ML18086A942

Forwards Environ Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment - Public Svc Electric & Gas Co Response to NRC Safety Evaluation Rept of 810528. Testing & Installation of Replacement Equipment Should Be Complete by 820630

ML18086A942
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	09/01/1981
From:	Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8109300086
Download: ML18086A942 (116)

Text

~.. *- e PS~G Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza, T16D Newark, N.J. 07101 201/430-8217 Robert L. Mitt!

General Manager - Licensing and Environment September 1, 1981 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20014 Attention: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 1 Division of Licensing Gentlemen:

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION PROGRAM NO. 2 UNIT SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-311 PSE&G hereby submits, in enclosure to this letter, its re-sponse to the NRC staff Safety Evaluation for the environ-mental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment transmitted to us by your letter dated May 28, 1981. This submittal satisfies the requirements of paragraph 2.C(9)(e) of Facility Operating License DPR-75.

This report responds to the action items identified in the safety evaluation. Our environmental qualification review report, its subsequent revisions, in-house documentation, and this report provide the needed information to support the safe operation of Salem 2. Immediate corrective action has been taken where necessary. The staff concerns have been resolved through procedure changes, design changes, and clarification information in this report. Final resolution of some items will occur when equipment replacement is com-plete. We believe that Salem 2 can continue to operate in a safe manner pending equipment replacement where necessary.

While there is some environmental testing now in progress, we anticipate completion of the qualification testing and installation of replacement equipment by June 30, 1982 sub-ject to the availability of a plant outage of sufficient duration.

The Energy People

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 9-1-81 Should you have any questions in this regard, do not hesi-tate to contact us.

Very truly yours~

CC: Mr. Leif Norrholm Senior Resident Inspector BJ08

NOT.ICE i AUGUST 1981 P

• ~

THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DIVISION OF DOCUMENT CONTROL. THEY HAVE .BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD AND

~ MUST BE RETURNED TO THE RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH 016. PLEASE -DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS I CHARGED ~UT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVAL OF ANY The Eri PAGE(S) FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.

DEADLINE RETURN DATE RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH G STATION ENV2RONMENTAL QUALIFICATION O.F SAFETY - RELATED ELECTRIC.AL EQUIPMENT

. PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT OF MAY 28, 1981

~

I I

I I SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT I PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT OF MAY 28, 1981 I

I I

I I

I I

I August 1981 I

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

SUMMARY

/CONCLUSIONS II. ITEMS FROM SECTION 3 OF NRC SAFETY EVALUATION III. ITEMS FROM SECTION 4 OF NRC SAFETY EVALUATION A. NRC Noted Deficiencies of Appendix B B. NRC Noted Deficiencies of Appendix C REFERENCES

I.

SUMMARY

/CONCLUSIONS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety Evaluation Report (May 28, 1981) of Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment at Salem Generating Station Unit 2 requires that the licensee provide additional information to respond to general concerns regarding the Salem environmental qualification review program and noted deficiencies for specific pieces of equipment. Their Safety Evaluation Report is based on a review of the Salem Environmental Qualification Review Report - Revision 1 dated December 1, 1980. Two revisions (January 16, 1981 and February 9, 1981) have been issued which update the Salem report with results of the Aging Evaluation Review, the TMI Action Items and Cold Shutdown Equipment. The Staff did not have the benefit of this material, which does address some of the deficiencies cited, in their review.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company has reviewed the Safety Evalua-tion Report and has provided the requested additional information in the following pages. Responses have been made to the action items of the Staff and evaluations prepared of identified deficiencies for specific equipment. Our Environmental Qualification Review Report, subsequent revisions, in-house documentation and this report provides the needed information to support the safe operation of Salem Unit 2.

Immediate corrective action has been taken where deemed necessary for plant safety. The Staff concerns have been resolved through procedure changes, design changes and clarifying information in this report.

Final resolution of some items will occur when equipment replacement is complete. We believe that Salem Unit 2 can continue to operate in a safe manner pending equipment replacement.

II. ITEMS FROM SECTION 3 OF NRC SAFETY EVALUATION Section 3 of the NRC Safety Evaluation Report presents a general over-view of the Staff 1s review of the Salem Generating Station Environ-mental Qualification Review Report (Rev. 1 - 12/1/80). Major topics such as equipment identification, test profiles, submergence, aging, etc., are discussed along with Staff conclusions. In addition nine (9) items were singled out to be specifically addressed by the licensee.

A. Section 3.0, page 3 - Staff Evaluation 11

• • • the licensee should provide (1) required maintenance schedules and (2) complete details of procedural changes. In addition, where equipment has been recategorized in accordance with the licensee's categories, the new category should be identified . 11 The Salem Aging Evaluation Program has resulted in the establish-ment of required maintenance schedules for selected equipment.

This information has been included in revised Qualification Evaluation Data Forms where appropriate in Section V of the report. A description of the aging program is provided in Section X of the report. This information was included in Revi-sion 2 update issued 1/16/81.

