RS-12-163, 12Q0108.50-R-002, Rev. 1, Seismic Walkdown Report in Response to the 50.54(f) Information Request Regarding Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic for the LaSalle County Station, Unit 2, Part 16 of 16

From kanterella
(Redirected from RS-12-163)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
12Q0108.50-R-002, Rev. 1, Seismic Walkdown Report in Response to the 50.54(f) Information Request Regarding Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic for the LaSalle County Station, Unit 2, Part 16 of 16
ML12353A236
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/01/2012
From: Delaney M
Stevenson & Associates
To:
Exelon Generation Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RS-12-163 12Q0108.50-R-002, Rev 1
Download: ML12353A236 (31)
v • d • e


Text

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 1 of 4 Status: F N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Area Walk-by 4-24 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.

Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially Yes adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant Yes degraded conditions?
3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and Yes HVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g.,

condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)?

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Yes interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Overhead light fixturesjudged to be acceptable.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause flooding or spray in the area?

All piping is welded andjudged to be acceptable.

6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause a fire in the area?
7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?

Ladderstorage corrected during walk-by by Radiation Protection.

D-229

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 4 Status: L* N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Area Walk-by 4-24

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?

Comments Seismic Walkdown Team: M. Etre & M. Wodarcyk - 9/18/2012 Evaluated by: Mark Etre Date: 10/25/2012 Michael Wodarcyk 10/25/2012 Photos D-230

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 3 of 4 Status: F-Y N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

D-231

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 4 of 4 Status: ZI--N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

D-232

12Q.108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 1 of 4 Status: FI- N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Area Walk-by 4-25 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.

Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially Yes adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant Yes degraded conditions?
3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and Yes HVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g.,

condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)?

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Yes interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Masonry walls near raceway door and outside walls adequatelyrestrained.

Overhead light fixtures judged to be acceptable.

Pack 2H22-P029 has adequate clearanceto wall.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause flooding or spray in the area?
6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause a fire in the area?
7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?

Ladders adequately stored.

D-233

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 4 Status: FYi N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Area Walk-by 4-25

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?

Comments Seismic Walkdown Team: M. Etre & M. Wodarcyk - 9/18/2012 Evaluated by: Mark Etre Date: 10/25/2012

" Michael Wodarcyk 10/25/2012 Photos D-234

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 3 of 4 Status: EY-ý N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Area Walk-by 4-25 D-235

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 4 of 4 Status: F N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

'4 D-236

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 1 of 3 Status: F] N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Area Walk-by 4-26 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.

Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially Yes adverse seismic conditions (ifvisible without necessarily opening cabinets)?
2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant Yes degraded conditions?
3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and Yes HVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g.,

condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)?

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Yes interactions'with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Flexiblepipes in contact with scaffold judged to be acceptable.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause flooding or spray in the area?

All piping is welded andjudged to be acceptable.

6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes that could cause a fire in the area?
7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?

Scaffold wired to auxiliarysteel in one location. Scaffold is framed against RHR HX outlet line such that movement is restrained.No soft targets are in vicinity. Judged to be acceptable.

D-237

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 3 Status: F N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Area Walk-by 4-26

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could Yes adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?

Comments Seismic Walkdown Team: M. Etre & M. Wodarcyk - 9/18/2012 Evaluated by: Mark Etre Date: 10/19/2012

" Michael Wodarcyk 10119/2012 D-238

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 3 of 3 Status: [-1 N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC) 4-D-239

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 E

Plan for Future Seismic Walkdown of Inaccessible Equipment Seven (7) items could not be walked down during the 180-day period following the issuance of the 1 OCFR50.54(f) letter due to their being inaccessible. The items will be walked down during a unit outage or time when the equipment is accessible, as appropriate. Table E-1 summarizes the reasons each item is inaccessible during normal plant operation and notes the LaSalle Station Issue Report (IR) that has been written to track completion of the Seismic Walkdowns (and Area Walk-bys) for these items. It is noted that SSCs identified on Table E-1 require a complete inspection including, as applicable, internal inspections of electrical cabinets for other adverse seismic conditions, as required.

