ML20236G138

Certification Test Rept

ML20236G138
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	12/12/1986
From:	Hughes G, Rutten P PATEL ENGINEERS
To:
Shared Package
ML20236G066	List: ML20236G064 ML20236G072 ML20236G109 ML20236G138
References
1972.10-1, 1972.10-1-R01, 1972.10-1-R1, NUDOCS 8708040140
Download: ML20236G138 (27)

Text

r L.c

. r Y

i CERTIFICATION TEST REPORT l

r l

JOB NO.

1972.10 Patel Engineers 3400 Blue Springs Road, NW REPORT NO.

1972.10-l', Rev. 1 Suite B-3 L.

Huntsville, AL 35810

_J CUSTOMER P. O. NO. 1425 MANUFACTURER l

DATE December 12, 1986 PG 1 OF 20 FourSta-KonconnectorpairsinsideaNEhAenclosure-

1. SPECIMEN

2. PART NO.

RA18-250F and 18RA-250T

3. SEF;lAL' NO.

4. REQUIREMENTS The test assembly shall be subjected to an accident simulation test and to pre.

and post accident functional tests. These tests shall be performed in accordance with Patel Engineers Test Procedure Number PEI-TR-870100-01. The individual leakage current readings during the accident test shall not. exceed 300 milliamps. The procedures used are described below..

l i

5. PROCEDURES AND RESULTS The test assembly consisted of four Sta-Kon connector-pairs, manufactured by Thomas & Betts, Part Numbers RA18-250F (female) and 18RA-250T (male) which were installed inside a NEMA-4 enclosure.

The four (4) Sta-Kon connector pairs were identified as specimen 1A, IB, 2A, and 2B (see Figure 1).

A complete description of the test assembly is shown in paragraph 1.1 of Patel Engineers Test Procedure Number PEI-TR-870100-01.

Test Setup The test assembly was installed in the test chamber with the conduit opening oriented downward.

The enclosure was clamped shut using the enclosure-mounting hardware.

j i

870B040140 870730 PDR ADDCK 03000298

-l G

PDR

~1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CCL *naa nave N haret,

• v ears 9 e, a ad la ca w " r*;

7 I

s es ou.e

'* s I

f

, berng duly $wOrr1.

J ceposes and says Tne formation contained in this report is the remult of complete and ratefully conducR tests and is to the best of his knowledy true and correct

, BY TES

,.aGary Huahes andj%rn/ before,rrip'this

~ day of $8,13 d-P N INE

/

S SC m.

Ic n

/' <

'd Q.

i Olary Pubhc m and for the County of Wake. State CPN C

/

(

My Commission expires d b2 19 FQF46.4 TF-061

.a

3 r

CERTIFICATION TEST REPORT r

1 m NO.

9 2.10 Patel Engineers i

3400 Blue Springs Road, NW REPORT NO.

1972.10-1, Rev. 1 Suite B-3 L

Huntsville, AL 35810 J

CUSTOMER P. O. NO.

MANUFACTURER l

DATE December 12, 1986

5. PROCEDURES AND RESULTS The electricel setup was wired in accordance with Figure 2, shown in Appendix 1 of this report.

Accident Simulation Instrumentation The following parameters were monitored and recorded during the test.

Leakage Current (2 channels)

Voltage ei Chamber Temperature (2 channels)

Chamber Pressure (1 channel) j The above parameters were recorded using a datalogger and a four channel pen type recorder.

The instrumentation used to measure the above parameters was calibrated using secondary standards that are traceable to NBS. The equipment and instrumentation calibration date, accuracies, manufacturer and identification number are shown in Appendix 3 of this report.

Baseline Functional Test The test specimens were subjected to a functional test in accordance with Patel Engineers Test Procedure Number PEI-TR-870100-01, paragraph 3.1, prior to the accident test.

Accident Simulation Test The test specimens were energized with a 120 VAC, 60 Hz, single phase potential throughout the 6ccident test. The current leakage was measured from conductor to conductor and conductor to ground as shown in Figure 2, l

Appendix 1 of this report.

During the accident test the leakage current was recorded every 10 seconds for the first five minutes of the test, every minute for the next 30 minutes, and every 20 minutes thereafter.

The chamber temperature and pressure were continuously recorded using two (2) thermocouple and one pressure transducer throughout the accident test.

e u.n,,.w m

I

'n y

1 L.

CERTIFIC:ATION TEST REPORT t

r

~1 JOB NO.

1972.10 Patel Engineers 3400 Blue Springs Road, NW REPORT NO.

1972.10-1, Rev.-1 Suite B-3 L Huntsville, AL 35810

.J CUSTOMER P. O. NO.

1425 MANUFACTURER.

DATE December 12, 1986 PG 3

OF _.10_

l

5. PROCEDURES AND RESULTS The insulation resistance tests were performed at time intervals of to + 30 min, 2 hrs, 4 hrs, 8 hrs, and 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

The insulation resistance, tests were R1 performed in accordance with Patel Engineers Test Procedure PEI-TRJ870100-01, paragraph 3.1.2.

?The fo11'owing temperature time and pressure conditions were required per i

i Section 3.2 of the Test Procedure.

f h*

150 to 300*F in 30 seconds, 300 F and 15 psig (min) for one (1) minute, 250*F and 10 psig (min) for 29 minutes, and 1 e 200*F and 0 psig for 23.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.

i The test media was superheated and saturated steam.

~

!# Functional Test Subsequent to the steam accident test, the test chamber was opened and the j

test assembly allowed to cool to ambient conditions.

/

l l

The test specimens were then subjecteil to a functional test in accordance with the procedure shown in paragraph 3.1 of PEI-TR-870100-01.

l l

Test Results*

The Last assemblies were subjected to a second accident simulation test and R1 pre and post accident functional tests as specified above after it was discovered that the electrical circuits had been wired incorrectly and leakage current was measured on one (1) circuit only during the first test.

The Sta-Kon connectors maintained their electrical integrity throughout the accident-test. The recorded current leakage was less than onet-(1)' milliamp-l throughout the accident' test. Test data from.the: first1 test: run on 13.0ctober j

1986 were discarded. Test data shown in Appendices.1 and 2-are taken from the' second test.

The test results for the insulation resistance tests are shown in Appendix 2 of this report. The accident simulation temperature / pressure /

time profile is shown in Figure 3,. Appendix 19 of this report. Tne pre and post accident functional test' results are shown in Appendix 2 of this report.

R1

• The test assembly was initially subjected to test on 13 October 1986.

(

)

FOAM TF 081

s Page 4.of 20 1

'L 1

.]

h I

4 i

j 1

APPENDIX 1 FIGURES

,1 I

i o

l l

Page 5 57 20 i4 (sesA-+ twCt.osin 6cr< s x 4-) (st x vvg) swc srsau wou.a. w.xrr g

(

O O

(

' C0$Mtcmot

[M (TYP-4EA:H,$1)

SM NMSI 7.B f"'1 Tk r

CMats met Nd is I&

l Q

lI O

O

_i' l

Lt GuluT tit l

g,,

FLJin( Co*JtetT, y-l 'FT. L.ON(t g

1.

CouNEC.Tolt.%

dous tST OF T(S W -to4 RnlS-2So r C.itisAP SNrMAr,t A4 laRA -1.Sof. cett*P u. Ass.

l CoumDRS 14 8 lb A.LE t N$0 LAT12.h. W t'rM k' X 7. "

e sac.a,

% c

%. cast (ALPW 4 i JiEE l

R ocr-5 E%To5 f-C.oR*P). %ar_ TOR.5 2.A 4, 29 FitEwAl.L. St % -W Mr c.o w ra n ve t w * ? s r.c '

16 Aw(e,boov, 1

A uD T4W (Ns usAmt.b NUC. MAR CAh4K k

W MW "W4m 'PV C T LEEM.

(, 6' i.*-* O

2.. CRiwPT. Manos wev4 crig9 itow 4(.97 CALmReret> io-186, hai:, cH5 M,e i.%tt.

Figure 1 Test Assembly Configuration 4

(

Page 6 of 20

[

P A(.C ibE4 1-C4 AMER l

/

NEMA 4 sex 12.0 v a c, + -

L 2A F-END c C,AF l 2.S b-l l

)

12 0

• = v A c, + -

l IA W

E@_. E-C.A P l 15 P-V GROUND

+

/

l_

=

LEAKA4E CURRENT PAKA SUREM EN T CtRcutT.

s 1

1 Figure 2 Accident Test Configuration 4

J

5$Ey 3g 0

0 0

0 0

0 6

5 4

3 2

1 y-x x

y-y:

x n

i s

m x

p s.

m.es 3l eprs 3a TmP e u

y s e

r st rd dtdp rc he r e

e ha y 5. i drl rl u

niaia 3

F euuuu 2

3q Y-2e gqt qt 5

r eecec 0

LRARA 2

?

?

y

,u

A <;

~

Q8 n

pgl F ~

d nl 7' ne ir 9-ia5,~

ri mu2 a

i s-t u

p 9

2c 9q 1

3a 2e s

1

.~

r p

1 '

9 k

1

_l

4h

~

I s"

d ce F."

er l

n a" si iu4 u

g mt0 0q i

c3.

6e s

5 a r

p 2

5

/

cl d

j ea ce

/

su er

/

P, t

/

si c

u I a 0 q

/

3 e r 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 5

0 5

0 5

0 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

m O$yM$"

Page 8 of 20 0

'e.

k.s f

k i

l

)

APPENDIX 2 TABULAR TEST RESULTS i

I

.I

'l 1

l l

l i

1 i

l i

0 a

9

q

.Page 9 of:20--

-j

=

R1-4 1

DATA SHEET l

FOR I

CURRENT LEAKAGE i

L CLIENTi km e L PRNECT NO.

/G MJO l

1' 1

TYPE TEST:

A C c-lO6/r TEST PROCEDURE NO.fe/ M pofog.of 1

TEST ITEM:

$ T4 - /toA/ c opt croA s -

TEST ITEM' TIME A VOLTAGE CURRENT NO.

DATE APPLIED LEAKAGEg TEMPERATURE I

lA Ito8tlelll s! 86 ILO 4lJ lSo**

2A I toe :19l t1 et i 2 t+

i lA' I Eo'F lA Ito8tli.I I'II-86 ILO 4 14

'l 2 d *f i

I 2A Ilomitltt ~ti-86 I1M 41J L 2 6 *F j

lA 1108:L5 fit-ti-St ILo L IJ 2997'

'l A It09!15 fit-ll-si.

IL4 e i mA L V9 'F l

1A IloV19l It-It-94 iLO 41 4 L CS'!

'LA Ilwvtlti-it Ri ILy i (,,.A 16S'?

lA IlD9n Llll-II-Si It o L f vt L 8'7 'r

'l4 J Lor d L[//-//- 9(

/L+

t/c4 Lf 7 'E IA

. LLC 9:%fli//SC_

lLO

' L i v4 369 *F 1A lL os:lllll-// fl, IL4 slJ be)

lA ILCitWfft-Il-fi lLD

- t /,,.d 3 L3 'f

$ f 4. d e d A & '/ 3 REMARKS Within acceptable limits:

Yes V

No ROA fte lA Techician

/b Reviewed By 'B/ /3M 1

1 r

k

Page 10 of 20 R1 l

DATA SHEET FOR CURRENT LEAKAGE CLIENT:

/M7 cc PLGJECT NO.

/cr'72,/g TYPE TEST:

A Gc r im ur TEST PROCEDURE NO. fs y-clow, of TEST ITEM:

57A -row copsecfvts TEST ITEM TIME 8 VOLTAGE CURRENT NO.

DATE APPLIED LEAKAGE-X TEMPERATURE

]

'LA Itosn9/ti-n~?(

ILy clx4 S LW 1

IA ILO?: 43lIl-l!- Vi ILO t-14 3 27'f 2A ILooux/ti-it-w

/ t c/

4/d S L') *F IA 17021%/11-II-(&

ILO L l v,A 3 2,3 *F i

LA ILMt4 L flI~Il-RG ILV L IaA 3lb"f 14 ILO f: 50[ /1 /./- ft (10 4IM 31S'/

'LA IL O O ' 5 0lII-It' Gi I t.V LIMA,_

$ it 'f I4 11.o ? ! S$111-II-H ILO LiJ A I L '#

'LA It<W c3In-n h ILV L I mA

% I L 'I' l

IA lLO? t S*)ln.t! SC ILO

&14 5 0$'f 1~ /+

i LOC 52lll-II-et ILu LIsvA 508'f

\\\\

(109:0olII-II-96 l10 Ll,4 3 04 't' LA ILO4 Il-of-9 i IL4 eIv h bcn; Y 8

REMARKS y -m h & g A A _ /,3g y

Within acceptable limits:

Yes No R0A Ae /fq-Techician I/ -

/

Reviewed By h) '/34 O

Page 11 of 20 R1 DATA SHEET FOR CURRENT LEAKAGE CLIENT:

h/t T Et PROJECT NO.

/9 72,/O i

TYPE TEST:

Acc io evr TEST PROCEDURE NO. ff/-T/ RLw.o /

l TEST ITEM:

S TA-e a y consceu TEST ITEM TIME &

VOLTAGE CURRENT l

NO.

DATE APPLIED LEAKAGE $'

TEMPERATURE I

IA i199:09/,t.,,.4 l70 LfJ 3 0 S **'

ILasn4fft-p1,tt It4 _

uI4 b o S *^

A lA I LO4 ' 5 9 fit -II-96 l2D L i A tA hov'r-l 1-A Itcs109 llt-//-Tl lE4 LIw4 bOVF

__ ) A ILI6: 4 %lli-It-et lLD 4 IJ t SS*P l

2A 1114 l M /ll-li-46

/L4

c. / e4 16S'#

l

[/4 I3 L4 4 9 lI'-if-et Ilo

'IJ 1/ L 'F

1. A 1314;</7//r //-76

/ t t/

• /M 1/ l ##

l l i%

23u'49lII11-96 ILO L/J T0 Tf LA 1% u;+9 ti il-gt IL4 L lsJ 2.0 f *f IA 1104 ;yelII l1-V6 iLo t i mA L o g *F 1A I LM : 49l tI TG lLV

_t i J

2. oft REMARKS _ #

fe r buyT /fm /[m. / d hg Within acceptable limits:

Yes V

No l

R0A A- (N Techician Reviewed By ' 8 / /3 M

Page 12 of 20 R1

^

DATA SHEET Client PATEL Project No.

1972.10 Date Started II-/ /- Al6 Date Completed //-// F(

TE5'I' i

Type of Test ACCIDENT (Preg ro 6t6ee)

Test Procedure No. PEI-TR-870100-01 i

fa ae4 Sample Remarks /

Continui ty Insulatiori Criteria Number (ohms)

Resistance b+ - 6uo p)A

. ? /OOOp x l A - IB

> /OOO M n I A - 6xo

'/000hn tA. Guo

) /% n 7 A - 1B

' @0hn t o~ G&o p li -

? foco b n a

IA O. Il x iv l A IB O.10 ~

2. A o.!I.~

l i

I i

LO O.lo n siI A Within Acceptable Limits: Yes L/ _

No_

d R05

1. /r}--

Technician Date

//t//.P(

Test Monitor f

M Date il- #=? 6 di-/21h/

e

~M TF-115

Page 13 of 20

'I R1 DATA SHEET PATEL Client _

Project No.-

1972.10 Date Started i/-// ?s Date Comp 1eted it//S6 Type of Test ACCIDENT (+f _To + LImM ')

Test Procedure No. PEI-TR-870100-01 s.sp. w:-u 3

j Remarks /

N]er Continui ty Insulation Criteria l

f l

(ohms)

Resistance I A - Gup u fA 50%

IA ~ l 6 I

SO ' 60Ms

_)6-Gn 20 -bo n LA Gyp I 50 2.00p+

14 16 2.0 0 - SoOAx

& fA 40 ~ /00m, Tb 681)

I 1

l i

i I

i Within Acceptable Limits: Yes No R05 I+

Technician

/$

Date

//s/^ f6 Test Monitor h

Date

// /2 - 7 6 TF-115 C__

______________._._m________

l[l Page 14 of 20 i;

t R1 DATA SHEET

]

Client PATEL Project No.

1972.10 t

Date Started r /. < /. r4 Date Completed i/-/A f(

)

1 ACCIDENT ( To + L as.)Test Procedure No. PEI-TR-870100 d1 j

f Type of Test tc 1-Pw t. I t. n.cf(

1-i Remarks /

Sample Continui ty Insulation Criteria Number (ohms)

Resistance IA - 6ve s la 50 - Uns in.IB loo-IE M,

l l

ll5 680 7 0- 80 Air 2AGvo 1.00 300A~

2A 16 i

V00 S00hn l

I 2./3 GND y1&

JSG-LCoAn

{

l l

\\

'l t

Within Acceptable Limits: Yes V

No 3

R05 p / /L-Technician

/

Date

// //- y (

Test Monitor 8e[

d Date

//. /2 - F6 TF-115 4

l l

. J

Page 15 of 20

4 R1 1

DATA SHEET j

Client PATEL Project No.

1972.10 Date Started

//-//-75 Date Completed I l- //-96 rc

• be Type of Test ACCIDENT (pm.- y,,,;,)

Test Procedure No. PEI-TR-870100-bl.

l l'st-o L~t L - S* t(

S uple Remarks /

Continui ty Insulation Criteria Number I

(ohms)

Resistance l

lA Guo ai A So-Voax IA-I6 W ~ loons i

16 - Guo 50~60M 14 640 150 - 100p.4 1A.16 i

300 ~Joorn 2B Sno wI&

100- I So u I

i i

i l

i 1

Within Acceptable Limits: Yes t/

No 9 d d_ h Date

//- //' 6/

l ROA o / A-Technician TF-115 l

1 I

4 a

4

f.

.Page 16 of 20 R1

["

DATA SHEET t.

Client PATEL Project No.

1972.10 r-l l

Date Started.ll-//-if4 Date Completed I/ // d ro e T ~ <ts,

)

Type of Test ACCIDENT &

o

,m u Test Procedure No. PEI-TR-870100 '

(WLILul'8]

Remarks /

Sample Continuity Insulation Criteria Number (ohms)

Resistance

/M - 6a0 '

a I4 36-VO,co I A - ll3 2 G -TOL I o ~ Guo W-Up.~

2A-Gno 60 -70Mu 2.A -1.6

/00-ISO M 16~ 6xn n IA

@ - 20Mn i

l t

l l

Within Acceptable Limits: Yes

/

No R05 4 / A-Technician h N a[$

Date

//- / /' f 6

(/

Test Monitor

/3 A Date

,,.,2-sg TF-115

~.

Page 17 of 20 R1 DATA SHEET Client PATEL Project No.

1972.10 Date Star

// -/2 f(

Date Completed v.,1 - N ye, 2 %ts&jed

~y Type of Test ACCIDENT (rigc-2',,m w )

Test Procedure No. PEI-TR-870100-01

,% s.

IL it 96 l

Remarks /

Continuity Insulation Criteria r

(ohms)

Resistance I A - 6no o fA IS-2.op s I A - lb 60 ~ 20A1s

_ l 8 - 6NO 2 0 - bems

'1.A ~ 6un

/0-l5 %

2A 16 Lo - bon 10- Ano hk 9~@/%-

a

/

Within Acceptable Limits: Yes

/

No R05 P

Technician h

Date //s /2 - 8 /

s Test Monitor 8e8 / d Date

// / 2.

8 6

~

TF-115 a

~

Page 18 of 20 r

R1 DATA SHEET Client PATEL Project W.

1972.10 Date Started _ // /l-M Date Completed // <1 F(

Type of Test ACCIDENT (POST)

Test Procedure No. PEI-TR-870100-01 Sample Remarks /

Continui ty Insulation Criteria-Number (ohms)

Resistance l

,1 IA - Gno x (A 7 (000p~

l

' l00dMst.

IA-IR 16 GNO l 000MA 9 A-6MO

> I#00h&

l 2 A. 'L 8

) /0 00 hn 10- GWO iv (P

? 1000 pn l

l lA O. I t%

ntA

/4

o. / 3 4 LA O.11.^

I l

20 C. I 2. n p(A l

l e

een ilithin Acceptable Limits: Yes V

No R05 yIV Technician h

2

// /.- f 6 Date

,o, Test Monitor M6d Date

//- /2 - 76 TF-115 1

e_-_______-____-_____--______-__-_-________--_______--_-_---_.

o

Page 19 of 20 j

1 4

l 1

J J

APPENDIX 3 INSTRUMENTATION DATA SHEET i

1 i

i I

/

9

%2C aS Wt 4-mtwte 6 n6 L

l 8

A V

s t

t C

PO S A

)

? G 1 s

i l

I P

0 hi 7

(

W#

f L

(

N T L

L O L

'I

~

D 5'

S 6 l

Y J

U B

D s

s E

s.,

K c

a C

7-9 S.

S Y

v t.

C k

x H

A

.

• f F 6 5

a E

f s

r

% i I

s 9

e %. M. 2

% 2 P

o. Y%

5 S

D C

R h

P o.

L 0

L.

L 6 B U

f C

l 3 3 L 0 O O V0 O O

O C

D 1

L l

? $ ?

1 T

t C

A w

J c 4_

T t

I wd A a v,.

F h

b ".- h vV N

E s

F G $

u mo 1

0 c

S Yo w9 n9 1

a N

$ o z

1

?"E' ~ 1 '

s l

M A

t S

9 z

~

9 o

0h

~

S 0 6 0 P

R 0

u O o

T O

L E

y 5

O 5 2 E

E L

1 l

A.

A G/ 5 3 5

9 l

1 3

l L

)

q V

H E

I O

t 0 +

0 l

6 4

4' OH9 I

5 0

' 0L 1 R

9 B i

i I

E S

K L

0 E N W

9 9

D A

S

. 9 9 9 2 0

D 1

3 O

b

}

t T

P N

T*

V D

O O

4 s

D o

'& W H

f t

N 1

uS A

I 6

9 7'

5

)

L t

A T

O /

f E

0 o

D E A D h5 t

6 s

y 9

1 0

DO 0

t F

t l

0 N

0 3t M

(O s.

A U

I R

3 6

y

~

o 4

9 1

L 1

d T

t 1

G T

ME

~

~

1 T

s c

9 A

O n R

I N

N R

r T

E E

N L

M I

v U

T G

o, S

S U

E N

s R

T E

t N

R E

E T

R 1

M c

N O

T nS R V F e s

e y

'T c

t n

E i

C S

e p

C R E F T

T ro E s G O n H

9 0

L N

A H H I

9 L

E T T G C u E

s l

nL L L a

• F T

I M

f U

U 0 O G

H u

D c

U v r L

n D 6

A N

E E 6 C N S O o n <

A S v P E I

R M

H 1

- A t

R R G G o

?

}

4 L

A A O

P R

O t

i C

m r

1 r

a E

(

2 L(

L S

o E e N

L E

E A C Et u

u, n P

D G

N %

t O

t I

I U uP L

v l

p f

e o S T

T o a P

6 r A u v

M P

c I

A c r r

m e, E

6 N

n O

R R

/ C h e E C

wo O

o o 0

L S

P s M 6 E v

(-

(- c am n 6 l

r T

o v 6 E

O R R T D%c N

s R

T oD D

T E E A

S E

E o n s

n s

R T s

A s

1 H h H E G A

A re T

A S

A L P~

T S E T T C' A N

[

H D P T

O R

N 3 + 5 6

9 3 1

L L E

8 M

B

. 1 V

L L

~9 Y $

?

LO 3 3

• L 5

0 5r1 l

O O C

0 O

0 0 O 0 0 0 0 N

0 0 0 S

+6 0eW 6 W) 0 J

C 9 88 3 T

9 9 C

(3 G'

S L

U C

o C

C 0l Li T3 Y5 6 2 0 9

['

O l

1 I

I I

N 48~

a 1

+

i J

l l

i I

i

)

l 1

4 l

Reference 3 l

1 1

a i

1 l

i l

i N

e, t

---

.._.-__-____A

).T. 2 3 fL escx774' 4

NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT Sheet 1

of-1 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Date r 3 37 Time FROM:

TO:

Name M. J. Chatham Name G. Elam Company NPPD Company Patel Engineers

SUBJECT:

DBA Test Setup Clarification of T & B Connectors l

Reference:

Patel Report PEI-TR-871011-02. Rev. A TOPICS OF CONVERSATION:

The NFMA-4 inntrinn hnv t, a c mnnnroA 4n the g,,e nn 1 gi.g 1.,i e p 9 r i gy mgg 9 the downvard direction.

cnnanie unn inre unconloa c,. c h ekge enn gtgem environment would enter the iunction box.

l

/ ~

l l

Mark Chatham l

l I

l l

DISTRIBUTION:

O Reference 4' t

l I

i 1

i k

r 4

NdBRASKA Punuc Powsn DisTnicT OI. n g3 CNSS867849 Date October 8, 1986 1

To R. M. Peterson FOR INTER-DISTRICT BUSINESS ONLY

)

From R. A. Minadeo l

Subject Maximum Leakage Current Analysis for TS Connectors i

Plant wiring diagrams indicate that the most susceptible TS circuits are those

{

in the steam tunnel. This conclusion is based on the following:

1 1.

The steam tunnel switches are set up so that as many as twelve switches are in series with the 120 VAC power supply, the five ampere fuse, and the relay coil.

This high number of switches

{

provides the most conservative leakage path (with respect to number

~

~ of connectors).

This example yields 24 leakage paths (12 switches x l

2 connectors per switch).

I 1

2.

The steam tunnel environment is the most severe of all of the EQ TS locations.

The analysis of maximum allowable leakage current is as follows:

)

i Relay Coil VA = 32 VA (or 267 MA)

Operating Voltage = 120 VAC, 60 Hz Maximum Switches per Circuit = 12 Fuse Rating = 5 Amperes All 12 switches represent parallel laakage paths to ground.

Therefore, five amperes (fuse) -0.267 amperes (relay coil) = 4.733 amperes available prior to fuse interruption and circuit inoperability.

No voltage drop to the coil of the relay will occur unless the fuse interrupts. Therefore, if each of the 12 TS leak

= 0.394 amperes or less, the circuit will operate properly.

For 2

conservatism, 300 ma per switch is a safe limit.

This would cease a total curr.nt of 12 (.300) + 0.267 = 3.867 amperes (23% margin).

4AL R. A. Minadeo EQ Consultant RAM:ss J

L a.

-)

9 e

Reference.8 I

1 1

i

)

i I

l l

7 p

R A

T

u. 4 3

2 C

E E

z

=

=

L L

wg e

=

=

E A

r z

_ =

=

O 3

=

=

E A

g 2

. =

=

S C

e w

=

1

=

U M

s

=

0

=

O u

=

+

=

H M

s r

E

=

a s

1

=

J.

e

_ - ) = *

=

I a

3 =

6

=

T N

a E =

=

S s

s Y =

9

=

E yk

=

. ( =

=

W

=

=

2 N

G s.

A,,

=

=

=

=

2

=

s s

ek T

=

=

=

N A

=

=

O w

e R

a

. =

=

I h

nC E

i

=

=

=

S P

D

=

. =

=

I G

z u

=

C

=

V 4

=

=

0

=

E Y

J

=

. =

+

=

Q E

5 L

=

. =

E

=

L z

. =

0

=

a

)

C

=

)

=

0

=

E L

=

. S =

0

=

A 4

R L

A a

cE =

=

E E

T C

u

- f =

0

=

K T

T:

R e

s

=

E

-i I

z

.(

3

=

2 1

v T

=

=

=

t Y

C

=

s

=

?

O s

L E

s s

=

a' L

3

=

=

T A

a E

3

=

=

C

=

=

=

t.

S i

=

=

C T

o

=

s R

N s

=

=

T 5

3

_ =

=

C

'4

=

=_

=

=

3

=

A C"

r 5

=

e m

1 E

C S

a 1

Y

^

)

=

T 2

\\

=

=

T

=

M

?

=

(

=

a

=

I L

3

=

T

?

s r

a

=

s

?

]

t 0

=

2 9

3

=

2

=.

e

=

2 s

. =

?

_, =

=

=

2

=

_. 3

=

C

_. =

T 7

'a C

=

J

=

i

_, =

l =

+

=

E t

=

r C

_. =

=

L_

t r_

2

=

r

) :

. =

L r

u

_. =

d

_. =

s 5

5 t

=

2 l

s x

=

T 4

=

5 C. - _

=

i

.a

. ~

I v

4 M

=

=

t =

=

3 w =

=

E A,..

w

=

R 2

a

=

2 e

...... _

• e

=

U' d

3

=

M 3

.. )

s

=

..... : _. =

=

=

T' T

d =

=

=

a A

u

.. 2 a=

=

a

=

C

. 1

. E - ; _ L =

=

t

=

I

. :. T -

_ d =

=

u t

a

. M. E

=

=

=

. s

. 2

. q -

1

_ ; =

=

4

=

t N.

u 3 A? a. ; _

F e

=

I

=

a,

i E

E q,

A =

f

=

=

r U

tR A

,3

_ L s

= -

c T

2

. a *) F a

=

P

=

s

=

I

=

s

T

_ l _ k s t,

sCf & s _ t s

=

W

=

r e

a 1 aA aT I =

_ = /

=

s.

2 s

< a8 U u a _ L z

=

E

=

d 3

M.

JL;

's

_ t e

. =

L 2

WI a

4

,. : _ F z

=

5

=

c 9

s m

A;i _ A a

=

A

=

4 3

3 2

E 2

. 2 1 C MF -. 4 _ = = >

=

C

=

5 0

3 Il'.W{3, j 7-q.41

,,.;. ",.Lrb ' i L _I3wl.

I

i l111

,.. 4 Jd j

)

t

],

c r

r c

i r

,,* $,b.

h'h Nebraska Public Power District

""'"?NbkSi fbe*O **"""

CNSS877263 l

'b bO June 17, 1987 h

JUN 2 21987 i

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk i

Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Nebraska Public Power District Response to Inspection Report Docket 50-298/86-28 Gentlemen:

1 l

This letter is written in response to your letter dated April 1,1987, which l

l transmitted IE Inspection Report No. 50-298/86-28.

Therein you' identified nine Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items 'and nineteen (19) Open Items regarding NPPD's implementation of a program for establishing and maintaining l

the qualification of electrical equipment in accordance with 10CFR50.49.

NPPD has evaluated the. scope of work required to achieve resolution of the Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items and the Open Items. NPPD will complete I

the resolution of the Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items by November, I

l 1987, except for Items 3 and 4, which will be resolved following the campletion of Open Item 19.

Open Item 19 involves the review of cables.which will require an extensive effort to locate and analyze applicable documentation.

An evaluation of this Open Item will be completed by June, 1988.

Should any hardware modifications be required as a result of this evaluation, they will be completed during Refueling Outage 12, scheduled for the spring of 1989.

The Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items, the Open Items,. and our responses are given below.

Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items:

1.

Statement of Finding Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10CFR50.49 and Section 5.2.5 of the 00R Guidelines, the EQ documentation files (EQF) for Boston Insulated Wire (BIW) cable, type Bostrad 7E, EQ Data Package (EQDP) No. 6, did not adequately demonstrate qualification because of failure to show that the equipment functional performance requirements were satisfied.

The analysis used a 20 foot length of cable from the supporting type test, rather than the fully installed cable length (including considerations given to splices and penetrations in the cable runs), of the installed i

i configuration at the CNS plant (paragraph 4.f.(1), 50-298/8628-01).

O' ScMl is gl$.

w

. newsmguag;gw;gggwumagawwmg

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 June 17, 1987 Reason for Finding The analysis in EQDP No. 6 did not clearly state the result of the BIW testing as it applies to the cable used at CNS.

Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved EQDP No. 6 was reviewed and it was determined that further clarification and analysis would improve the auditability of this cable.

Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken NPPD will further analyze the functional aspects of the Bostrad 7E cable and revise EQDP No. 6 as necessary to include the results of the additional analysis.

1 Date When Corrective Steps Will Be Achieved By November, 1987.

2.

Statement of Finding Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (j) of 10CFR50.49, the EQF for BIW coaxial cable, type RG 59 B/4, EQDP No. 6A, did not document and demonstrate qualification in that BIW Test Report No. 76J049 was not auditable to permit verification that this item is qualified for its application. The documented test report was incomplete, consisted of only a single page i

summary, and was not traceable to permit independent verification of conclusions (paragraph 4.f.(2), 50-298/8628-02).

Reason for Finding Detailed backup documentation of this type is difficult to locate and obtain.

This testing was performed during the 1970's when the level of nuclear environmental testing sophistication was not fully developed.

Backup documentation is generally scattered and, in some cases, not retrievable.

Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved BIW has been contacted and will research and provide the backup documentation available for Test Report No. 76J049.

Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken When the available backup documentation is received, it will be included in the EQ file to further substantiate the test report.

Date When Corrective Steps Will Be Achieved By November, 1987.

o

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

l Page 3 l

June 17, 1987 3.

Statement of Finding Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10CFR50.49 and Section 5.2.5 of the D0R Guidelines, the EQF for Kerite 600 volt cable, type HTK/FR, EQDP No. 5, did not adequately support qualification in that the documented test results did not meet the acceptance criteria of adequate insulation resistance during DBE testing, and numerous failures during the post-DBE high pot test occurred (paragraph 4.f.(3), 50-298/8628-03).

Reason for Finding The cable qualification information supplied by Kerite was not accurately analyzed and the actual use of the Kerite 600 volt cable at CNS was not identified.

Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved The installation of 600 volt Kerite cable at CNS was reviewed.

This initial review determined that Kerite cable was not used in EQ i

applications and its apparent lack of qualification is not an immediate EQ concern.

Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken As part of the proposed cable review in response to Open Item 19, the use of the 600 volt Kerite cable at CNS will be verified.

If it i.

determined that this cable is used in EQ applications, an appropriate qualification will be established or the cable will be replaced, if l

qualification is not feasible.

Date When Corrective Steps Will Be Achieved Cable review by June, 1988.

If found to be necessary, cable will be replaced during the 1989 Refueling Outage.

4.

Statement of Finding Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10CFR50.49 and Section 5.2.2 of the 00R Guidelines, the EQF for Raychem coaxial cable, type Rayolin R and Rayolin F, XLPE, EQDP No. 4, did not adequately demonstrate qualification because of failure to demonstrate similarity between the tested and installed cables.

The claim for material similarity in the analysis is unclear (paragraph 4.f. (5), 50-298/8628-04).

Reason for Finding EQDP No. 4 w?s not clearly worded concerning the designations of Rayolin R and Rayolin F cable. Also, the actual use of this cable at CNS has not been determined.

E

a

/

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-Page 4 June _17, 1987

)

' Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved NPPD has verified that Rayolin R is regular cross-linked polyolefin and Rayolin F is foam cross-linked polyolef.in'. 'Raychem has indicated that the M1, M2, and M3 type ' cables were standard service cables.that.are generally not suitable for Class IE harsh environment applications.

Since the District does not believe that this cable type exists in IE harsh environment applications, these cable types have been removed from EQDP No. 4 and are not considered qualified.

Corrective Steps Which Will Be-Taken The cable review task to be completed in response to Open Item 19 will l

confirm that M1, M2, ~ and M3 type cables are not installed in EQ l

applications.

Date When Corrective Steps Will Be Achieved By June, 1988.

5.

Statement of Finding Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10CFR50.49 and Section 5.2.2 of the D0R Guidelines, the EQF for General Electric (G.E.) electrical power and control penetrations, type 238X600NSG1, EQDP No. 8, did not adequately establish qualification because of failure to demonstrate similarity between the tested and installed components.

The analysis in the EQDP was inadequate in that no link between the test results and the installed electrical penetrations F01-NS02, F01-NS03, and F01-NSO4 at CNS was available (paragraph 4.f.(6), 50-298/8628-05).

I l

Reason for Finding It appears that all of the documentation in support of EQDP No. 8 was not reviewed during the audit.

Subsequent review of this qualification does confirm that similarity is established.

Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved EQDP No. 8 (with references) clearly states that the CNS electrical l

penetrations are the " canister" type of penetration,-one of three general I

types supplied by G.E. for use at various nuclear power plants.

It is also clear that the referenced supporting test data is for the G.E.

i l

" canister" type of penetrations.

)

Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken No further action is anticipated.

)

I

=

'c' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 5 June 17, 1987 6.

Statement of Finding Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10CFR50.49 and Section 5.2.6 of the D0R Guidelines, the EQF for various pressure / level switches and transmitters contained in EQDP No.'s 12, 13, 36, 37, 49, 76, 81, 217, 222, and 228 did not adequately establish qualification because the equipment documentation failed to address mounting, orientation, and interface requirements.

From the EQF, it could not be verified that the equipment in the CNS as-built configuration was installed as tested (paragraph 4.f.(7), 50-298/8628-06).

Reason for Finding i

The lack of a clear evaluation of orientation and interface requirements is a weakness in these EQDP's and is an oversight in the preparation and review of these qualifications.

Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved NPPD has reviewed the noted EQDP's and determined that the installed orientation does not appear to significantly impact the current qualification.

Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken The EQDP's will be revised to incorporate any necessary mounting, orientation, and interface requirements that are not currently addressed.

Date When Corrective Steps Will Be Achieved By November, 1987.

7.

Statement of Finding

)

Contrary to (f) and (k) of 10CFR50.49 and Section 5.1 of the D0R 1

Guidelines, the EQF for Fenwal/Patel temperature switches, Model No.

01-170230-090, EQDP No. 220A, did not adequately establish qualification because of failure to base the qualification of the interfacing cable splices on full accident conditions, including service life for radiation and aging effects.

The T & B STA-K0N friction crimped splices were qualified for steam testing only (paragraph 4.f.(8), 50-298/8628-07).

I Reason for Finding Originally, it was felt that the qualification of the STA-KON connectors was adequate for their use in this application.

Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved I

EQDP No. 235 has been generated to specifically address the qualification of the STA-K0N connectors.

This was transmitted to Region IV as a priority item by our letter CNSS877215, dated April 16, 1987.

i J

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Page 6 June 17, 1987 i

Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken

]

No further action is anticipated at this time.

)

Date When Corrective Steps Will Be Achieved j

i Corrective steps have been completed.

j I

8.

Statement of Finding Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10CFR50.49 and Sections 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2 of the D0R Guidelines, the EQF for 25 Limitorque motor operators, model SMB series, did not adequately establish qualification as follows:

a.

No supporting analysis was available in the EQF to address the HELB accident conditions in which glass braided butyl rubber (polybutadiene) insulated, internal jumper wire, was used.

b.

No documentation was available in tne EQF to substantiate (by test results or other laboratory methods) the similarity of material construction of the internal wiring reported to the NRC by the licensee in the Equipment Operational Analysis (E0A), Attachment B, which correlated like wiring removed from similar ec;uipment at CNS.

c.

No qualification analysis and test reports were available in the EQF to support qualification of Scotch taped cable splices, and unidentified blind barrel cable splices ir eight Limitorque motor operators.

In the above Items a, b, and c, the licensee failed to demonstrate similarity between the tested motor operator configuration and the installed configurations with regard to materials of construction (paragraph 4.g, 50-298/8628-08).

Reason for Finding NPPD believed the Limitorque operators were qualified, as indicated in our responses to IEN 86-03.

Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved The glass braided butyl rubber jumper wires and the Scotch taped cable splices have been removed and replaced with qualified Rockbestos cable and Okonite splices.

Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken The Limitorque walkdown data and Equipment Operational Analysis will be reviewed and correlated to further substantiate the qualification of the Limitorque operators.

Date When Corrective Steps Will Be Achieved By November, 1987.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 7 June 17, 1987 9.

Statement of Finding Contrary to paragraphs (f) and (k) of 10CFR50.49 and Section 5.2.2 of the D0R Guidelines, the EQF for Limitorque motor operator, Series SMB, particularly Okonite motor lead splices, found in EQDP No. 31A (B0003 qualification series), did not adequately establich qualification because 3

of failure to demonstrate similarity between the splice type tested and those installed in motor operators at the CNS plant.

No evidence was contained in the EQF which could demonstrate qualification of Okonite splice installations over braided jacket motor leads.

The EQDP in the j

EQF only demonstrates Okonite motor lead splice testing over unjacketed 1

insulated cable (paragraph 4.h.(1)(a), 50-298/8628-09).

j Reason for Finding jj Based on EQDP No. 22?, the Okonite tape splices were considered j

qualified.

4 Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved 1

Additional testing of Okonite splices over braided jacket cable has been l

conducted, which indicates that the qualification of this configuration is acceptable.

Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken The additional testing of Okonite tape splices over braided jacket cable will be finalized and a revised qualification data package will be prepared.

Date When Corrective Steps Will Be Achieved By November, 1987.

J

)

Open Items:

1.

Rockbestos Cerro firewall III 4.f.(9) 298/8628-10

)

Cable; documentation deficiencies.

f

RESPONSE

NPPD has corrected the reference sections of the EQDP numbers 7 and 205 based on the inspection exit.

NPPD will again review these documents in light of the inspection report and make any further appropriate changes.

2.

Microswitch limit Switches, 4.f.(10)(b) 298/8628-11 Models OP-N; maintenance identified in EQDP inadequate.

RESPONSE

NPPD will identify the surveillance activities associated with these switches and reference them in EQDP No. 33A for clarification of this concern.

J

O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 8 June 17, 1987 3.

Microswitch (Limit Switches) 4.f.(11)(b) 298/8628-12 Model DTE6-2RQ62; 4.f.(11)(c) documentation deficiencies.

RESPONSE

This component is currently qualified by analysis rather than by type test.

Since type testing is the preferred qualification method under the D0R Guidelines, NPPD will perform type testing for the existing components or evaluate replacements for these switches to provide more acceptable qualification.

I 4.

Microswitch Limit Switches 4.h.(5) 298/8628-13 Models OP-N and DTE 6-2RQ62; walkdown deficiencies.

RESPONSE

NPPD will correct the observed deficiencies.

5.

ASCO Solenoid Valves, 4.f.(12)(b) 298/8628-14 Type HVA-90-405-2A, 4.f.(12)(c)

WPHT-8316E-36, and NP-1; 4.f.(12)(d) documentation deficiencies.

4.f.(12)(e) 4.f.(12)(f)

RESPONSE

Concern 4.f(12)(d) has been resolved based on the operating characteristics of the plant air system which limits

-tem pressure j

to 110 psig.

The other 4 items are now being review After this review the EQDP's will be revised to reflect any appropriate changes.

6.

ASCO Temperature Switch, 4.f.(13)(b) 298/8628-15 Model Sl\\11AR and 4.f.(13)(c) 0J11A4R; 4.f.(13)(d) documentation deficiencies.

1

RESPONSE

NPPD will revise EQDP No. 77 to clarify the fill fluid, include a more detailed wear aging analysis and establish a stronger similarity review to support qualification of this switch.

7.

ASCO Solenoid Valves, Type 4.h.(4)(a) 298/8628-16 HVA-90-405-2A, WPHT 8316E-36, 4.h.(4)(b) and NP-1; walkdown deficiencies.

RESPONSE

NPPD believes these splices are acceptable and do not degrade the qualification of these components.

The EQDP's will be revised to clarify the justification of this configuration.

^

O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 9 1

June 17, 1987 j

i 8.

Target Rock Solenoid Valves, 4.f.(14)(b) 298/8628-17 Model 1/2-SMS-A-01-01; 4.f.(14)(c)

)

documentation deficiencies.

4.f (14)(d)

RESPONSE

NPPD will review and correct as necessary, the referenced 1

J documentation deficiencies.

EQDP No. 51 will be revised to correct the expected life inconsistency and to reference installation /

replacement requirements.

9.

Static-0-Ring Pressure 4.f.(15) 298/8628-18

' Switches, TA Series (1) venting of replacement switch housings.

(2) documentation deficiencies.

RESPONSE

NPPD will document the venting scheme and correct the EQDP No. 222 documentation deficiencies.

10.

Barksdale Pressure Switch, 4.f.(16) 298/8628-19 Model B2TM1255 and B2T-A1SS; documentation deficiencies.

RESPONSE

NPPD will revise EQDP No.12 to clarify the pressure conditions.

11.

Rosemount Transmitters 4.f.(17) 298/8628-20 Model 1153 Series B; additional analysis for synergistic effects required.

j

RESPONSE

NPPD has reviewed the Rosemount Test Report and has confirmed that j

the qualification testing did adequately address synergism.

NPPD i

will revise the synergism section of EQDP No. 81 to more clearly describe the applicable synergistic effects.

12.

Rosemount Transmitter, Model 4.f.(18) 298/8628-21 1153D B/11590P, with Remote Seal System; additional analysis to include i

capillary insulation is required.

RESPONSE

NPPD will add the capillary insulation analysis to the design input file and to EQDP No. 226 as a reference.

A

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 10 June 17, 1987

-13.

Limitorque Motor Operators 4.f.(19) 298/8628-22 Model SMB-00 and SMB-2; documentation deficiencies.

RESPONSE

Recent revisions to the EQDP No. 31 series have corrected these documentation deficiencies.

No further work on this item is anticipated.

14.

Limitorque Motor Operators 4.h.(1)(b) 298/8628-23 Model SMB-4; broken wire lead.

RESPONSE

The broken wire has been repaired.

15.

Limitorque Motor Operators 4.h(2) 298/8628-24 Model SMB-3 and SMS-00:

removal of grease relief shipping caps.

RESPONSE

I All applicable Limitorque Motor Operators have been inspected for removal of the grease relief shipping caps.

16.

Reliance Motors; 4.f.(20) 298/8628-25 documentation deficiencies.

RESPONSE

NPPD will revise EQDP No. 219 to include the motor serial nutibers.

l 17.

G.E. Motor, Model 4.f.(21) 298/8628-26 l

l 5K6346XC74A and l

SK6346XC83A; documentation deficiencies.

RESPONSE

NPPD will revise EQDP No. 23 to include the motor serial numbers.

1 i

NOTE:

G.E. model numbers were mistyped in Item 17, Table II, l

Open Items of the report.

18.

G.E. Motors, Model 5K6346XC74A 4.h.(3)(a) 298/8628-27 and 5K6346XC83A; inadequate 4.h.(3)(b) maintenance.

RESPONSE

NPPD will provide instructions to plant personnel to observe and l

correct housekeeping type problems during future routine surveillance. of these components.

Observed deficiencies-CS-MOT-CSPIB were corrected.

N.

r 2. '4.$. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 11 June 17, 1987 19.-

EQ Cable' Identification; 4~f.(4) 298/8628-28 generic cable traceability problem.

RESPO!!SE:

NPPD will initiate an extensive plant document review to establish the type and manufacturer of the. installed EQ cables.

This information will be gathered and analyzed, as necessary, to provide a reasonable assurance that-the installed cable is adequate.

If you have any questions regarding this' response, please -contact me.or i

G. R. Horn at Cooper Nuclear Station.

. Trevors Division Manager of Nuclear Support GAT:SJJ:ss/mh17/1 (15A) cc:

.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Office, Region IV NRC Resident Inspector Cooper Nuclear Station l

l l

l 3