment disas-l l l l
l sembled to the extent necessary for Iii l
i inspection and the findings recorded?
l l l l
l l l l l
1 Vendor Print No.:
Doctment No.:
Pago 6 CHECKLIST 1 QUALIFICATION BY TYPE TESTING L EVAL. iSECTION QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
- Y N,NA PAGE NO REMARKS 5.0 Test Sample Failures l
l 8.1 Has acceptance criteria been established for i
testing?
I il I
i 8.2 Has any equipment sample failed to perform Class I
lE functions required by equipment qualification? l l l
,l 8.3 Was any modification made to the equipment or i
i test specimen after.the start of type test?
1 I
I 8.4 If yes, was modification justified?
l l l l
l IIl l
8.4 Was the failure adequately analyzed and attribu-l Il l
table to random type failure mechanism?
Ii l l
l l 1 I
i 9.0 Documentation nl l
l l l
9.1 Does type test data documentation contain the l l l
l following?
l I I
l A reference indicating applicability of equipment tested to equipment provided for Hope Creek gg The equipment perfonnance requirements in accordance l
h I
l with the technical specifications l
l
, Identification of specific feature (s) to be demon-g strated by the test Test plan i Ii l
l l
Report of the test results including:
I,'
,Il l
Objective i
l Equipment tested Description of test facility (test i i L setup) and instrumentation includ-l l l l
ing calibration l l l ll l
l Test procedures ll 1
l 1li Test data and accuracy (results) l II l
IlI i
Summary, conclusions and recommen-1l l j
dacion iil I
i lI i
Supporting data l
l l
l l
I i
l Approval signature and date l l l l
l Vendor Print No.:
i Document No.:
Pago 1
~
CHECKLIST 2 QUALIFICATI0d 0F OPERATING EXPERIENCE i EVAL lSECTION!
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
, Y' N, NA ; PAGE NO I REMARKS 1.0 What is the environment in the operating facilities?
l II L
l Fac Fac Fac II I
- 1
- 2
- 3 l
1.1 Temperature 1.2 Pressure I
1.3 Relative Humidity l l l l
l 1.4 Radiation j
l l
t 1.5 Submergence i
l 1.6 Vibration iI l
l 1.7 Power Supply Extremes 1(
i 1.8 Dust l l l l
l 1.9 Physical Location
,i l
l 1.10 Mounting Arrangements i
l l l i
2.0 Are above environments determined by I i i
measurement (whera applicable)?
l l l l
IIi l
l 3.0 Are effects of noncontinuous measurements j i l l
l justified by analysis?
l l l l
l 1 ll I
i 4.0 How is the performance of electric equipment j
L l
l to be qualified determined?
l i
l i
Ii 1 1
I
-- From measured data l
l l
[
-- By analysis of failures
(
1
-- Both I
L i
i cI I
5.0 Data shall include ene following:
l I(
l l
l i
5.1 Measurement or determination of all performance characteristics in the i
specification l
I il 5.2 Recording and analysis of all failures l
l l
l 5.3 Trends that occurred during the operating i L l
period.
I l
I l
I l
5.4 Log of all periodic maintenance
!I l
i (including adjustments and l
i i
calibration) and inspection.
III l
I i i
1 i
Vendor Print No.:
Document No.:
4
s Page 2 CHECKLIST 2 QUALIFICATION OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE I EVAL iSECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS lYlN1NAlPAGE NOlREMARKS l l l l
1 5.5 Document to demonstrate the following as l l l l
l evidence for determination of qualification l l l l
l l l l l
1
-- The equipment whose operational history l l l l
[
becomes a basis for qualification is of Il l l
l
' equipment bearing the same designation.
l l l l
l l l l l
1
-- The recorded operating environment l l l l
l equals or exceeds the design l Il l
l environment in severity.
l l l l
l l l l I
-- The performance of in-service l l l l
l equipment equalled or exceeded l l l l
l the specified requirements.
I l 1 l
l l l l 1
-1
-- The period of time for which the l l l l
l above requirements are demonstrated l l l l
l to be met (with reasonable margin) l l l l
l is equal to the qualified life l l l l
l l l l l
l 6.0 Was any modification made to the equipment at l l l l
l the beginning of the operating experience l l l l
l reporting period?
l Il l
l l l 1 I
i 7.0 Documentation l l l l
l l l l l
l Does operating experience data l l l l
l documentation contain the following?
l l l l
l l l 1 l
l 7.1 The equipment performance specification i I(
l 7.2 The interface or boundary conditions of the equipment.
I II I
l 7.3 The specifications of equipment for which l l l l
1 operating experience is available.
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.4 Identification of specific features to be l l l l
l demonstrated by operating experience.
I l' l l
l l l l l
l 7 5 Comparison of past application and specifi-1 Il l
l cations with the new equipment specifications l l l l
l for each feature identified above.
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.6 Summary and source of operating experience l l l l
l applicable to equipment qualification.
l l l l
l l 1 I I
I 7.7 The basis on which the data have been deter-l l l l
l mined to be suitable and the equipment i i l l
l qualified.
l l l l
l l l l l
l 7.8 Approval signature and date.
Il l l
l Vendor Print No.:
Docwent No.:
~..'
Page 1 CHECKLIST 3
~~
QUALIFICATION BY ANALYSIS I EVAL lSECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS l YIN NA'PAGE NOIREMARKS I I i
1.0 Why equipment is (to be) qualified l l l l
l by analysis.
I l l l
l l l l l
l
-- Testing is impractical I l'l l
l because of size of equipment l l l l
l l
-- Limitation due to the state-of-the-art l l l l
l
-- Other l l l l
l l l l l
l 2.0 Analysis method used is:
l l l l
l l l 1 l
l
-- Mathematical modeling l l l l
l
-- Extrapolation l l l l
l
-- Both of the above l l l l
l
-- Other l l l
-l 1
I I l l
l 3.0 Analysis is based on:
l l l l
l l l 1 l
l
-- Established principles (standards, literature, l l l l
l etc.)
l I l l
l l l 1 l
l
-- Operating experience data
-l l l l
l l 1l l
l
-- Partial type test data.
l l l l
l l l l l
1
-- Combination of the above l l l l
l (Check all that apply) l l l l
l l l l l
l 4.0 Are all assumptions used in the l l l l
l analysis justified?
l l l l
l l.l l l
l 5.0 Is the constructed mathematical l l l l
l model valid?
l l l l
l l l l l
l 6.0 Is the extrapolation performed l l l l
l justified?
l l l l
l l l l l
1 7.0 Are known material phase changes l l l l
l and reactions identified to l l l l
l ensure that no adverse changes l l l l
l l
occur within the extrapolation l l l l
l limits?
l l l l
l l l l l
l Vendor Print No.:
Doctment No.:
Page 2 CHECKLIST 3
~
~
~
QUALIFICATION BY ANALYSIS l EVAL (SECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS JYlNINAIPAGE NOIREMARKS j
l l l I
i 8.0 Does'the analysis performed l l l l
1 demonstrate that the equipment i j j i
l performance will meet or exceed i l l j
i its specified values for the j
i
(
l most severe environment or i
1
)
sequence of environments in i
j the specification during its i I L i
l qualified life?.
l l l l
~
l l l
9.0 Documentat' ion
( l i
j i l i
I 9.1 Does the analysis data documentation I i i
i contain the following (as applicable)?
I ji i
l l I I I
L 9.1.1 The equipment performance specifications i j l l
l l IL l
I 9.1.2 The specific features, postulated l Ll l
1 failure modes,or the failure Iil l
[
effects analyzed j i j i
j i i i l
l 9.1.3 The assumptions, empirically j l l l
1 derived values, and mathematical j j j
(
j models used together with l l l l
l appropriate justification I i l l
l for their use l 1l l
l l l l 1
l 9.1. 4 Description of analytical methods j j j j
j or computer programs used j I L
i j
i l i
l 9.1.5 A summary of analytically established i l l
(
(
performance characteristics l l l l
l and their acceptability j j l
l Ii I
l 9.1.6 The basis for the extra-l l l l
l polation where test data or l l l l
j operating experience data have l l l
[
j been extrapolated l l l l
l l l l l
j 9.1.7 Approval signature and date j i j l
l l l 1 1
I Vendor Print No.:
Doctment No.:
Iar
J.~.- s CHECKLIST 4
~
f-]-
QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT IN MILD ENVIRONMENT l EVAL 15ECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
[YININAIPAGE NOIREMARKS i l i i
i 1.0 Does the project specification and/or purchase l l l l
j requisition specify the (current) normal and I(
l l
abnormal environmental conditions for the l l l
[
equipment location.?
ll
)
I i l l
1.1 Is the equipment environment maintained by a ii
. Class lE support system?
l I
I l
2.0 Are materials in the equipment susceptible to
, l [
l degradation due to thermal.and/or radiation l l l l
aging in equipment's environment?