Certain cabinets require supplemental internal inspection for other adverse seismic conditions as summarized in Table E-2. Supplemental internal inspections of these cabinets are required due to clarifications provided by the NRC after the online seismic walkdowns were completed. These Supplemental inspections will be completed during a unit outage or another time when the equipment is accessible, as appropriate. It is noted, that SSCs identified on Table E-1 do not appear on Table E-2.

E-1

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Table E-1. Inaccessible and Deferred Equipment Action Component Reason for Request IStts Resolution Cmlio Milestone ID Description Inaccessibility IDReque Status Completion 2B21- ACCUMULATOR, Located in L2R14 A004C MSRV Dryweil Refueling Outage C MS LINE S L2R14 2B21- S LIE Located in Refueling F013C SAFETY/RELIEF VLV Drywell Outage SRV C IMF-2 L2R14 2821- SOLENOID VALVE Located in Refueling FO 13C-A 'AS Drywell Outage L2R14 2B21- C MS INBD ISOL Located in 1428102, Refueling F022C VLV Drywell WO Outage 1583945 L2R14 2B21- C MS OTBD ISOL Located in Refueling F028C VLV MSIV Room Outage L2R14 2B21- VALVE, SOLENOID, Located in Refueling F028C-P2 O/B MSIV MSIV Room Outage C MS OTBD ISOL L2R14 2B21- ABOVE SEAT DRN Located in Refueling F067C VLV MSIV Room Outage E-2

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Table E-2. Supplemental Cabinet Internal Inspection List IF NOT TRACKING STATUS /

COMPONENT EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE MILESTONE NUMBER ID DESCRIPTION CLASS (Y/N) ACCESSIBLE COMPLETION (IR INSPECTION WHY? NUMBER RESULTS DIV I 480V MCC (01) Motor L2R15 IR 2AP71 E 235X-1 Control Refueling 01425162 Centers YES N/A Outage W/O 414283 DIV I 480V MCC (01) Motor L2R15 IR 2AP73E 235X-3 Control YES N/A Refueling 01425162 Centers Outage W/O 414283 DIV II 480V MCC (01) Motor L2R14 IR 2AP78E 236X-1 Control YES N/A Refueling 01425157 Centers Outage W/O 414284 DIV II 480V MCC (01) Motor L2R14 IR 2AP81E 236X-3 Control YES N/A Refueling 01425157 Centers Outage W/O 414284 250VDC MCC (01) Motor L2R14 IR 2DC05E 221X Control Refueling 01425157 Centers YES N/A Outage W/O 414284 480V SWGR 233 (02) Low L2R15 IR Voltage Refueling 01425162 2AP15E Switchgear YES N/A Outage W/O and Breaker 414283 Panels DIV I 480V (02) Low L2R15 IR SWGR 235X Voltage Refueling 01425162 2AP19E Switchgear YES N/A Outage W/O and Breaker 414283 Panels Table E-2 Page 1 of 4 E-3

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 IF NOT STATUS/

COMPONENT EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE IF MILESTONE NUMBER INSPECTION ID DESCRIPTION CLASS (Y/N) ACCESSIBLE,WHY WHY? COMPLETION (IR RESULTS NUMBER) RESULTS DIV II 480V (02) Low L2R14 IR SWGR 236X Voltage Refueling 01425157 2AP21 E Switchgear YES N/A Outage W/O and Breaker 414284 Panels DIV II 4160V" (03) Medium 8/27/2012 N/A NO OTHER SWGR 242Y Voltage ADVERSE 2AP06E Switchgear YES N/A SEISMIC CONDITIONS TRANSFORMER, (04) L2R15 IR 235X Transformers YES N/A Refueling 01425162 2AP19E-103B Outage W/O 414283 TRANSFORMER, (04) L2R14 IR 2AP21E-303B 236X Transformers YES N/A Refueling 01425157 Outage W/O 414284 DIV 1250 VDC (14) L2R14 IR DISTRIBUTION Distribution Refueling 01425157 BUS 2 Panels and YES N/A Outage W/O 2DC02E Automatic 414284 Transfer Switches DIV II 125VDC (14) L2R14 IR DISTRIBUTION Distribution Refueling 01425157 2DC13E PANEL 212Y Panels and YES N/A Outage W/O Automatic 414284 Transfer Switches Table E-2 Page 2 of 4 E-4

