TXX-9257, Forwards Response to Request for Addl Info on FSAR Chapter 3.11 Re Environ Qualification Program,In Ref to Suppl 25 to NUREG-0797 Related to Operation of Cpses,Unit 2

Forwards Response to Request for Addl Info on FSAR Chapter 3.11 Re Environ Qualification Program,In Ref to Suppl 25 to NUREG-0797 Related to Operation of Cpses,Unit 2

ML20125D997
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/11/1992
From:	William Cahill, Woodlan D TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RTR-NUREG-0797, RTR-NUREG-797 TXX-92572, NUDOCS 9212160132
Download: ML20125D997 (4)

Text

U b==s Log # TXX-92572 E"" "O file # 10010

- J 621( cl o )

E 823 Ref. /? 10CFR50.34(b)

TUELEC7RlC 10CFR50.49

<$.,I).NrI[ [',

December 11, 1992 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

\ -

SUdJECT: COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50 446 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl)

ON FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPODI (FSAR) CHAPTER 3.11-CPSCS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION (EO) PROGRAM s REF: Supplement tio. 25 to NURFG-0797 dated September 17, 1992, related to operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 2 Gentiemen:

In the referenced supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified a number of outstanding issues (01) under review. The NRC also stated in the referenced supplement to the SER that the staff will complete the review of these items prior to issuance of Unit 2 operating license and document the review in future supplements to the SER. The outstanding issues in the reference included 01 (5) on Hild Environmental Qualification (EO) and completion of evaluation of :hanges to the previously approsed E0 program, t 0.1 October 19, 1992, during a telephone conferance call between TU Electric and the hRC, Mr. Brian Holian f rom Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) requested additional inf orrretion ns. taining to the outstanding issue 01 (5).

The NRC questionr are identified in the attachment.

150043 S

n12160m2 PDR p

ADOCK m2110500 [b W N. Obve Sucet LB. O DaHm.Texn 75201 O(SUd 1

' - TXX-92572 Page 2 of'2 TU Electric provides responses to the NRC' questions in the attachment-to this letter, if you have any questions or-require further information..

please contact Mr. Jacob H.-Kulangare at (214) 812 8818.

Sincerely, William J.-Cahill.-Jr.

By:

O. R. Woodlan Docket Licerising Manaqer-JMK/grp Attachment c- Mr. J. L. Milhoan, Region IV Mr. B. E. Hollan HRR-

Mr, T. A. 'ergman, d NRk Resident inspectors, CPSES (2) ,- ,

4 A

'w.s ,at ,-e , -

---

___A-

., - ~ - - - - - ~ . ~ . , _ . - - - - - . - - ~ . -

Attachment to TXX 92572 Page 1 of 2 1 NRC OUESTION 1.

What are Procurement Documents and how are they equivalent to Design Purchase Specifications for Environmental Oualification Purposes? Do they contain a description of functional requiremenos for the specifled environmental-zone during normal and abnormal operating conditions?

TU ELECTRIC RESPONSE 1 Procurement Documents include all documents which r?sult in an acquisition of an item and/or service in accordance with ANSI N18.7-1976. Technical and-Quality Assurance requirements are included directly, by reference, or by replacement in-Lind. Replacement items are controlled in-accordance with ANSI.

N18.7 (Reference FSAR Sections 17.2.4 and 17.2.7 and Appendix 1 A(B), RG 1.33).

Design Purchase Specifications were used in the original procurement of major plant components.

The functional requirements for environmental-qualification purposes (mild or-harsh) .are contained in design documents utilized in the review, evaluation and-approval of procurement documents.

l E OUEST10N 2 Explain continued compliance with 10 CFR 50.49 for eculpment reclassified as being in a mild environment when humidity is the-only harsh environment parameter, fu ELECTJIC RESPONSL 1 CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Section 3.118.1 defines a-potentially hersh enytronment as an environment where safety related equipment-would experience, due to the direct effects of a design basis-accident lany of-the parameters identified in this section of'the FS/1 which includes a' 7

relative humidity.value of 100 percent. FSAR also states that.lf. relative-humidity is the only harsh environment parameter exceeded for an area and an l' evaluation concludes that the subject equipment can perform its safety-related functions when exposed to.the postulatea relative humidity environment, then, for purposes of environmental qualification, the. equipment' will be const bred to be located in a mild environment.

I Regarding compliance with 10 CFR 50.49 for equipment reclassified as _being -

located i.n a mild environment by the above evaluation,'a permanent record of sisch evaluation will be maintained for the life of the plant as require d.by

\ >.

l

' Attachment to TXX 92572 hge 2 of 2 10 CFR 50.49(j). The recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.89 need not be applied to Class IE equipment located in a mild environment area as supported by the statements of consideration for 10 CFR 50.49 and stated in FSAR sections l A(H) and 1A(B).

For equipment in harsh relative humidity (RH) only environment, if the evaluation does not conclude that tne equipment can perform it's safety function when exposed to 100 percent RH environment, then environmental qualification is established in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 for that particular equipment.

4 6

.e D

_ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -_- __-_- _-