I l l j
[
l l l
t 2.1 If yes, what is the method for i
I maintaining qualification:
I l
1 1I I
I maintenance / surveillance i lI i
l i II I
l replacement schedules I I i i
i i li i
l other l I l l
l l l l l
1 2.2 Reference vendor manual / instruction, l l l l
l if any, to support 2.1.
Ij(
1
)
I I I I
l i
l i
I I
i 3.0 Qualification Method (any of the following):
) i i j
i i i i i
Certification of conformance to the I
l design specification l
l l
Type test per IEEE 323-1974 I
l l
-1971 ll l
i Combination of test, evaluation & analysis
) j Other, (explain) l l III I
I 4.0 Are the qualification documents signed and dated? I l
l l
l l
1 i
!ii i
llI i
i i
I i
a Vendor Print No.:
Doctment No.:
Pago 1
'4 CHECKLIST 5 REVIEW OF TEST PLAN I EVAL ISECTIONI QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS lYININAI PAGE NOI REMARKS I i h
i 1.0 Are the components to be tested to applicable j
j standards?
j l
l
} I l
2.0 Does the procedure state times and temperatures l l l
j to be used for thermal aging?
l l j
i l
i l i
3.0 Does the procedure state dose race lij
(
and total dose for radiation aging?
l l l l
[
ll l
l 4.0 What is to be the radiation. source?
l l l
l 1 l l l
l 5.0 Are all' organic components to be aged?
I '
l l
1
\\
1 5.1 If not, what are the exceptions?
I i
}
l 1 l 1
i 5.2 What is the justification for exception?_
- I1 I
i l I I h
I I I l 1
-6.0 Are solid state components to be aged?
l l l l
III l
6.1 If not, what is the justification?
} l l l l l l l 1 7.0 To what length of qualified life will the i I (
L I
proposed aging bring the component?
l j j l
l 1
i i
l l
I I
i 8.0 Is the proposed test sequence the same as the 1 1 l l
l sequence specified in Section 6.3.2 of IEEE l l 1
323-74 and/or daughter standard?
l i
l i
l i
i i
I 9.0 Does the proposed temperature-pressure profile l l l
l l
envelop the required profile?
j i i
i li i
i 10.0 How much margin is proposed for Pressure?.
l l l
l Temperature?
Radiation?
l l l
l 1 l l l
l 11.0 Are thermocouples to be mounted on the surface l l l L
l of the equipment during DBA simulation test.
j l l j
i li i
t 11.1 If not, how is temperature to be measured?
l l j j
l I i
i i
12.0 Are the proposed voltages and frequencies L i 1
i compatible to specified requirements?
j I
I i
i l
I i
Vendor Print No.:
Doctment No.:
o
~ --
t
.1 Pego 2 CHECKLIST 5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
REVIEW 0F TEST PLAN EVAL ISECTIONl QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
,YLN'NAlPAGE NOI REMARKS I
12.1 What margin is proposed?
Voltage i
j Frequency l l l
l 12.2 Do proposed margins adequately compare to the
~ l l
l 1
j j
suggested margins of IEEE 323-1974?
,j l
l i
t 13.0 What operating cycling is proposed?
I l
l I
i 14.0 Does the procedure address dust conditions?
Il
[
[
l i
15.0 Are the documents signed and dated.?
l 1
l l
1 i
I l'
I Iii l
iI I
l Ii I
.)
I i
l i
L I I
l 11 1
l I
I i
I l
I Il 1
l l l
l l l l
1 I
I I
i i
l l I I
i l l L l
I i l l l
l I i l
l l l
l l l L
l 1 i 1
l l
I i
i I
I l
I l
,I i
~
l l '
l I I i
1 1I I
I Ill I
i i
l i
,1 I
L
~~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ -
Vendor Print No.:
Doctment No.: