ML20210C532
| ML20210C532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1987 |
| From: | Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| 2NRC-7-002, 2NRC-7-2, 86-15, NUDOCS 8702090408 | |
| Download: ML20210C532 (2) | |
Text
f.oa* d Td 2NRC-7-002 Telecopy ( 2 h 00 Ext.160 Bemr Vall
- o. 2 Unit Project Organization P.O. Box 328 Jan. 2, 1987 Shippingport. PA 15077 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commi;sion Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 ATTENTION: Dr. Thomas E. Murley Administrator
SUBJECT:
Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Non-Class lE Circuits in Auxiliary Relay Racks Potential Significant Deficiency Report 86-15 Supplemental Information
REFERENCES:
- 1) Telecon NRC/F. Rosa to DLC/A.
B.
Bennett on December 4, 1986
- 2) Auxiliary Relay Racks Non-Conformance Report SDR 86-15 Gentlemen:
This letter satisfies the commitment made by DLC in Reference 1 to supplement the information reported in Reference 2.
Reference 2 reported a potential 10CFR50.55(e) on Auxiliary Relay Racks (ARR) used on BVPS-2.
The discrepancy consisted of connecting Class 1E Cable to the ARR that were not qualified as Class lE.
The discrepancy occurred as the result of the Architect Engineer's (Stone and Webster) interpretation of " train" and "non-train" designations on the ARR circuit diagrams.
The " train"/"non-train" designation was used by the vendor of the ARR as guidance to obtain a higher degree of circuit independence.
DLC understands that the " train" related identification is no longer used by the vendor for non-Class lE applications.
Agreements were reached between Westinghouse and Stone and Webster regarding the classification of circuits involved with the Class lE cable connections at the ARR.
These agreements, in general, resulted in the conclusion that the circuits connected to the ARR were not Class IE.
The options av ail able to correct the problem were,1) replace the Class lE cabling connecting the ARR circuits with non-class 1E cables or 2) deter-mine that failures of non-class 1E circuits / components in the ARR would not affect the integrity of the Class 1E cables / circuits connected thereto, s
8702090408 870102 PDR ADOCK 05000412 S
PDR 1 0 TO b
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Thomas E. Murley Potential Significant Deficiency Report 86-15 Page 2 It was concluded that the upgrading of the ARR was the more cost effective with the least impact on construction compared to replacing the Class 1E cable.
An analysis was performed by Westinghouse to assure that failures in the non-Class 1E circuitry of the ARR would not propagate to the Class 1E circuits.
As the result of the analysis, qualified isolation devices were enployed as required to prevent failures in the Class 1E cir-cuits resulting from non-Class 1E failures. The conclusion by Westinghouse was that failures in the non-Class 1E circuits of the ARR would not impact the integrity of the Class 1E circuits.
The Westinghouse reports to jus-tify the above conclusion exist in the appropriate files and are available for your review as necessary.
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY t
?
By _
J.
. Carey Sr. Vice President LMR/ijr NR/SIG/DEF/RPT AR/NAR cc: Mr. P. Tam, Project Manager Mr. J. M. Taylor, Director (3)
Mr. J. Beall, Sr. Resident Inspector Ms. A. Asars, NRC Resident Inspector Mr. F. Rosa, NRC Region I Mr. F. Scholl, NRC Region I Mr. D. Tondi, NRC Region I Mr. G. Holahan, NRC Region I INP0 Records Center NRC Document Control Desk l
-r..
- -.. - -..,,.,-