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 IF NOT TRACKING STATUS/

COMPONENT EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE MILESTONE NUMBER INSPECTION ID DESCRIPTION CLASS (Y/N) WHY? COMPLETION (IR RESULTS WHY?___ _______NUMBER DIV II 125VDC (14) L2R14 IR DISTRIBUTION Distribution Refueling 01425157 2DC15E BUS 2B Panels and YES N/A Outage W/O Automatic 414284 Transfer Switches 250VDC (16) Battery L2R14 IR 2DC03E BATTERY Chargers & YES N/A Refueling 01425157 CHARGER Inverters Outage W/O 414284 DIV II 125VDC (16) Battery L2R14 IR 2DC16E BATTERY Chargers & YES N/A Refueling 01425157 CHARGER 2BB Inverters Outage W/O 414284 2A DG A (20) 8/27/2012 N/A NO OTHER GENERATOR Instrument ADVERSE 2DG02JA CONTROL and Control YES N/A SEISMIC PANEL Panels CONDITIONS 2A DG ENGINE (20) 8/27/2012 N/A NO OTHER CONTROL Instrument ADVERSE 2DG03J PANEL and Control YES N/A SEISMIC Panels CONDITIONS ASSY - PANEL, (20) 9/14/2012 N/A NO OTHER EMERG CORE Instrument ADVERSE 2H13-P601 COOL SYST and Control YES N/A SEISMIC Panels CONDITIONS ASSY - PANEL, (20) 9/14/2012 N/A NO OTHER RWCU/RX Instrument ADVERSE 2H13-P602 RECIRC and Control YES N/A SEISMIC CONTROL Panels CONDITIONS Table E-2 Page 3 of 4 E-5

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 IF NOT TRACKING STATUS/

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION EQUIPMENT ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE MILESTONE NUMBER INSPECTION ID CLASS (Y/N) WHY? COMPLETION (IR RESULTS WHY? NUMBER) RESULTS ASSY - PANEL, (20) L2R14 IR 2PL33J RHR B/C CUBE Instrument YES N/A Refueling 01425157 VENT and Control Outage W/O Panels 414284 ASSY - PANEL, (20) L2R14 IR 2PL34J RHR A CUBE Instrument YES N/A Refueling 01425157 VENT and Control Outage W/o Panels 414284 ASSY - PANEL, (20) L2R14 IR 2PL35J LPCS CUBE Instrument YES N/A Refueling 01425157 VENT and Control Outage W/O Panels 414284 Table E-2 Page 4 of 4 E-6

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 F

Peer Review Report This appendix includes the Peer Review Team's report, including the signed Peer Review Checklist for SWEL from Appendix F of the EPRI Seismic Walkdown Guidance (Reference 1).

F-1

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Peer Review Report for Near Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Inspection of LaSalle County Generating Station Unit 2 October 19, 2012 Prepared by Peer Reviewers Walter Diordievic (Team Leader)

Todd A. Bacon Tribhawan K. Ram Walter Djordjevic - o October 19, 2012 Peer Review Team Leader Certification Signature Date Sheet 1 of 11 F-2

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 IIntroduction 1.1 OVERVIEW This report documents the independent peer review for the Near Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdowns performed by Stevenson &

Associates (S&A) for Unit 2 of the LaSalle County Generating Station (LCGS). The peer review addresses the following activities:

  • Review of the selection of the structures, systems, and components, (SSCs) that are included in the Seismic Walkdown Equipment List (SWEL).
  • Observation of the seismic walkdowns on August 29, 2012 and adherence to the Seismic Walkdown Guidance (SWG)1 by Mr. Todd Bacon.
  • Review of a sample of the checklists prepared for the Seismic Walkdowns & Area Walk-bys.
  • Review of any licensing basis evaluations.
  • Review of the decisions for entering the potentially adverse conditions into the plant's Corrective Action Plan (CAP).
  • Review of the final submittal report.

The peer reviewers for LCGS Unit 2 are Messrs. Walter Djordjevic, Todd A. Bacon, and Tribhawan K. Ram, all of S&A. Mr. Djordjevic is designated the Peer Review Team Leader. None of the aforementioned engineers is involved in the seismic walkdown inspection process so that they can maintain their independence from the project. Mr.

Djordjevic is an advanced degree structural engineer, has over thirty years of nuclear seismic experience and has been trained as a Seismic Capability Engineer (EPRI SQUG training), EPRI IPEEE Add-on, Seismic Fragility and Seismic Walkdown Engineer (SWE). Mr. Bacon is a civil-structural engineer with over thirty years of nuclear engineering experience and received the Seismic Walkdown Engineer (SWE) training.

Mr. Ram is an advanced degree nuclear engineer with over twenty-eight years of 1 EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3.: Seismic, dated June 2012.

Sheet 2 of 11 F-3

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. I Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 nuclear power plant experience. Mr. Djordjevic, as Peer Review Team Leader, has participated in all phases of the peer review process for LCGS Unit 2.

The SWEL development was performed by Mr. Tony Perez of S&A. Revision 0 of the peer review checklist determined that a SWEL 2 list should have been created to include Seismic Category I isolation valves. Accordingly, such a list was generated. There were no additional findings for the Revision Peer Review checklist. The completed Revision 1 SWEL Peer Review checklist is attached to this document. The discussion for the SWEL development peer review is found in Section 2.

The peer review of the seismic walkdown inspection started on August 29, 2012 with a peer check of the actual walkdowns for Unit 2. Mr. Bacon joined the walkdown team for a portion of the day's planned walkdowns to observe the conduct of walkdowns and adherence to the SWG. Interviews were conducted by Messrs. Bacon and Djordjevic with the SWE inspection team after review of a sample of the Unit 2 Seismic Walkdown Checklists (SWCs) and the Area Walk-by Checklists (AWCs) to ascertain procedural compliance with the SWG. The interviews were conducted with Mr. Dave Carter of the SWE inspection team on October 8, 2012, and Messrs. Jim Griffith, Mark Etre and Mike Wodarcyk on October 9, 2012. The discussion of the sample SWCs and AWCs is provided in Section 3.

No issues were identified which challenged the current licensing basis.

Sheet 3 of 11 F-4

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 2Peer Review - Selection of SSCs 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to describe the process to perform the peer review of the selected structures, systems, and components, (SSCs) that were included in the Seismic Walkdown Equipment List (SWEL).

This section documents the Peer Review - Selection of SSCs performed for LaSalle County Generating Station - Unit 2.

2.2 PEER REVIEW ACTIVITY - SELECTION OF SSCs The guidance in EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, dated June 2012, Section 3: Selection of SSCs was used as the basis for this review.

This peer review was based on reviews of the following documents:

  • Seismic Walkdown Interim Report, Revisions 0 and 1 This peer review was based on interviews with the following individual who was directly responsible for development of the SWEL:
  • Mr. Tony Perez, Senior Mechanical Engineer This peer review utilized the checklist shown in the SWG, Appendix F: Checklist for Peer Review of SSC Selection.

For SWEL 1 development, the following actions were completed in the peer review process:

" Verification that the SSCs selected represented a diverse sample of the equipment required to perform the following five safety functions:

o Reactor Reactivity Control (RRC) o Reactor Coolant Pressure Control (RCPC) o Reactor Coolant Inventory Control (RCIC) o Decay Heat Removal (DHR) o Containment Function (CF)

This peer review determined that the SSCs selected for the seismic walkdowns represent a diverse sample of equipment required to perform the five safety functions.

" Verification that the SSCs selected include an appropriate representation of items having the following sample selection attributes:

o Various types of systems o Major new and replacement equipment o Various types of equipment o Various environments o Equipment enhanced based on the findings of the IPEEE Sheet 4 of 11 F-5

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 o Risk insight consideration This peer review determined that the SSCs selected for the seismic walkdowns include a sample of items that represent each attribute/consideration identified above.

For SWEL 2 development, the following actions were completed in the peer review process:

" Verification that spent fuel pool related items were considered and appropriately added to SWEL 2.

This peer review determined that spent fuel pool related items were given appropriate consideration. Portions of the spent fuel pool cooling system are classified as Seismic Category I (Class I) and SWEL 2 was sufficiently populated as appropriate.

" Verification that appropriate justification was documented for spent fuel pool related items that were not added to the SWEL 2.

This peer review determined that an appropriate level of justification was documented for those items related to the spent fuel pool that were not added to SWEL 2.

2.3 PEER REVIEW FINDINGS - SELECTION OF SSCs This peer review found that the process for selecting SSCs that were added to the SWEL was consistent with the process outlined in the SWG Section 3: Selection of SSCs.

Revision- 1 of the peer review checklist is attached to this document. Revision 0 of the peer review checklist determined that a SWEL 2 list should have been created to include Seismic Category I isolation valves. Accordingly, such a list was generated. There were no additional findings for the Revision 1 Peer Review checklist.

2.4 RESOLUTION OF PEER REVIEW COMMENTS - SELECTION OF SSCS All comments requiring resolution were incorporated prior to completion of this peer review.

2.5 CONCLUSION

OF PEER REVIEW - SELECTION OF SSCS This peer review concludes that the process for selecting SSCs to be included on the seismic walkdown equipment list appropriately followed the process outlined in the SWG, Section 3:

Selection of SSCs. It is further concluded that the SWEL sufficiently represents a broad population of plant Seismic Category I (Class I) equipment and systems to meet the objectives of the NRC 50.54(f) letter.

Sheet 5 of 11 F-6

12QO108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 3Review of Sample Seismic Walkdown & Area Walk-Bys Checklists 3.1 OVERVIEW A peer review of the SWCs and AWCs was performed after which an interview was conducted by Messrs. Djordjevic and Bacon with the SWE inspection team in accordance with the SWG requirements on October 8 and 9, 2012. The SWE trained walkdown engineers were Messrs. Dave Carter, Jim Griffith, Mark Etre and Mike Wodarcyk.

3.2 SAMPLE CHECKLISTS Table 3-1 lists the SWC and AWC samples which represent approximately 22% of the SWCs and 22% of the AWCs. The sample includes the equipment inspected during the peer review and other equipment items from other classes to introduce diversity to the sampling procedure.

Table 3-1: Table of SWC and AWC Samples from Seismic Walkdown Inspection for Unit 2 Equipment Equipment Class Walkdown Item Observations Identification 2AP06E 3 - Medium Voltage DIV II 4160V SWGR Switchgear 242Y No concern 2AP19E-103B 4 - Transformers TRANSFORMER, No concern 235X 2AP71 E 1 - Motor Control DIV I 480V MCC No concern Centers 235X-1 2C11-D001002 0 - Other CONTROL UNIT CRD Open S-hooks - IR HYDRAULIC 22-59 1406922 written 2C11-D2259-125 21 - Tanks and Heat CRD HCU SCRAM Open S-hooks - IR Exchangers WATER 1406922 written ACCUMULATOR 2C11-D3459-125 21 - Tanks and Heat CRD HCU SCRAM One light fixture missing Exchangers WATER one chain support at ACCUMULATOR north end. Flexible conduit feed supports the fixture. Open S-hooks - IR 1406922 written.

2C41-CO01A 5 - Horizontal Pumps SBLC PUMP A No concern Sheet 6 of 11 F-7

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Equipment Equipment Class Walkdown Item Observations Identification 2DC05E 1 - Motor Control 250VDC MCC 221X No concern Centers 2DC16E 16- Battery Chargers DIV II 125VDC No concern and Inverters BATTERY CHARGER 2BB 2DG01 F 0 - Other 2A DG COOLING No concern WATER STRAINER 2DG01S 12 - Air Compressors 2A DG STARTING No concern AIR COMPRESSOR PACKAGE 2DO05T 21 - Tanks and Heat DG 2A DAY TK No concern Exchangers 2E12-D300B .0 - Other B RHR SERVICE Untightened nuts WATER STRAINER corrected per IR 1406061 -judged acceptable by station engineering.

2E12-F051B 7 - Fluid-Operated B RHR HX STM INLT No concern Valves PRESS CONT VLV 2E12-N005B 19 - Temperature RHR HE 2B SERV No concern Sensors WTR DISCH TEMP 2E12-N015B 18 - Instruments on RHR FLOW 2B No concern Racks 2E21-N003 18 - Instruments on LPCS PP DISCH No concern Racks FLOW TRANSMITTER 2E22-F004 8 - Motor-Operated HPCS INJECTION No concern and Solenoid- ISOL VALVE Operated Valves 2E51-CO01 5 - Horizontal Pumps RX CORE ISOL No concern COOLING PUMP 2E51-F045 8 - Motor-Operated RCIC TURB STM No concern and Solenoid- SPLY STOP Operated Valves 2FC140 0 - Other FUEL POOL SYS TO No concern RHR SUCT STOP 2HGO05A 8 - Motor-Operated H2 RECOMB 2HG01A No concern and Solenoid- U-2 SUP POOL DIS Operated Valves VLV-OVHD AT 210' Sheet 7 of 11 F-8

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Equipment Equipment Class Walkdown Item Observations Identification 2HG01A 9 - Fans ASSY - BLOWER, H2 No concern RECOMBINER 2VQ029 7 - Fluid-Operated DW VENT/PURGE No concern Valves FROM RX BLDG UPSTRM ISOL 2VX04C 9 - Fans FAN, ESS SWGR No concern DIV-2 VENT SUPPLY Area Walkdown Description Observations Area Walk-by 1-01; DG El. One unrestrained light fixture at door to room with open S-736' near 2VY06C hooks. Broken plastic covers on two fixtures. Dispositioned to IRs 1405563 and 1406922.

Area Walk-by 1-07; DG El. No concern 710' 2A DG room Area Walk-by 1-10; 2A DG No concern Fuel Oil Tank room Area Walk-by 1-15; RB El. No concern 710' near 2HG005A Area Walk-by 1-22; RB El. No concern 694' near 2E12-F036B Area Walk-by 2-07; RB El. No concern 673' near 2E22-N004, -NO05,

-cool Area Walk-by 3-04; RB El. Open S-hooks - IR 1406922 written 761' Area Walk-by 3-12; RB El. No concern 673' near 2E51-F031 Area Walk-by 4-11; RB El. No concern 710' near 2VQ040 Area Walk-by 4-13; RB El. No concern 740' near 2WR029 Sheet 8 of 11 F-9

12QO..8.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 3.3 EVALUATION OF FINDINGS There were no findings that challenged the licensing basis. A review of Table 3-1 of the previous section shows no concerns or findings in the sampling of the SWCs and AWCs.

Tables 5-2 and 5-3 of the Seismic Walkdown Report (final submittal report) provide the lists of the issues encountered for the equipment seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys.

The scaffolding and seismic housekeeping procedures were reviewed by the SWEs in order to gain a full understanding of the plant practices in regard to those procedures.

There were no seismic concerns noted in Unit 2 with regard to scaffold erection. The scaffolds were properly tied off and braced, and properly tagged with respect to the procedure.

A few lighting fixtures with open S-hooks were found in the plant; however, none of them resulted in any seismic issues as evidenced by reviewing the IRs written (see Tables 5-2 and 5-3) during these walkdowns.

Loose fasteners were observed in a few instances but in all cases were determined not to be seismic concerns.

Concerning seismic housekeeping there were only a few minor items found throughout the plant. It can be concluded that LCGS Unit 2 implements their seismic housekeeping program consistently and to a very high standard.

The peer reviewers consider the judgments made by the SWEs to be appropriate and in concurrence with the SWG.

Sheet 9 of 11 F-1 0

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 4Review of Licensing Basis Assessments Tables 5-2 and 5-3 of the Seismic Walkdown Report provide a list of the issues encountered during the Unit 2 seismic walkdown inspections for the SWEL components and how they were addressed. If a LCGS IR request was generated it is shown in the Tables. Interviews were conducted by Messrs. Djordjevic and Bacon with the SWE inspection team on October 8 and 9, 2012 to discuss the issues identified. No potentially adverse seismic conditions were identified that resulted in a seismic licensing basis evaluation. The peer reviewers concur with this outcome.

Sheet 10 of 11 F-11

12Q.108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 5 Review Final Submittal Report & Sign-off The entire final submittal report has been reviewed by Messrs. W. Djordjevic, T. K. Ram and T. A. Bacon and found to meet the requirements of the EPRI 1025286 - Seismic Walkdown Guidance. The Peer Review determined that the objectives and requirements of the 50.54(f) letter 2 are met. Further, the efforts completed and documented within the final submittal report are in accordance with the EPRI guidance document.

2 NRC Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," Enclosure 3, "Recommendation 2.3: Seismic," dated March 12, 2012 Sheet 11 of 11 F-1 2

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet I of 2 Peer Review Checklist for SWEL Instructions for Completing Checklist This peer review checklist may be used to document the review of the Seismic Walkdown Equipment List (SWEL) in accordance with Section 6. The space below each question in this checklist should be used to describe any findings identified during the peer review process and how the SWEL may have changed to address those findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Were the five safety functions adequately represented in the SWEL 1 selection? YZ NEI Appropriate equipment has been included to maintain the five safety functions: RRC, DHR, RCIC, RCPC, and CF
2. Does SWELl include an appropriate representation of items having the following sample selection attributes:
a. Various types of systems? YZ NFI Various system types (e.g., EDG, EDG Oil Transfer, RHR, RHR Service Water, CS, Batteries,Battery Chargers,Low and Med Vol Switchgearand MCCs) have been included.
b. Major new and replacement equipment? YNNE None as explained in the interim report.
c. Various types of equipment? YZ NEI The equipment represents all required 21 types except 11 and 13. The screenings
  1. 1, #2, and #3 resulted in no equipment in the lattertwo categories.
d. Various environments? YZ NM Appropriate environments (e. g., Reactor,DW, DG, and Auxiliary buildings) have been included.
e. Equipment enhanced based on the findings of the IPEEE (or equivalent) programn? YN NEI None as explained in the interim report.

F-1 3

12Q0108.50-R-002 Rev. 1 Correspondence No.: RS-12-163 Sheet 2 of 2 Peer Review Checklist for SWEL

f. Were risk insights considered in the development of SWEL 1? YN NEI Risk quantifications (F-V and RA KO provided in the "Comments"column
3. For SWEL 2:
a. Were spent fuel pool related items considered, and if applicable included in YO NEI SWEL 2?

Yes. There are no items associatedwith SFP rapid draindown.

b. Was an appropriate justification documented for spent fuel pool related items not YO NEI included in SWEL 2?

Providedin the submittalreport

4. Provide any other comments related to the peer review of the SWELs.

The previous peer review checklist had indicateda need for creating SWEL 2 to incorporateSeismic Category I valves used to isolate RHR system from SFPsystem. Based on that review, a SWEL 2 list was created.

5. Have all peer review comments been adequately addressed in the final SWEL? YO NEI Peer Reviewer # 1: TK Ram (Lasalle Unit 2) " Date: 9/27/2012 Peer Reviewer #2: Walter Diordievic Date: 10/8/2012 F-14
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=RS-12-163,_12Q0108.50-R-002,_Rev._1,_Seismic_Walkdown_Report_in_Response_to_the_50.54(f)_Information_Request_Regarding_Fukushima_Near-Term_Task_Force_Recommendation_2.3:_Seismic_for_the_LaSalle_County_Station,_Unit_2,_Part_16_of_16&oldid=2089743"