ML20247E467

Units 1 & 2 Response to NRC Concern 8, Environ Qualification of Class 1E Control Circuits Terminated at Marathon 1,600 Nuc Terminal Boxes

ML20247E467
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	06/30/1989
From:	Behera A, Galanis D, Murskyj M SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20247A248	List: ML20247A244 ML20247E445 ML20247E452 ML20247E467 ML20247E481
References
NUDOCS 8909150290
Download: ML20247E467 (22)

Text

__. - - _ _ _ _ _ . _

f-h*" CARGENTO LUNDY Project No. 8484-35 E N GlNEER9 CHICAGO r,

Commonwealth Edison Company Braidwood Station - Units 1 & 2 Response to NRC Concern No. 8 Environmental Qualification of Class 1E Control Circuits Terminated at Marathon 1600 NUC Terminal Blocks Prepared: A. Behera - CQD D. P. Galanis - EPE0 M. P. Murskyj - EPED l Date: June 30, 1989 l 1

8909350290 DR 890713 ADOCK 05000456 PDR ,

CARGENT C5 LUNDY ENOlNEER9 CHICACO Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Issue.................................................. 1 2.0 Summary / Evaluation of Qualification Testing............ 1 2.1 WyleNEQTestReport45pgf.1(2) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 2.2 Wyle Test Report 17657 ...................... 2 2.3 Wyle Test 17657 Mounting Configuration............. 2 2.4 Braidwood Station Mounting Configuration.......... 3 2.5 Comparison of Mounting Configurations 3

(Plant vs. Test)..................................

3.0 Summary / Evaluation of Recorded Leakage Current Test Data.............................................. 5 4.0 Evaluation of Class 1E Control Circuits Terminated at Marathon 1600 NUC Terminal Blocks and Subjected 7

to LOCA/HELB Conditions................................

4.1 Circuit Analysis.................................. 7 4.2 Review Methodology................................ 7 4.3 Results........................................... 8 5.0 Quantification of Available Design Margin.............. 8 6.0 Summary / Conclusions................................... 10 7.0 References............................................ 12 I

i l _i_

,}. ,P

+ CARGENTQLUNDY ENG1NEERD CHICA20 Commonwealth Edison Company Braidwood Station - Units 1 & 2 Environmental Qualification of Class 1E Control Circuits Terminated at Marathon 1600 N'CJ Terminal Blocks 1.0 Issue During the June 13, 1989 Environmental Qualification Audit at Braidwood Station, the NRC raised a concern regarding the adequacy of Class 1E control circuits terminated at Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks located within the Containment and other plant areas subject to LOCA/HELB environmental conditions. Specifically, the NRC is concerned that the performance of these circuits can be degraded by low level leakage currents between terminals or to ground.

Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) has performed environmental qualification testing of the Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks covering i a variety of instrumentation and control circuit applications (reference Wyle Test Report 17657, dated December 21,1983). The data collected during this test indicate that the magnitude of the leakage currents experienced during LOCA/HELB conditions, will not serve as a common mode failure element of Class 1E equipment based on a generic analysis of l

typical control circuit applications. However, the NRC (a) has l questioned the applicability of the above referenced Wyle test to the installed control circuit terminal blocks, and (b) has requested analyses, specific to each terminal block application, to ensure that the circuit operation is nut detrimentally affected.

l The purpose of the following evaluation is (a) to analyze the Wyle test configuration /results and verify that they conservatively  ;

simulate / envelop the field installed control circuits, (b) to provide a specific analysis based on a review of each Class 1E control circuit that utilizes Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks, and (c) demonstrate l

I that the installed control circuits will perform their intended safety-related function with substantial margin.

2.0 Summary / Evaluation of Qualification Testing 2.1 Wyla NEQ Test Report 45603-1(2)  ;

Qualification of the Marathon 1600 NUC series terminal blocks u in Class 1E harsh environment applications at Braidwood Station was initially based on Wyle Laboratories NEQ Test Report 45603-1.

The testing performed consisted of the following:

- Irradiation to a minimum 'evel of 2.0E8 rads (Gamma)

- Ihermal aging at 1200 C for 443 hours0.00513 days <br />0.123 hours <br />7.324735e-4 weeks <br />1.685615e-4 months <br /> l - Vibration sqing

i .

DARGENT Er LUNDY ENGINEERO CHICh20 y 1

- Seismic testing-

- 1-yearLOCAsimulationof30daysduration(seeFigureX-1,WLTR 45603-1).

1 However, the scope of the test did not include monitoring of leakage c arents during the LOCA exposure. Therefore, the acceptability of the installed control circuits could not be' established based on the results of this test.

2.2 Wyle Test Report 1765?(3)

Since no effort was made to monitor leakage currents in the above test, a separate test was subsequently conducted at Wyle Laboratories utilizing the same enclosure and two of the same Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks p iously used in Wyle Test 45003-1. Wyle Test Procedure 17657 , Rev. A, required <

measurement of leakage currents on these 1600 NUC terminal blocks for a variety of control and instrumentation applicaticas. The l

leakage current measurements were intended to evaluate terminal block performance during and following the LOCA in support of equipmera qualification. No acceptance criteria were established ,

prior to the test as the intent of the test was collection of leakage current data for subsequent evaluation for the various Braidwood Etdtion terminal block applications. One of the two Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks was mounted in the NEMA-4 enclosuro previously used in Wyle Test 45603-1, while the other terminal block was mounted in a NEMA-1 enclosure that was not previously tested. The above Marathon 1600 NUC terminal block j specimens (reference Items 1.0 and 4.0 in Wyle Test 17657) were than subjected to a second LOCA and chemical spray conditions as documehted in the subject test report.

2.3 Wyle Test 17657 Mounting Configuration Pages 11-91, II-97,11-102, 11-103 & 11-104 of Wyle Test Report 17657 indicate that the test specimen mounting configuration consisted of two conduits with 900 bends (or elbows) entering the top of each junction box. The terminal blocks were mounted directly below the conduit openings. The test specimens utilized.

an unsealed (and loose) conduit entry into the enclosure housing the terminal blocks. In addition, the cover of one enclosure remained excessively loose even when the handle was locked closed. This introduced possible chemical spray paths into the terminal blocks that may have contributed to the magnitude of the <

leakage currents measured in the test.

l l '

~  :'

p

$lf n

L GAftGENT G

LUNDY~

[.y ENOINEERS

'" , , - CWICAGO :

j[72 I' ' (2.4 LBraidwood. Station Mountine Configuration 4 '

LThe Marathon 1600:NUC-terminal' blocks are11ocated inside NEMA-1,<

NEMA-4:or NEMA-12: Junction' boxes with gaskets under the covert .

The control cable cceduits may enter the! junction boxes from eitner..

.the bottom, side or top. ~A weep hole is. drilled at theLbottom of.

F each enclosure. - As an additional' conservative. design measure, drip -

' shields base been installed ab'ove all~ terminal blockc within junction boxes-that have safety related cable to.i'minations' located directly under a' conduit opening inside the containment- .

j

(Reference 7). This will protect the terminal blocks frcm direct.

chemical spray impingement and moisture coming ~directly-through the-conduit system.

[ . Control cables-entering or leavirG a cable tray,by conduit are arranged with an allowance of +1" horizontal or vertical displacement.between the conduit and cable tray (Refererce 8, Section,7.1.10). In addition the cable trays have drain point openings at_regulcr intervals (Reference 6), which will facilitate in. draining any chemical spray collected in the cable tray system.

.2.5 Comparison of Mounting Configurations (P1dnt.vs. Test)'

During several recent conversations, the NRC has. questioned-the degree to which the test specimen. configuration simulates the actu_1 installed conditions.. The concern raised <is whether an

< actual' top entry conduit running vertically upward to a pull box (see. Figure.A) would be more susceptible to water entry than the

' test' configuration (see Figure B). Specifically, if several pull boxes,were susceptible to water entry, the cumulative water flow

.via conduits into the terminal box may be greater than that h3 h experienced in test.

We beliEve that the test configuration envelops the actual installed conditions, and that the volume of water / chemical spray to which the terminal blocks were exposed to in the test, is greater than that which may enter the installed terminal boxes.

The following items provide the basis for this position:-

- The installed pull boxes and terminal boxes have gasketed screw J covers which minimize, if not eliminate, entry of water / chemical spray. In contrast, the enclosures used in the test had loose covers providing a direct path for the water and chemical spray to enter.

o

!~ ' '

_____j

CARGENT & LUNDY i suoinerno- {

CHICAto

• Bottom entry conduits protrude approximately one-half inch into l the pull box to accommodate the installation of conduit i bushings. Therefore, one-half inch of water must accumulate before it would enter the conduit system.

• Any postulated water entry through the-gasketed screw cover.at the top of the pull box also requires the postulation that water would drain through the gasketed cover at the bottom of the box.

- The drip shields installed above all terminal blocks within junction boxes that have safety-related cable terminations located directly below a conduit Opening inside the containment protect the blocks from direct impingement of chemical spray and water flow. The Wyle test did not include any drip shields over the terminal blocks.

+ The ween holes at the bottom of the terminal boxes permit condensation and chemical spray to drain from the enclosures.

+ The installed open-ended conduits are at a point where tha control cables cre entering or learing a cable tray. In all Breidwood Stat %n applications, tnis open-ended conduit point is at a much greater distance (minimum of 40 feet) from the terminal boxes that that encountered in the Wyle test configuration. Therefore, the amount of water / chemical spray expected to reach the installed terminal blocks from this opening would be less than that experienced in the Wyle test, due to the additional conduit length, bends, and intermediate

. pull box conduit termination. points.

- The' Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks utilized in the Wyle test were subjected to two LOCA conditions (reference Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report) that resulted in more severe exposure than required. The Braidwood Station installed terminal blocks are required to remain functional in only one LOCA.

Based on the above, it is evident that the entry and/or accumulation of water / chemical spray through the terminal and pull boxes is insignificant compared to that allowed in the subject Wyle test.

Therefores we believe (a) that the test configuration conservatively simulates the installed configuration at Braidwood Station, (b) the quantity of water / chemical spray the terminal blocks were exposed to in the Wyle test is considered to be equivalent to the quantity expected during a design basis accident at Braidwood Station, and (c) that the installed control circuits are not expected to experience the magnitude of leakage currents recorded during the Wyle test.

f

h* CARCENT Q LUNDY ENOfNEERO K cnsc:.oo

[:

l' 3.0 Summary / Evaluation of Recorded Leakage Current Test Data Table 1.below is a summary of the test results contained in Section II-3.0 (Page 11-19) of Wyle Test Report 17657. Test Items 1.0 and 4.0 are those utilizing the 1600 NUC Marathon terminal blocks and, therefore, representative of the Braidwood Station installed control circuits.

TABLE 1 - LEAKAGE CURRENT TEST DATA Item 1.0 Item 4.0 Test Circuit No. (1600NUC) (1600NUC) and Base'.1ne x/y x/y Conditions (mA) (mA) 1(42 Vde, 16 mA*) 40/24 35/19 2(132 Vac, 160 mA ) 450/290 300/140 3(135 Vde, 110 mA ) 310/280 290/180 4(42Vdc) 85/85 30/30 5(132 Vac) 60/60 50/50 6(135Vdc) 4000**/- 95/95

• Indicates. normal load current

• • Indicates arcing through the fuse x = maximum circuit crent during chemical spray.

y = maximum. leakage current recorded during the test (maximm circuit current - baseline current) = 290 mA for the tested control circuits.

Notes: 1. During the course of testing, problems wert. experienced with the data logger used to record DC parameters. Erratic data was noted from the seven-hour point of the test until the ultimate failure of the data logger (18.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> into the test). The cause of the failure was htermined to be the grounding of an input lead to the & ca logger outside the test chamber (Reference 5).

2. The maximum circuit current during chemical spray occurred prior to the relay deenergization at the tenth hour into the LOCA exposure. S_ince the dats logger was functional during this period, the maximum circuit current recorded prior to the relay deenergization is the maximum circuit current m 4

I { .'

e u '

ll4 t

e <

Cf 7m CARGENT & LUNDY Mf ' ' ,

EN G4NEEDS CHacAgo '

Ih r_epogded during the entire LOCA exoosure. -This was.

' determined by reviewing all circuits involved in the test j ,

whic.h showed that peak. current consistently occurred within the first ten hours.

X f ,

3. Test Circuits No. 2 an'd 3 of each specimen included a 4 ,

continuously energized relay. All the relays maintained' l their nermally-open contacts in the closed-position con-tinuously while these circuits were energized (i.e., no inadvertent relay operation occurred during the.LOCA test).

, The following observations can also be made from the test results reported in Wyle Report 17657:

• Post telt inspection (5) of the terminal blocks and enclosures indicated that increased conta:nination deposits and resulting. leakage currents were,directly related to the terminal block mounting configuration within the. enclosures. The terminal blocks exhibiting the largest leakageLcurrents were vertically mounted directly below top entry conduit opentags. The top entry conduit openings combined

, 'with the absence of wire drip loops resulted in deposition.of spray contaminants directly onto the terminal blocks.. As a result, all four terminal blocks mounted below the conduit openings exhibited

. extensive buildup of contaminants and increased leakage current:;.

.. - (AtiBraidwood .this is prevented by the drip shields installed over the terminal blocks located within the junction'bokes inside the containment.);

• The~ fuse in circuit 6 of Item 1.0 arced and allowed currents as high 1as 4.0 amps to be indicated by the datalogger. An identical ~ set up (circuit 6 of Item 4.0) had a maximum leakage current of 95 mA. In 1

addition, other control circuits (circuits 2,3, & 5 of Item 1.0 and.

circuits 2,3,5, & 6 of Ite.m 4.0) experienced leakage currents below 290 mA. The arcing ecross the fuse for circuit 6 of item 1.0 is considered to be random and' attributed to the test set up rather than being representative of leakage current in the control circuit applications. This conclusion is supported by the reagnitude of leakage currents (i.e., less than 290 mA) drawn by the seven other control circuits terminated on the same 1600 NUC terminal block and

" exposed to the same environment.

CARGENT Q LUNDY E N O f N t: E R o CHicAso

~

4.0 Evaluation of Class'1E Control Circuits Terminated at Marathon 1600 NUC Terminal Blocks and Subjected to LOCA/HELB Conditions 4.1 Circuit Analysis An analysis of each specific terminal block application at

.9raidwood station under LOCA/HELB environment has been prepared

'lizing the Wyle test results. The purpose of this analysis was (emonstrate that the installed control circuits will perform j their intended safety function in the presence of leakage currents at least as high as the maximum value of 290 mA recorded in the subject Wyle test.

S&L has reviewed the Class 1E control circuits terminated at Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks located in plant areas s9bject to LOCA/HELB conditions. Each circuit was analyzed for potential degradation utilizing the data collected in the above referenced

'Wyle test. Two considerations relative to the affects of leakage currents were addressed:

1. Terminel to terminal leakage is not sufficient to caust inadvertent device operation.

2. Current draw consisting of load current plus leakage current does not affect fused circuits (i.e., blow the fuse).

4.2 Review Methodology The following is a brief description of the review scope, method and acceptance criteria used in evaluating the adequacy of tne  ;

l installed Class 1E circuits: i

- A list of all Class 1E junction boxes containing Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks was compiled and tabulated based on o review of the electrical installation drawings. The review was limited to safety-related control junction boxes located in plant areas subject to LOCA/HELB environmental conditions.

• Packages of the wiring and schematic diagrams showing the Class 1E control circuits terminateC on terminal blocks within the above junction boxes were = " mbled. Each drawing was highlighted to indicate ti portion of the control circuit that could potentially be affected by leakage currents.

i

\#

p" 4 -

[..

tr

@ ARGENT fa LUNDY..

5 r i' E N GIN E E RO-k cwicAeo

[5 <

- ' Calculation'No. AQ-57; Rev. O, wat prepared to determine the~

i; ~ maximum number:of' potential-leakage current paths that'can be-f present in a circuit without affecting the opcration of the

~

, typical ~ devices used (e.g., we determined the nuniber of leakage -

current paths between adjacent terminal block poants~that must-be present in'~a control circuit in order to.cause inadvertent- . a loperation'of a relay). _The worst case leakage current: test ~

value-of 290 mA for.each potential leakage path was'the basis for thel criteria. established in the above calculation.

• A-detailed review of the'_ appropriate wiring and schematic diagrams was then performed utilizing the above calculation _

criteria to determine.if the sum of'the.available leakage current paths would result-in inadvertent device operation. In

addition, each fused control circuit was evaluated to determine

-if the sum of. load currents and leakage currents was of- .

-sufficient magnitude to blow the' fuse. The results of these reviews were documented on'the " Remarks" column of<the above referenced junction box tat,ulations.

4.3 Results J Each circuit was reviewed'to assure that either:

a '. the number of leakage paths does not' exceed that determined i in'the referenced calculation.

• b'. no-potential difference exists between adjacent terminal- q points, and n

c. *the sum of load current plus cumulative leakage current does.

not exceed the control circuit fuse rating.

1 Based on a review of.the applicable drawings uting the above -

' methodology, no inadvertent control device operation is expected due to the postulated leakage currents.

5.0 Quantification of Available Design Margin 1

In: addition to the above analysis / review performed to demonstrate that the installed Braidwood Station control circuits will perform their intended safety function in the presence of the worst case leakage

' current test value of 290 mA for each potential leakage path, we have quantified the svailable design margin for each safety-related control circuit terminated at terminal blocks within the. containment. The objective of this exercise was to demonstrate (a) that the subject control circuits will remain functional in the presence of even higher leakage currents than those recorded in Wyle Test Report 17657, and (b) p 4- '

pg - - -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _

CARGENTQ LUNDY EN01NEER9

CHICA20 that the available design margin is of a magnitude sufficient to offset e.ny uncertainties regarding the leakage current data recorded in the Wyle test (i.e., that the leakage current values could have been higher

-than those recorded in the LOCA' test).

The available design margin was quantified relative to both inadvertent device operation and fuse size (see Attachment A), based on the previously identified allowable and potential number of circuit leakage paths (see Figure C for typical circuit diagrams). Our calculation identified the available margin in terms of leakage current (mA) in excess of the worst case leakage current value of 290 mA in the Wyle test. The leakage resistance required to energize a device was determined taking into consideration voltage division relative to a reries load (ref. Calculation AQ-57). This leakage resistance was then related to the number of potential parallel leakage paths and the test voltage (i.e., 132 Vac or 135 Vdc). This provides the required leakage current under the Wyle test conditions to either energize a device or blow the circuit fuse. The following calculation methodology illustrates the above:

455 c (Test Leakage Resistance) = Required Total (1)

Allowable Parallel Leakage Paths Leakage Resistance  !

(Required Tot 61 Leakage Resistance) x (No. of Potential (2)*

Parallel Leakage Paths) = Required Test Resistance Test Voltage Allowable Leakage Current per = Required Test Resistance (3)

Potential Leakage Path (mA)

Margin = Allowable Leakage Current - 290 mA (4)

Please note that this calculation method quantifies the available design margin (in f.er-ms mA) for each distinct potential leakage path (i.e.,

the margin identified in Attachment A is that available for each of the potential leakage paths in the centrol circuit).

The following terminal boxes (not included in Attachment A) have no potential for leakage current due to the lack of voltage potential between adjacent terminals:

1JB291R 1JB600R 2JB140R 2JB600R 2JB103R 1JB932R 1JB381R 2JB291R 2JB381R 2JB040R 1JB931R 1JB040R 2JB356R 2JB931R IJB356R 1JB066R 2JB357R 2JB932R 1JB357R IJB102R 2JB127R 2JB102R

CARGENTQ LUNDY E N GlN EERS CHICA70 1

The circuits listed in Attachment A were evaluated relative to the available margin regardless of the functions performed. A functional review of these circuits revealed that the Containment Sump Isolation Valves and the RHR Heat Exchanger to Charging Pump Isolation Valves (1/2JB202R, 1/2JC244R) represe'nt the equipment with the minimum available margin (1451 mA/ path or 500% for inadvertent device operation and 571 mA/ path or 197% for fuse size) that must perform a truly safety-related function.

The design margin relative tc the outside containment control circuits, although not specifically quantified, is assured based on a comparison between the maximum leakage current of 290 mA used in the above analysis (Section 4) and the 10 mA leakage current recorded during the Zion test for the qualification of the Rernote Shutdown Panels (see References 9, 10, and 11). The contrast in the leakage current (290 mA) used in the analysis as opposed to the Zion test value (10 mA) implies a margin of 2800%.

In view of the above, it is evident that substantial margin exists to ensure that the installed centrol circuits will not degrade below an acceptable level even in the presence of leakage currents higher than the maximum recorded value of 290 mA in Wyle Test Report 17657.

6.0 Summary / Conclusions In order to resolve the questions addressed during the Braidwood EQ follow-up inspection, this report documents the qualification of Marathon 1600 NUC terminal blocks for control circuits in harsh environmental zones at Braidwood Station.

.The test reports used to demonstrate qualification are Wyle reports 45603-1 and 17637 which establish a maximum leakage current for terminal blocks in a LOCA environment. The justification for the use of the results from these test reports is based on the similarity of the tested terminal blocks to thoss instelled at Braidwood. The similarity of the mounting configuration to the test configuration is also addressed and the basis for acceptance is provided.

To demonstrate the basis for acceptance, the leakage currents obtained from the tests were then applied to the control circuits installed at Braidwood. The control circuit evaluation demonstrates that the installed control circuits, subject to LOCA/HELB environment, will perform their intended safety functions in the presence of the maximum leakage current value of 290 mA recorded in Wyle Test Report 17657.

CARGEPfrO LUNDY ENGINEER 9 CHICASO To further substantiate the above (and alleviate any remaining concerns relative to the applicability of the test configuration /results to the Braidwood Station control circuits) the available desigr margin has been quantified and demonstrated that the installed control circuits within the containment will not degrade below an acceptable level even in the presence of leakage currents much higher than the maximum value recorded in the Wyle test. The available design margin has not been quantified for the control circuits located in harsh environmental zones outside

.the containment. This is because of the conservatism involved in our control circuit evaluation (reference Section 4 of this report) that utilized (a) the LOCA maximum leakage current value of 290 mA te demonstrate acceptability of these circuits, and (b) leakage current data from terminal block test specimens that were subjected to two LOCA exposures.

In view of the above, it has been demonstrated that the installed Braidwood Station control circuits, rubject to LOCA/HELS environment, will perform their intended safety functions with substantial margin.

i

CARGENTO LUNDY M Aso 7.0 References (1) EQ-BB-118, Environme l Qualification of Marathon Terminal Block Assemblies.

(2) Wyle Laboratories NEQ, Test Report No. 45603-1, February 18, 1982 (3) Wyle Laboratories, Test Report No. 17657, Measurement of Leakage Current on Marathon Series NUC 1600, 1600 DJ, and 6000 Terminal Blocks during a Loss of Coolant Accident-for Commonwealth Edison Company, dated December 21, 1983.

(4) Wyle Test Procedure, 1765~7, Rev. A, Measurement of Leakage Current on Marathon NUC 16C0 Terminal Blocks and Series 1600 Terminal Blocks during a Loss of Coclant Accident (LOCA) for Commonwealth Edison Company, dated August 17, 1983.

(5) C. L. Schwarz (S&L), Memo to file concerning post testing inspection and test anomalies, dated July 18, 1984.

(6) Sargent & Lundy Standard STD-EB-716, Straight Cable Tray with Drain Points (7) Sargent & Lundy Drawing 6E/20E-0-3000K, Sht. 1 (8) Sargent & Lundy Standard STD-EB-146, Standard Specificati n 'cr ,

Installation of Seismic Category I Conduit Syctems Contairare Class 1E Cables. .

l (9) Test Procedure, Environmental Qualification tor Remote Shut Down Panel Components, Zion Station, Sargent & Lundy, June 21, 1973 (10) Test Results, Environmental Qualification for Reccte Shutdown Down Panel Components, Zion Station, Sargent & Lundy, Jur.e 26, 1973

'.o H. R. Denton (NRC),

Subject:

(11) Letter of R. N. Cascarano (CECO)

Zion Station Unit 2 Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment. Attachment C2, Remote Shutdown Panel, May 17, 1984 NBI/RBAB-EP758

[ -- --- _ --__ - - - _ - - - _ _

s o c 1

. a c " n Agw 2 d l

i Mh e /

1 i pe i 4

Eiu Nws t

Ds r h /

1 T

6.whgb i ,n' y

, g; m Q g g *m M Q j $ -

i le[ m.

y_

all g

9g y

yp

=

.e;MygMga(Qg- f: / j+I lt{

M g:. . i4 a,3f

? -

j+I c

i{

y. ;j

pu-

,(/f kb

=- 1: :: -

n n: 1 ^ 9' .:cj; ;Qm s, 7 o . 7.n e ;;.

1gi yc

/

P

/ g g i 4 t

~ i .c t un a

r d h i

n s x

ou o u Cb b g l a

i i

n f

m n r e

o t C

l a

gg i c

p x e: e e

~,;

e x o

y o e. ;s .

_2  !

e b d e r T

B =

t J .

l lue pk t

e v

e s o l

l u e

~

.r W1~e Agw a c P u ,

- t Mhe Eic t r

, e :gre ^ e

/

Nws e

t i

u d

n ' k o ._

C dp

- 0 A

e l

e b y r aa u Ct r g

i F l l'

3e

.~ .:: '

J e { ;a

$Fj

3hP Q 3

ho m

~

y

_~,

L:

- A

,p

_i.

" E -

. _ ]".w n s-i o &.

I'l i

. t N;:..[S g

$ wm%

a r

No  !

i

.l

.ll5s 3:;=W 9n ?

? . =

u

. ~-"

g y (p _ ~ =E eE 7

W,s:.Y$@sc.Clg:h,e:

~

~Q[ -- 2 ae e't .

g / -

i n tj  !  !

'l f i r

&E 8 n A 49 g3sW y

?

$bhw&{

k A

l4@hWj o <

h "

o C

~

"7 ';

- t x s b o

e l a

T i n

- m r

e B T e

r u

g i

F

i v-I I l ll 3 C, - j

]

'i

. i POTENT I A L

> N, > LEAMAC3 E c ,' PATHS

.1,.

/

9 .

'.' j O O

.4 0 0 *>

N N DEV I C E.

s 1

.' f ~ ,r i

DEVICE OPERATION

)

yll ll C s,

'> 'y U 5 0 A -

Ef d (' <,' PCTEN Yi AL

<>> s

-'" > L E AK AG E.

DEVICE

> pA7as c'

'% .s 9 % 9  % f dL FUSE SIZE ll 1

____-_-________-__-_a

PT~" - ,

i e

, , nm e

,., E-p( ,$ E. '- S 5 [L 3 m

%. . s . ~ 't .., y t' -L  % > ~ 4

<a .r- y t,i

, m  %;

. - se

. c a2 r FV D 1 . ' **

5o 8  % '- . ~

s - ,

4.'

E g A ,'* .i .,. y << o,,, tt

- ~ n

>- f . d tmaa a ~ q w .n..

~

.t

- i, m o m m 4 .,

t A, 2 M M oy Q R S kW g sigs a ~) a a ~ N m s e -

E N e oo - oo a y 4 7 s E 6 4 4 4 s e 8 C E- r4 4 m y a w 00 g" $

9 $ t$ 06 9 .

g ,

b $ k & $m $ [ N v '

l n n - g

,s es

- n -

B

- ss- s-

!  !. a i_.

p 6

o 2  % k n R <

"} 3 h I ~ s .e .o -

o

_o _e s o o e .o -

o N

1 M .< x n n N N 6 l1 -

.. =;? e: a: e

a e

s is, ni a

t 8

L g '

1

- a

- ., .c l .:

a a d {

$ n , ,a m ~ ~ .

E 2 t  :

3SI1" i

s ~ e r 2 g2E D R h 6 D $ C5 04 4 yk e e s y e e >

r  ?

= $ s' 113

.t.1, l

s e a s . s a c-  : . t  !

6 l

y,

.s 5

=

y y

y y

E e

y w

E 3

f c-e I -g.

n.

E i n?

.l t; o e a: t; o Me -

p - t w  % Q g 3 ~z Y l D ( .* $ I U 3 9 3 h ! ." l f

B $

73 -7 ry 3% $ $ p)

$s 5 s E5 9 'i 5 5

l'j

~

i

.u. $ n3

. m .o v

~

e

~ - ---

,S a,

< tet e < -

e ,$

l g e' . W *( + . O -c - I

~

e

.g 8 N e C' C .5 ' D y[d

.SEE !I E 1 1 4 9.

~

i l- Iw s

?

~

i

= --

E a

M p. s.y, g, t e ~- . ;

'{ j . .

V: 4 mm.

n '> .n I .,

7 .h b I

' 4 / M, g

',l T

~

t s , n ca

• en m 3  ?. O y a e na g .., ,

... e-d o <s.

.. g g yg g ..

- d E$W ~

4 (q 4 EE 248 n  %

~

% o '4 o ra 3"

t- .

d

~

$g$ -

N s ~

e

$$ I d 4

+

ga t + +-

6-g

- e T 7 T

$. ~- e g

E c 3 ,

j

}

~

a c

o 7$,

eO Y V- a M' ,,, _5 v O -

W y B g m m M

% C 9

y e

g z  % T -

~ s A g A ?,t R A 4 - - -

4 g 4

~

- . ~ d '

' N W h s. . M. c,.) -

e' ., b, b

T M  %

h Q i5

- d

~ 5 hE e

s a

> ~

a ' ' E 5- ,

i s

.6 .l Il 9

o e

4

' s

~

$ 3 yk*b g.e .

3 l-

> Sd B E E { 3 3' 't t u k 8 4. . ,;

- e . +=s s '

f I { d, T e .q ', 9 ge ,

- n. ~ i R u e =

" w n o > .b .a

@ g .5

" - M d

• j 1=d g u "Ec ~1 .a '

5 o.

8 m

g

. =

8 2 S

• 0 .

w. a t. ** I tg)'" W 1 S

a E ge 4 .i .$ s.

' , h -

4 7y3s

. .,q

" 5 is y e w ee r e r

4 17 '

- a  ;: ?h R D E

&' ~c~g+tgJ[ 3

-g8 a%

tt u a

b o

e e6 b2 6

2 3

n y

2. --

.. , 3 c,.:

.d

' I-? : Y;q

, e a '% ]

1

_. __ _ _____o

r - -- -- l 1

1 1

4

.? W

.~ tri *)1

?! 'd

,q [ )'

'i 12 '.

' 'I N -_~---J a

] ,

- __ l w _4 n a ~ p- 3 7-yo ,., 3.,

-< [*

,1- m , . . -

'i-. G sT)

s 5eZ -

g -

-4 4,,

., c.

IT II m'9 - ' ~

h2 8Eg

-i w

'I e

b e

n <

un b N L , ,

5 5 I 2

~ 2 a  ; 1 g _

i I s p

E e s- @ K W e - 7M 2

$5w a

% b

! l i k; ty s* is n v "-

-i-

! 31 E l w --

g- ~g o v16e 4 m .,

>- o O 5 2 '*2. ' 33[i 5 E . . - -

3*" i; j g ~.

5 M ,

c~

=~ ';;

C GW 5 ~f'

,X, S . .a, e, .: a y r

,2~ -

- * " " * " ,h m

1 I

,_.-__.___-m__ _ _ . . _ _ . _ - -

e i

s '*

3 l .? ~  %

,, -e s. . ..

~

v s w l I @ Y y N @ _

i

^

a  ; e c; 1 -

~ # 3 o- .

N' -' )

~ ~ a g ', l 9 o a

_s m -

4  % m s l

s & E fo 8 m v

.-  % M o

~

%- m y, tb %

w Q Y d oc  % r: -

d h N d #4 N)

N D t e ,

i O's.

M N N b N Y g E <4 6 M N 6 6 1 ,

i e  :

oo T m h S Q Y s $$. 4 m m 4 s.

g S  :~ *. ,

. s

" w ka. w q m

$s Q

~

T m

T m

T m - __

K , n n n v m ,

i h s 8

5 g

s  :  : = x R

e R

a

?

yn E

3 C & 3 um

! ~ g R

- p;

~

S s -

& 2a se S

u g -

D h N h g 1 -

1.aw n n. e .,.,

. - n o s b - s n n E

- d -

g N (

g N ]  %

~

., is 3.c

$ g 3 - A o. 7 s T M

" " ~

.5

i. '

g s > -  % ' o:. s N oc 4 I l g

% g-4 '$

A K S d 0 g .

%0 s., .l 4

g V N$ $ et  %

g '! 4s 'g

$.s'g

- y w

• '8 n 4 h I-s e-.

g m

. , a '

( -l 3 q'Jlvm kr $ 3 MN f<5 5; - m s. n - -

o e 2 ,I a 3. @. @ I ,Ih y- gl p I..5s '4 ,

h;I!'t. kN [kb EhiO

$ h$ 3 $$ hk$ i r je v- sy

~

}I!F

=

~ Y, w

~

a o eo i4 e.. .

+4 ~.t .yc 3

= ; m a-jsI.

,N A1 i, .+

s. . c 7m-;

~

]

n 1

7s  ? m j g ' 3.T e-d *> ,1 0 m U I3 .

$ l'1 0 Y

~ a  ?. 3 2 y -m-..

4 - ~

P Q 95 a- 's ~

% R  ?.

b

-g -]9:

o 4 age '

SE .- g k., ke dm

[

Y

%.  % et d

c 9 ' d N

E gs E N ~

0%

$ s4 4 .

E N g M D to a M g gE "E

d a 4

'. W -

9

d. W l Ems  ; a g ~ L -

3 a 32 I l a E- - E c@ o o,< v -- -

S g , o g "

• m Q & Q a f' n # * ~

i=

s 0 0 0 -

~6 s 0 cu -

M 'd d d N O o d d )

• N 4 " M D ~-

%. n o n n e b s n  % g +

E c d I i si ~ ~ ~

~ a

(

i

, a z-L

> :1 l

l.

8 s s E E6 I T 4 4

_j(

e = s < .

. n:E 3

• k2h,

- ~ s .

't w

k w

k ,I 3 ~lf,Ie o s dd 4s g43 ~ T gd 6- 93 en 3 a a* * ,asauht j gd o T II5

- .# !ag /5 1

3

$- kh h .k I! sk!!k a ,

c

• .a o a

- <(

R xo =I1a.:

e 5 a e E a E gs i E $" 33 4 434 :12 4 3 < RR at.

l

'M m

e r

" - - - - - - - - - . . - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _