ML20213D706

Forwards marked-up Suggestions for Finalizing Draft Submittal Ltr to Applicant Re Cable Separation Criteria

ML20213D706
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	04/17/1981
From:	Rosa F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0355, CON-WNP-355 NUDOCS 8104300470
Download: ML20213D706 (5)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'.. 's - *

,  % e n *. -

/

-Q . s April 17,1981,{ .],?.L- /-4/Qb

,p E'(' G((jf' c.>

MEMORANDUti FOR: Billy Joe Youngblood, Chief M/ J. 4,T7 9 Licensing Branch No. 1, DL " 4. , ?g '

.FROM: Faust Rosa, Acting Chief Power Systems Branch, DSI h  %% f l

SUBJECT:

WNP-2 CABLE SEPARATION CRITERIA -

During the April 1 meeting between the staff and WNP-2 personnel PSB comitted to provide a set of acceptable separation criteria to replace the non-Class lE separation criteria proposed for WNP-2. We provided this to the project manager and he in turn volunteered to draft the submittal letter to the applicant. Enclosed is our manked-up suggestions for finalizing the provided draft submittal letter. Any questions should be directed to R. Fitzpatrick x28350

/$[

Faust Rosa, Acting Chief Power Systems Branch Division of Systems Integration

Enclosure:

As stated cc: R. Mattson P. Check R. Tedesco D. Lynch L. Rib J. Elin, Region V A. Ungaro S. Rhow R. Fitzpatrick

>104 30 O W N< IW

Contact:

R. Fitzpatrick x28350 7 e.. ql PSB [ N ,I. ~

PSBQ{. , ,

t 4 .[ i

" .RFitzpatrick:bl. FRosa.

u ,r 4/07/81

. 4/i]/81 . , j

,ccsa<..;- ' -

~ CV.I5I[W .P

~

u ,

'o,

- ((pua , . c. ( 'i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E WASHmGTON, D. C. 20555

c.,; 'q'"P f f 7

gv.....f Docket No. 50-397 Washington Public Supply System ATTN: Mr. R. L. Ferguson Managing Director 3000 George Washinoton Way Richland, Washington 99352

Subject:

Staff Response to the Presently Proposed Cable Separation Criteria for the WNP-2 Facility In response to our question regarding the separation criteria for electrical cables in the WNP-2 facility (Item 031.100), you submitted proposed criteria in Amendment 10 to the FSAR in July 1980. This proposed cable separation criteria was discussed by the staff with your respresentatives in a meeting in Bethesda on April 1,1981. As a result of our review of your July 1980 submittal and following our discussion on April 1st, we accept your response to Item 031.100 with a few exceptions as noted below. These exceptions are related to the definition of associated circuits and their criteria for in-stallation.

of non-Class E circuits.

also have exceptions to your criteria governing the installation 4 ee - Pa" wt cad 1sa N h Ne ' - N'*f ~['

With respect to associated circuits

• regoed beC l oewhich-a 4sfhition circuits are those: g IEEE Std. OC4 'l^77i. AssociatedIdo d

], n i ,, .4 Non-Class les/ wires which share raceways wit Classhcables/ wires I

t and which are not physically separated from Class I cables / wires.

Non-Classh cables / wires which share enclosures with Classh cabl and which are not physically separated from Class (JI cables / wires.

Non-Class IE cables /wi s which carry non-classhloads but which are supplied om a Class power source. ,

-d e .C.Ilowm9 separdsen 64 dE[*['"}

We Aareer recommend that you adopt.e: # :t:lhtbn criteria for associated fad o" b N circuits. : de" ,cd :ber^ ,the r:;ui r :nt: 'i:t d b;%u. Th:- ;:-thuhr .

_c-ite '. as e71y -e'h:t S. ~f t:ri; ::t:b? h'ed 2: r ;u' : : t; M r :rrieted

-circuit:;

n,+.....~_,.>-.w k Sa J un = d.1 ef IEE N = ':277'. O g ;ff:;;i?; , = ere :-d c wr+u ,+ u . . , . . - a. ~ - - , , , , . ..

Ti,;Qf&~{ c~whei.e. 'iio'X5fh e 4 pro pised cnW.i hee- m n~ w .. l W ' e C Gr

1. . . . . ; +, , , g), f shall be uniquely identified as such or as Classha d shall remain with, or be physically separated the same as, those Class with which they are associated. circuits g gD, g T,"

031.I00 01: n e it

• Cb f c v.kj

INSERT PAGE 2 If you adopt the staff's recommendations listed above, identify those circuits that will be analyzed in order to demonstrate acceptability (in accordance with Items 3, 6 and 7 above) and those circuits that will be modified to comply with either Item 1, 2, 4 or 5 above. Individual circuits need not be identified if an entire class of circuits (e.g. wiring within panels) is to be analyzed. All future cable pulling should, to the extent practical, be in accordance with either Item 1, 2, 4 or 5 above as appropriate.

The identification of the above circuits should be done on an expedited basis and the octual analyses should be presented for staff review no later than 3 months prior to the scheduled issuance of the WNP-2 SER. In addition, t

1 l

1

{b(50%(

((wb.C $

2. @cy shall comp 1 from the Class ith the requirements described in Criterion 1 above equipment up to and including an isolation device.

Beyond quirements the of isolation device, these circuits are not subject to the re-with a Class IE system. hese criteria, provided they do not again become associated 3.

Beynot are shall degradedbe analyzed below anoracceptable tested to level. demonstrate that Classhcircuits 1 pith, spec,t to nah-Clalss IE ci cuit[ we 031.1 in ei ,w fin jyour rec prop sed dritgria ,f n .

dnacceptable./'i e n tha 'you/ the /

ri rf a gic et ec te ai n I nde q/ EE'

.(y Non-Class hcircuits shall be physically separated from Class IE circuits and associated circu + by the minimum separation requirements ecified for redundant Class IE divisions or they become associated circuits.

f4 Non-Class circuits an IE circuits shall be electrically isolated from ClassCIE and wiring techniques, physical separation, or an appropriate com or they become associated circuits.

bk The effects of lesser separation r the absence of electri

, isolation between or associate circuits shall be analyzed the non-Class IE circuits and the ClassE frcui circuits ar to demonstrate tha Class IE ot degraded below an acceptable level or they become associated ircuits.

7A 'o* =r9y non-c1 ass @ instrumentation and control circuits are not required to be physically separated or electrical isolated from associated circuits provided: (a) the non-Class routed with associated cables of a red ant division; and (b) circuits are not are analyzed to demonstrate that Class they below an acceptable level. As part of e analysis consideration circuits are not degraded shall involved. be given to potential energy and igdentification of the circuits

1. I",,[s5.. Sb b b i

t J,,. I b 5 b ! b U 5""l~ """" "YY'5'_ ,

-- r T

L.-r.:_',~ g ~y~ ":,o n? " % ~""_"?

E X ~2 W _

eeuary-+ den W ., . - .,,.,;; yos,,oe,una . .,, 7 m - vi um eou,s, ,7 -

_; m_o": ?".;~"~t~a g ."T"J i ""% _~

i- r m ,,,,, . . . m. . _7_,g,d f (I} ; H :c W : m ef 6;f:ti:.; M ~w^uthe ZJ-2 m i u v. tM.:

• w "-

fec ;iit, fr+mec in:cperatien-efMiie

,i

' -" cGuini,mu

o a s . u n s i v.

2-A a c_ -- - d i o , revise both Table IV of your itM- th r%

M --' N response to Item 031.100 l

with your final cable separation criteria.and your tray / cable marking codes to be consistent l

We also require you to propose a criterion which addresses the requirements for separation ofxplicitly)this re edaqt conduits. If you have already done so, we require criterion.

you to g~dentify jnbafrier a rpvieyinTV%espapse to Item 031.10Q, we betWeen racewbys f reduSdant/igstrumentati'on pote that yg pro 6pse.to 11p and w hihh a're rol{ted/p cont 31/ divisions g rail 1/1 t

~

mirtimu r

( ReTer/tc I .1 ch g6 6 of y ,n s,epanation ' equirements are notimet. !

r/ response to Item 031. LOO.) / Indicate.

al v .I :f n'tbin11 ri/w1 wit er .hi a' ways instaledinphecircums i clu cat th 3 separ ion cr]iteria,pou pfoposp,tancpi deg'cribed forihiM devfation in! tificat' n f r this riterts.

The intent of our recomendations regarding the cable separation criteria f contained in this letter is to expedite the resolution of our concerns regarding

. 9thetM:% cables i:;i;, .;; you

have

.s already installed in the WNP-2 facility, e' ?Z 0;J. C 'M771 -4 ;;L e,. ds i ..;,.'c:~

... .-; r.; ~ ,. r . . ; -: ., . , , , L . . . .. ?. 7 .:.;;; ;; '^ s wiring.presentlyHhsi.cHed, If you have any questions on this matter, please contact M. D. Lynch at 301/492-8413 or L. Rib at 301/492-4636.

Sincerely, #

.. 7

' Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing cc: See next page

{u k *00 YO f$e rwec eq$. y l w $~ ful.'ow e5 y vr f80fo)cc syarkom cdkerec , & No he.clh'YC k LN ()

k'Ymp4.

IhR To Dol: A]N 03 0 No CW(CN 1

~

J g : 200R_0filGINM D EIBUTION:

' ~

/ GentratTiTe.

APR 2 I g DE:MEB Reading File fiEMORANDUM FOR:

B. J. Youngblood, Chief (

~

k Licensing Branch fl. DL

%p/ gf,@\ ,

FROM: R.J,BosnEk, Chief

/[' y

~~

Mechanical Engineering Branch, DE 12

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO WPPSS REQUEST FOR CLARIFI TI0tl g 'f ,

I.7 THE USE OF ASME CODE CASES e/ y. .

es\s /

its

References:

l .' Letter, G. D.' Bauchey to R. H.' Vollmer, " Application ofASfjECodeCases",datedApril8,1981

2. Memorandum,,0. J. Youngblood to R. J. Bosnak, " Response to WPPSS Request for. Clarification of ASME Code Case",

dated April 14, 1981.

In response to yobr request (Reference 2), we hahe the following connents on the UPPSS letter (Reference 1):

Our interpretation of footnote 6 to the." Codes.and Standards Ru.le". Section 50.55a of 10CFR Part 50 is that prior authorization should be obtained from the Cornission before an.ASME Code case that.is not. identified as acceptable or conditionally acceptabic in Regulatory Guides .l.84 and 1.85 is used. It is . ,

our experience that.most. utilities.(or their agents) adhere.to this practice.

In the event prior approval is required on an accelerated basis this can be accomplished.by a telephone call to the cognizent reviewer of ASME Code Cases (R. Kirkwood) with a. follow-up letter to the Director of Licensing requesting fomal authorization.

WedonotbelieYeitisadhisableforautilitytouseCode. Cases.without prior approval at their "own risk".for the following. reason. In a recent two year period, the Conmission has classified 3 Code Cases as " conditionally acceptable" 2. Code Cases.as."not acceptable for generic use", and 2 Code Cases as "not. acceptable". Application of a Code. Case in any of these three categories could have created a hardship for the user.

WeagreethatroutinereqhestsforuseofASMECodeCasesshouldbedirected to the Director of Licensing.

R." J. Bosnak, Chief 4jy4399gOkli - 'I Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of En9 ineering cc: R.' Vollmer DE F. Schauer, DE H. Levin, DE H. Bramer, DE J. Knight, DE R. Cherny, DE

" *l',

- D.T Eisenhut ~ DLrftrKirkwood,-DE

.R.' Purple, DL .L ..W. . Anderson, RE . DE:MEB g i c' B  !

-4 ' S.!Pawlicki, DE' RKirkwood W. :R s ai T mi j , , , l, , ,

O/7/81 4/)81' Y

.g5; igg q l --%-

u e , o s.y e a . . c .c. c  ;

-