B. Section 3.1, page 3 - Completeness of Safety-Related Equipment 11 Display instrumentation which provides information for the reactor operators to aid them in the safe handling of the plant was not specifically identified by the licensee. A complete list of all display instrumentation mentioned in the LOCA and HELB emergency procedures must be provided ... (1) justifica-tion should be provided for not considering the instrument safety-related and (2) assurance should be provided that its subsequent failure will not mislead the operator or adversely affect the mitigation of the consequences of the accident. 11 Display instrumentation mentioned in the Emergency Operating Pro-cedures was included as part of the Salem environmental qualifi-cation review effort. This instrumentation was included in the

master list and evaluation forms under the applicable systems.

For example, steam generator level is included under Main Steam.

A separate listing of all the primary instruments and attendant cables, panels, terminal blocks, etc., was not deemed necessary since all the devices were included in the system performing the function. Other devices which do not perform a system safety function were included under "Containment Parameters" or Mis-11 cellaneous11 in Section IV of the report. In the next revision to the Salem Environmental Qualification Report, a cross-indexing of display instrumentation will be provided.

Those instrumentation items which were included in the Emergency Operating Procedures but are not required for any operator action do not require environmental qualification. The operating pro-cedures have been revised to reflect potential inaccuracy of the devices. The operators will be aware of their potential failure.

A discussion of these items was provided in the following Bases of Section VII of the report: 18B, 21, 23, 29, 33 and 37.

C. Section 3.2, page 4 - Service Conditions 11 The staff assumed, and requires the licensee to verify, that the containment spray system is not subject to a disabling single-component failure. 11 The Salem containment spray system has been designed such that a single failure will not result in loss of spray capability. The containment spray system design bases are described in FSAR Section 6.4.1. The system has been designed in accordance with ECCS criteria of redundancy, single failure, etc. This item was addressed in Section VIII of our report.

D. Section 3.3, page 4 - Temperature, Pressure and Humidity Conditions Inside Containment 11

• • • the licensee has used a lower temperature profile for some components based on a Wyle Laboratory Report (44439-2 Revision A). The licensee should submit this report or a summary of the report for staff review. The summary should describe the basis for accepting the lower temperature profile. 11 Wyle Labs Report 44439-2 for Salem Generating Station instrument panel testing has already been submitted to the NRC Staff. Ten (10) copies of the original issue of 44439-2 were sent by letter, Mr. R.

L. Mi ttl, PSE&G to Mr. Olan D. Parr, NRC on Ap.ri 1 12, 1979 and ten (10) copies of Revision A of 44439-2 were sent by letter, Mr. R. L.

Mittl, PSE&G to Mr. Olan D. Parr, NRC on October 23, 1979.

A lower temperature profile for some items was established due to their location within instrument panel enclosures inside the con-tainment. The peak containment temperature for exposed equipment is 350°F. The instrument panel testing demonstrates that when the containment temperature is 350°F, equipment within the panels see temperatures less than 300°F. This is due to the thermal protec-tion afforded by the instrument panel during the initial tempera-ture rise transient.

E. Section 3.5, page 5 - Submergence "The licensee proposes procedural modifications for some cases and indicates that the functional requirements of the poten-tially submerged components will be completed prior to submer-gence. The licensee should provide an assessment of the failure modes associated with the submergence of components. Assurance should also be provided that the subsequent failure of these components will not adversely affect any other safety functions or mislead an operator. Additionally, the licensee should discuss operating time, across the spectrum of events, in rela-tion to the time of submergence. 11

An evaluation of submerged components and their effect on other equipment and safety functions was performed with the results pre-sented in the response to FSAR Question 6.28. The safety of the plant would not be jeopardized by the submerged components. As part of the environmental qualification review effort, submerged components were reevaluated to assure the safety function was per-formed prior to submergence. In all cases this would be accom-plished in a timely :fashion prior to submergence. Bases 28 and 29 provide the discussion of this topic in our report. Supporting documentation is included with our environmental qualification files in the corporate home office.

F. Section 3.5, page 5 - Submergence 11 It is not cl ear from the information submitted that submergence of safety-related electrical equipment outside of containment was addressed. The licensee should address this area ... and upgrade the CES (component evaluation sheet) as appropriate. 11 A high energy line break analysis was performed for equipment out-side the containment at Salem. This analysis did not identify flooding outside the containment as a safety concern. This was due to the use of drains outside the containment to take care of leakage, encapsulation of piping to limit mass release from breaks and direct it to acceptable areas and that major pipe breaks are in areas which are provided with relief panels to direct the mass release to the atmosphere. The high energy line break analysis is described in FSAR Section 14.5. Therefore, submergence of safety-related equipment outside the containment was not specifically addressed in the previous report.

G. Section 3.6, page 5 - Chemical Spray 11 The exact volume percent used by the vendors for qualification testing should be verified by the licensee. 11

The environmental qualification review of the acceptability of chemical spray testing of equipment was based on the use of boric acid and sodium hydroxide in a solution creating a pH of greater than 8.5 for a duration greater than 22.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.

H. Section 3.7, page 6 - Aging 11

• • • the staff requires that the licensee submit supplemental information to verify and identify the degree of conformance to the above requirements. (establishment of an ongoing program to review surveillance and maintenance records and component maintenance and replacement schedules). The response should in-clude all the equipment identified as required to maintain func-11 tional operability in harsh environments.

The Salem Aging Evaluation Program is described in Section X of the report. This information was included in Revision 2 update issued 1/16/81. Maintenance or replacement schedules were established for selected equipment based on this review. This information has been included in revised Qualification Evaluation Data Forms where appropriate in Section V of the report. In our discussion we in-dicated that aging evaluation is an ongoing effort as part of the surveillance programs for safety-related equipment and activities of the industry by the PWR and BWR owners groups, EPRI, licensee event reports, new testing and NRC Bulletins and Circulars. This information will be factored into an overall aging program.

I. Section 3.8, page 6 - Radiation (Inside and Outside Containment) 11

• • • the minimum value for inside containment has not been pro-vided. The minimum value may not envelope the minimum require-ments of NUREG-0588. Therefore, the licensee is requested to either provide justification for using the lower value or pro-vide values established using the methodology of NUREG-0588. 11

We are unaware of any m1n1mum radiation value used to establish adequate environmental qualification. The maximum value of 5 x l0 7R has been used as the benchmark for qualification review. The Staff has established a different method for radiation exposure calculation for the Reactor Coolant System Temperature Monitors (RTD's). We have indicated that these will be replaced each refuel-ing outage pending installation of qualified devices meeting Staff requirements. This item was established in NRC Safety Evaluation for Salem Supplement 4 dated April, 1980.

After reviewing the items contained in this section, PSE&G reaffirms its statements made in our March 19, 1981 letter, Mr. R. L. Mittl, PSE&G to Mr. F. J. Miraglia, NRC. The necessary immediate corrective actions for plant safety have been made assuring that Salem Unit 2 can continue to operate in a safe manner pending equipment replacement.

'j '

III. ITEMS FROM SECTION 4 OF NRC SAFETY EVALUATION Section 4 of the NRC Safety Evaluation Report presents details of the Staff 1s review of specific equipment included in the Salem Generating Station Environmental Qualification Review Report. Based on the Staff 1s review of Equipment Qualification Evaluation Data Forms, three categories of equipment deficiencies were established.

- Equipment Requiring Immediate Corrective Action no Salem Unit 2 equipment is in this category

- Equipment Requiring Additional Information and/or Corrective Action a list of equipment with specific deficiencies for Salem Unit 2 was included as Appendix B of the Safety Evaluation Report

- Equipment Considered Acceptable or Conditionally Acceptable a list of equipment for Salem was included as Appendix C of the Safety Evaluation Report The categorization of equipment was based on deficiencies cited by the NRC in their review of Revision 1 to the Salem Environmental Qualifica-tion Review Report (12/1/80). Two revisions have been issued to update the report which, in many instances, address the items identified in the Staff review. The deficiencies resulted from a screening criteria established for the NRC review and do not imply an unsafe condition but rather a need for additional information and/or clarification of the data provided. The following sections provide an evaluation of the specific deficiencies identified by the Staff.

After reviewing the NRC identified deficiencies for equipment in this section, PSE&G reaffirms its statements made in our March 19, 1981 letter, Mr. R. L. Mittl, PSE&G to Mr. F. J. Miraglia, NRC. The necessary immediate corrective actions for plant safety have been made assuring that Salem Unit 2 can continue to operate in a safe manner pending equipment replacement.

III.A. NRC Noted Deficiencies of Appendix B The attached information provides an evaluation of each NRC identified deficiency for specific components/equipment. Cross referencing to existing information in the Salem Environmental Qualification Review Report is provided where appropriate due to the two revisions issued since the NRC review effort. Clarifying statements and reference to documentation contained in the Qualification Documentation Files in the corporate home office is also provided. Replacement schedules for equipment are provided where this method is employed for final resolution.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: RTD (Rosemount, Inc.)

MODEL: 176 KS COMPONENT NO.: TA0043, TA0053, TA0063, TA0073, TA2757, TA2758, TA2759, TA2760 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT, QT, CS, RPS PSE&G EVf..LLJ,qIQr; OF DEFICIErlCIES:

Our submittal, Volume 1,Section V, page ~addresses all the above NRC noted deficiencies. Supporting data referenced is available in our file EQ-10.

RTD's at Salem are being replaced every outage pending requalification by the manufacturer to more conservative guidelines dictated by NRC in letter dated .

10/13/?9. f'~f'._~ plan=i, '\-o if\:s-t-~!l tl"'-lly 'i.~""lif\*w( RT'i:>'::S by ~/3o/f1<_ ol~<<o( 1II'\_

f.t'"'" \I c:...£1\-=5 It'\~ r-e.."-cA. ~f"-E.n\....1"\ t:

PSE&G 1 s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending a permanent solution to the problem.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

MODEL: HT8321A2 COMPOiE:iT rw.: SV0279, SV0269, SV0278, SV0288 (Unit II Only)

NRC ID~i;TIFIED DCFICIEr;CJES: RPN PS~&S EV.l.~UATIQ:; OF D~FICirnCIES:

Reference Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 18.

These solenoid valves will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

This schedule is given in our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, Gasis #SA. Justification for continued operation is also given in Basis 8A.

PSE&G evaluation of this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

!I

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

MODEL: HV202-302-1F COMPONrnT rw.: SV0587' SV0581, SV0585' SV0583 (Unit II Only) t;;\C IDEl;TlFi~D DEFICIEriCIES: RPN PSE&G EVALUA; 10:; OF DEF IC IE~:: IES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form, page 40.

These solenoid valves will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume 1,Section VII, basis BC gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

IZ

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

MODEL: FT8321A4 cmwmE:a rw.: SV0274, SV0275, SV0280, SV0281, SV0270, SV0271, SV0284, SV0285 r;::c ID::inIFIED o::FICIErKIES: RPN PSE&S EV~.L.0!,'.lQi; OF DEFICirnCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form, page 41.

These solenoid valves will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume 1,Section VII, basis 88 gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety 1

is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

MODEL: X8342B22 COMPONENT NO.: SV1120 SV1115 SV0621 SV1121 SV1116 SV0624 SV1122 SVlll 7 SV0627 SV1123 SV1118 SV0630 SV1124 SV1119 SV0633 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT, RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form, page 92.

These solenoid valves will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume 1,Section VII, basis 19 gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

MODEL: NP Series COMPOiiE~J"T NO.: SV0491, SV0492, SV0493, SV0427, SV0518, SV05i9, SV0520, SV0521, SV0399, SV0397, SV0401 w::c IDEi;nFIED D~FICirnCIES: RT, A, cs, s PSE&S EV!,~u;:;:ICr: OF OEFICIEilC:IES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form, Page 60.

RT,~ - All NP series valves are fully qualified for adverse environmental conditions. All NRC noted deficiencies are addressed in our sub-mittal. All supporting information for these valves is contain in our file EQ12.

A - These valves are qualified for a 40 year life provided coils and elastomers are replaced every 4.4 years.

S - These valves perform their function prior to being submerged. Basis 28 in Volume 1,Section VII states our position.

PSE&G's evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that ASCO NP series valves are capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switches (Namco)

MODEL: EA-180 COMPONENT NO.: 1CV3, 1CV4, 1CV5, 1SJ123, 1VIL98 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: A, S, T, CS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 61.

A - The aging evaluation review was completed with maintenance schedules established. This information was added to the Evaluation Form in Revision 2.

Section VII, basis 29.

S - The submergence issue was addressed in our submittal Physical location Procedure changes were made to correct this problem. The potential flooding precludes installation of switch above flood level.

of these switches does not affect plant safety.

T - The actual test resulted in a peak temperature of 349°f, for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />. The Salem required profile is 350°F for one minute. This is more than adequate to assure operability at Salem.

CS - This item was addressed in our submittal.

/')A

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch (Masoneilan)

MODEL: 496-2 COMPONENT NO.:

11MS7, 12MS7, 13MS7, 13MS7 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 20.

These limit switches will be replaced with qualified switches prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis lOA states our intentions and reasoning for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant 1

safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch (Masoneilan)

MODEL: 496-2 COMPONENT NO.: 11GB4, 12GB4, 13GB4, 14GB4 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. wualification Data Evaluation Form page 44 These limit switches will be replaced with qualified switches prior to 6/30/82, Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 18A states our intentions and reasoning for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these, NRC noted, deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switches (Namco)

MODEL: D-2400X COM?ONE:n rw.: 1CC215, 1CC113, 1SJ53, 1SJ60, 1NT32, 1SS49, 1SS64, 1SS33, 1SS27, 1VC8, lVClO, 1VC12, 1VC14 NRC IDEiHIFIED DEFICIEf~CIES: A, RPN PSE&S EVf..LUATIOfi OF DEFICIU::IES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 45.

These limit switches will be replaced with qualified switches prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 18A states our intentions and reasoning for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these NRC Noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switches (Namco)

MODEL: EA-170, D2400X COMPONENT NO.: SJ78, SJ79, SJ108 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT, RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form pages 56 and 90.

These limit switches will be replaced with qualified switches prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 26 states our intentions and reasoning for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies 1

has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

/9

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitter (Barton)

MODEL: 332/351 COMPONLIH NCJ.: PA2344, PA2345, PA2346, PA2568 NRC ID~NTIFIED DCF!CIENCIES: RT, R, RPS PSE&S EV.l\LU.6,TIO~~ OF DEFICirnCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 52.

The subject transmitter will be replaced with a qualified unit prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 22 details our intensions and gives our reasons for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant 1

safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

20 _ j

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUJ'l.T I Gr~ REP(Jp-;-

EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitter (Rosemount)

MODEL: 1153AGA CO'*'.JCrE~;T r;o.: PA0667' PA0671, PA0734, PA0670, PA0674, PA0736, PA0668, PA0672, PA0738, PA0669, PA0673, PA0740

su.s r=*:,.;L'_',c..-:-iOi~ OF DEFICIEr!CIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 16 .

.QI, RT - The data in our submittal states a time of ( 10 days). This doesn't meet the 14 days requirement. This value is based on a MSLB in the inboard/outboard penetration. The break will affect transmitters in that area alone (inboard or outboard). Therefore, two steam generator pressures will always be available. Furthermore, after 10 days, any failures can be repaired.

A - Regarding aging; these items are considered to have little safety significance for the time frame in question until replacement or evaluation.

PSE&G will either determine the qualified life of these transmitters or replace them with qualified ones prior to 6/30/82.

Further supporting data is available in our file EQ-11.

Our evaluation of the NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending completion of the aging review.

NOTE: Underlined item is a correction to NRC SER 21

l SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limitorque Motor Operated Valves MODEL: SMB - Class B Insulation (Inside Containment)

COMPONENT NO.: 1PR6, 1PR71 1/- tlJ. S3°5lf NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: QT, RT, CS, QM, SEN, A PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 63-2 .

.QI. - These valves are only required to be operable in the initial stages of the accident (<.1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />). They have been qualified for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> operation.

RT - The next revision of the EQ submittal will indicate need for short term.

operability. Additional information regarding these valves for cold shut down purposes was provided in Revision 3,Section XII.

CS - In the Franklin Institute Research Laboratories Final Report F-C2232-0l, the chemical environment was obtained by spraying 1.5% wt. boric acid buffered with sodium hydroxide to a pH of 7.67 at a rate of 10 gallons per hour for four hours. At the conclusion of the test a sample of con-densate was drawn and found to have a pH of 8.2.

After 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br /> of environmental testing, the geared limit switch failed.

The geared limit switch aluminum frame had been attacked by the chemicals in the steam atmosphere. This caused the gear frame to corrode and resulted in the binding of the shaft. Since the results of this test were known, the geared limit switch and the limit switch housing material at Salem Generat-I ing Station has been changed to bronze. An operator equipped with a bronze limit switch housing was retested and passed. The bronze geared limit switch showed no signs of deterioration due to the chemical spray.

QM,SEN - During the various environmental tests that were performed on the Limitorque motor operators, certain deficiencies have come to light. Any material or component that has experienced a failure in any of the tests has been replaced with the latest qualified material or component that has success-fully passed. This should preclude any failure due to any identified environmental parameter in the accident environment condition that was present in the various test environments.

fl - An aging test was performed by baking the motors at a temperature of 180°c for a total of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> to simulate aging the motor. An aging analysis was also performed (results will be included in next revision to EQ submittal). There has not been any tests that have taken the operator to its ultimate failure, but our calculations show that a minimum life of 3.67 years can be expected.

Further supporting data is included in our file EQ-29.

PSE&G's evaluation has determined that Limitorque motor operators should perform their safety function. We will be pursuing our review effort to further clarify the Limitorque testing results.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limitorque Motor Operated Valves MODEL: SMB, Class B Insulation (Outside Containment)

COMPONENT NO.: lSJl, 1SJ2, 1SJ4, 1SJ5, 1SJ12, 1SJ13, 12SJ45, 1CV68, 1CV69, 1CV139, 1CV140, 1CV175, 1CV40, 1CV141, 11SJ113, 12SJ113, 1SJ30, 12SJ40, 11SJ134, 12SJ134, 1ST135, 11RH4, 12RH4, 11SJ49, 12SJ49, 11RH29, 12RH29, 11RH19, 12RH19, 11CS36, 12CS36, 11CS2, 1CS14, 1CS16, 1CS17, 11CC16, 11CC117, 11CC118, 1CC136, 1CC131, 1CV116, 11SJ44, 12SJ44.

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: QT, RT, CS, QM, SEN, A PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 63-2 .

.QI - These valves are only required to be operable in the initial stages of the accident. They have been qualified for 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> operation.

RT - The next revision of the EQ submittal will indicate need for short term operability.

t!S - Tl\ese val"es a~e lo~a+ed oo+s,J~ t.At eo"t1"""'e"t ""cl not svbjeet 1

to lkewuCAf spt"tty.

QM,SEN - During the various environmental tests that were performed on the Limitorque motor operators, certain deficiencies have come to light. Any material or component that has experienced a failure in any of the tests has been replaced with the latest qualified material or component that has success-fully passed. This should preclude any failure due to any identified envi ronmenta 1 parameter *j n the accident environment condition that was present in the various test environments.

218

0 A - An aging test was performed by baking the motors at a temperature of 1so c for a total of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> to simulate aging the motor. An aging analysis was also performed (results will be included in next revision to EQ submittal). There has not been any tests that have taken the operator to its ultimate failure, but our calculations show that a minimum life of 3.67 years can be expected.

Further supporting data is included in our file EQ-29.

PSE&G s evaluation has determined that Limitorque motor operators should perform 1

their safety function. We will be pursuing our review effort to further clarify the Limitorque testing results.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limitorque Motor Operated Valves MODEL: SMB - Class H Insulation (Inside Containment)

COMPONENT NO.: lRHl, 1RH2, 1RH26, iM I 1, ti M, 11 'P, M *,

NRC IDENTIFIED D.EFICIENCIES: QT, RT, CS, QM, SEN, A, PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 63-/

QT - These valves are only required to be operable in the initial stages of the accident, They have been qualified RT - The next revision of the EQ submittal will indicate need for short term operability.

CS - In the Franklin Institute Research Laboratories Final Report F-C2232-0l, the chemical environment was obtained by spraying 1.5~ wt. boric acid buffered with sodium hydroxide to a pH of 7.67 at a rate of 10 gallons per hour for four hours. At the conclusion of the test a sample of con-densate was drawn and found to have a pH of 8.2.

After 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br /> of environmental testing, the geared limit switch failed.

The geared limit switch aluminum frame had been attacked by the chemicals in the steam atmosphere. This caused the gear frame to corrode and resulted

in the binding of the shaft. Since the results of this test were known, the geared limit switch and the limit switch housing material at Salem Generat-ing Station has been changed to bronze. An operator equipped with a bronze limit switch housing was retested and passed. The bronze geared limit switch showed no signs of deterioration due to the chemical spray.

QM,SEN - During the various environmental tests that were performed on the Limitorque motor operators, certain deficiencies have come to light. Any material or component that has experienced a failure in any of the tests has been replaced with the latest qualified material or component that has success-fully passed. This should preclude any failure due to any identified environmental parameter "in the accident environment condition that was present in the various test environments.

0 A - An a;ing test ~1as performed by baking the 1notor at a te:1;:i'2reture of 15~ c for a total of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />. This test si1nulated agin::i the motor to a 40 year life expectancy. An aging analysis was also performed (results will be in-cluded in next revision to EQ submittal). There has not been an; tests that have taken the operator to its ultimate failure, ~ut our calculations show that a minimum life of 17.96 years.

Further supporting data is included in our file EQ-IZ.

PSE&G's evaluation has determined that Limitorque motor operators should perform their safety function. We will be pursuing our review effort to further clarify the Limitorque testing results.

21e

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limitorque Motor Operated Valves MODEL: SMB - Class H Insulation (inside containment)

COMPONENT NO.: CC187, CC190, CV284 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: QT, RT, CS, QM, SEN, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 63-f QT - These valves are only required to be operable in the initial stages of the

--- accident They have been qualified *.

RT - The next revision of the EQ submittal will indicate need for short term

~perabi 1i ty. /

CS - In the Franklin Institute Research Laboratories Final Report F-C2232-0l, the chemical environment was obtained by spraying 1.5% wt. boric acid buffered with sodium hydroxide to a pH of 7.67 at a rate of 10 gallons per hour for four hours. At the conclusion of the test a sample of con-densate was drawn and found to have a pH of 8.2.

After 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br /> of environmental testing, the geared limit switch failed.

The geared limit switch aluminum frame had been attacked by the chemicals in the steam atmosphere. This caused the gear frame to corrode and resulted in the binding of the shaft. Since the results of this test were known, the geared limit switch and the limit switch housing material at Salem Generat-ing Station has been changed to bronze. An operator equipped with a bronze limit switch housing was retested and passed. The bronze geared limit switch showed no signs of deterioration due to the chemical spray.

21 F

QM.SEN - During the various environmental tests that were performed on the Limitorque 1 motor operators, certain deficiencies have come to light. Any material or component that has experienced a failure in any of the tests has been replaced with the latest qualified material or component that has success-fully passed. This should preclude any failure due to any identified environmental parameter in the accident environment condition that was present in the various test environments .

.... _....._~-**- **-*-*--* -. ****-*-* -* *- -*--- --- --*--**

A - An aging test was performed by baking the motor at a temperature of 155°c for a total of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />. This test simulated aging the motor to a 40 year life expectancy. An aging analysis was also performed {results will be in-cluded in next revision to EQ submittal). There has not been any tests that have taken the operator to its ultimate failure, but our calculations:

show that a minimum life of 17.96 years. '

~ . . Flooding of these valves does not occur until they have performed their safety function. Subsequent failures were analyzed and found to be acceptable. Results provided in FSAR Question 6.28. Basis 28 of Section VII addresses this item.

Further supporting data is included in our file EQ-12*

PSE&G's evaluation has determined that Limitorque motor operators should perfonn

-their safe~y function. We will be pursuing our review effort to further clarify the Limitorque testing results.

ZIG-

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cables MODEL: American Insulated Wire Co.

COMPONENT NO.:

NRC IDEiHIFIED DEFICIENCIES: T, CS, QT, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tem-perature of 340°F as shown in the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ04.~4.

A - Rev. 2 of the Environmental Qualification submittal contains aging data specifying an 11 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-04.05.

~' .QI_, ~ - These items are addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is contained in our file EQ-04.

PSE&G s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that American 1

Insulated Wire Co. cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Salem.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cable MODEL: Samuel Moore COMPONENT NO.:

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: T, CS, QT, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tem-perature of 340°F as shown on the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-21.01.

A - Rev. 2 of the E.Q. submittal contains aging data specifying a 40 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-21.02.

CS, .QI_, S - These items are addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is contained in our equipment qualification file EQ-21.

PSE&G s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Samuel Moore 1

cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Salem.

23

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cables MODEL: Boston Insulated Wire Co.

COMPONENT NO.:

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIEfKIES: T, CS, QT, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tem-perature of 340°F as shown on the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-05.02.

A - Rev. 2 of the E.Q. submittal contains aging data specifying a 20 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-0504.

CS, QI, ~ - These items are addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is contained in our equipment qualification file EQ-05.

PSE&G's evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Boston In-sulated Wire Co. cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Salem.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cable MODEL: Boston Insulated Wire Co.

Coaxial - XLPE Insulation COMPONErH NO.:

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: T, CS, QT, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tem-perature of 340°F as shown on the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-27.02.

A - Rev. 2 of the E.Q. submittal contains aging data specifying a 40 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-27.04.

CS, QI, i -.. These i terns are addressed in our submitta'l. Supporting data is contained in our equipment qualification file EQ-27.

PSE&G 1 s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Boston In-sulated Wire Co. cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Salem.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cable MODEL: Boston Insulated Wire Co.

Coaxial - Tefzel EFTE Insulation COMPONENT NO.:

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: T, CS, QT, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tem-perature of 340°F as shown on the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-24.01.

A - Rev. 2 of the E.Q. submittal contains aging data specifying a 40 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-24.03.

CS, .QI,~ - These items are addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is contained in our equipment qualification file EQ-24.

PSE&G's evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Boston In-sulated Wire Co. cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Salem.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cable MODEL: Triangle - PWC, Inc.

COMPONENT NO.:

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: T, CS, QT, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tem-perature of 346°F as shown on the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-06.04.

A - Rev. 2 of the E.Q. submittal contains aging data specifying a 40 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-06.05.

~. QI, S - These items are addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is contained in our equipment qualificatio~ file EQ-06.

PSE&G s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Triangle -

1 PWC, Inc., cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environ-ment at Salem.

Z7

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cables MODEL: Anaconda COMPONENT NO.:

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: T, CS, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tern-

- perature of 346°F as shown in the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-03.04.

A - Rev. 2 of the Environmental Qualification submittal contains aging data specifying a 40 year life for this cable. Supporting data is contained in our file EQ-03.05.

CS - These items have been addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is contained in our file EQ-03.

PSE&G's eval~ation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Anaconda cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Salem.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cable MODEL: Rockbestos/Cerro COMPONENT NO.:

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: T, CS, A, S, PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tem-perature of 340°F as shown on the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-08.01.

A - Rev. 2 of the E.Q. submittal contains aging data specifying a 40 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-08.02.

CS, S - These items are addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is con-tained in our equipment qualification file EQ-08.

1 PSE&G s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Rockbestos/

Cerro cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Salem.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cable MODEL: Rockbestos/Silicone COMPONENT NO.:

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICirnCIES: T, CS, QT, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tem-perature of 340°F as shown on the qualification data evaluation form.

This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-07.01.

A - Rev. 2 of the E.Q. submittal contains aging data specifying a 40 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-07.02.

CS, .QI_,~ - These items are addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is contained in our equipment qualification file EQ-07.

1 PSE&G s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Rockbestos/

Silicone cable is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environ-ment at Sa 1em .

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPOR~

I EQUIPMENT: Electrical Cable I

MODEL: Okonite I

I COMPONENT NG.:

NRC IDErHIFIED DEFICIEriCIES: T, CS, A, S F'SE&S EVALU/l.TIOil OF DEFICirn:::IES:

T - PSE&G has performed a thermal analysis to justify the qualification tempera-ture of 345°F as shown on the qualification data evaluation form. This evaluation is contained in our file EQ-09.03.

A - Rev. 2 of the E.Q. submittal contains aging data specifying a 40 year life for this type cable. Supporting data is available in our file EQ-09.04.

~' S - These items are addressed in our submittal. Supporting data is contained in our equipment qualification file EQ-09.

PSE&G s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Okonite cable 1

is capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Salem.

~

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Hydrogen Recombiners I (Westinghouse/Sturtevant)

MODEL: None C0~*1?0NUH NO.: 11, 12

. ii;::~ IDC:N"TIFIED DEF:CIEtlCIES: QT, T, CS, A PS~&G EV!1LLJ.L,TIO~~ OF DEFICIEr;cIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 76.

The above referenced page located in Section V of our submittal address the above noted deficiencies. The aging deficiency is supported by basis 1 of the submittal.

PSE&G is still awaiting results from Westinghouse on aging specs. of this equipment.

Qualification prior to 6/30/82 is expected.

PSE&G 1 s evaluation of the noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending qualification for aging.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Motor Control Centers - 230V (General Electric Co.)

MODEL: 7700 Line COMPONENT NO.: lA East lA West 1B East 1B West lC East lC West NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT, R, QI PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

These units will only see a radiation environment. We were confident that the units were capable of withstand1ng radiation and we did not see any problems in the short term. Our confidence was based on the fact that these type MCC 1 s had been tested to 1 x 106 rads and had passed. However, the manufacturer could not guarantee that the units tested were composed of the same identical materials in the Salem Units.

Since our previous submittal, actual componegts from the Salem Motor Control Centers were subjected to a radiation test of 1 x 10 rads by Isomedix, Inc. and passed.

This dosage is equivalent to accident dosage at the end of 40 years. Detailed test data will be included in our file EQ-14 when received from Isomedix, Inc. The EQ submittal will be updated with the new test information.

Therefore, NRC s identified deficiencies RT, R, QI have been addressed.

1 NOTE: Underlined items are correction to NRC SER.

SAL EM U~~J TS 1 A:;~; 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO N~!C SAr LTY EVALUf.I JO~i REP:JV:-

H Analyzers 2

Bacha rack

• • • ..I*. XA8650, XA8651

• ~ r

  ;:*,~::-:~: ::i:~;~E',~I~S: RT, QI, QT, T, P, H, CS, !"1, A Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 98.

This equipment is not qualified and it is the intention of PSE&G to replace wiih qualified units in accordance l'tith the TnI requirements time frame. At this time the H Analyzers are not being used as ~ guide for actuating the hydrogen reco~biners.

2 They Will be operated during the recirculation phase, independent of H2 Analyzer rea.Jings. This position is stated in our submittal, Volume I Section VII, :,asis 30.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATIO~ REPORT EQU I PME fff: E/P Converter (F1sc.hei- i- ?o r-ter-J MODEL: 546 COMPC:Ei*;T NO.: 11RH20, 11RH18, 12RH18

~~~:C IDEl;TIFIED DEFICIEriCIES: EXN PS~~:; EVALUATIOi; OF DtFICIErlCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 30.

By procedural changes these units are rendered incapable of affecting accident conditions and no operator actior, is required during an accident.

This position is detailed in our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 15.

PSE&G is confident that plant safety is maintained with this resolution.

SALEM UNITS l AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Flow Transmitter (Barton)

MODEL: 289A co~*1?0~E~H ~;o.: FA2569, FA24Bl F*SE&G EV.~LUATIOij OF DEFICIUJCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 31.

These devices do not see a harsh environment during normal plant operation.

During the recirculation phase and post accident recovery phase of the accident they will be subject to high integrated radiation exposure. The operator has manual control capability of the RH29 valves associated with these flow trans-mitters. Procedural changes will assure that these valves are correctly position during an accident. Our position is detailed in our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 16.

PSE&G is confident that plant safety is maintained with this resolution.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Square Root Extractor (Fischer & Porter)

MODEL: 50ES3212 COMPONENT NO.: FA3165Z-2, FA3169Z-2, FA3172Z-2, FA3176Z-2 > FA3160Z-Z NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPN PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 47.

These devices are not exposed to an adverse environment for initial stages of accident, therefore, actuation of fan cooler units can be accomplished.

During long term recovery high radiation could cause failures. As an interim measure the operator will procedurally be required to de-energize control power to the flow control devices to assure service water flow. Prior to 6/30/82 design changes will be incorporated to eliminate the need for any operator action. PSE&G's position is detailed in our submittal, Volume 1,Section VII, basis 20.

PSE&G is confident that plant safety will not be jeopardized pending final resolution of this problem.

'3 7

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Flow Controller (Fischer & Porter)

MODEL: 53EG3000 COMPONENT NO.: FA3160C-1, FA3160C-2, FA3165C-l, FA3165C-2, FA3165C-3, FA3169C-1, FA3169C-2, FA3169C-3, FA3172-1, FA3172-2, FA3172-3, FA3176-1, FA3176-2, FA3176-3; FA3f60C-3 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPN PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 48.

These devices are not exposed to an adverse environment for the initial stages of the accident, therefore, actuation of fan cooler units can be accomplished.

During long term recovery high radiation could cause failures. As an interim measure, the operator will procedurally be required to de-energize control power to the flow control devices to assure service water flow. Prior to 6/30/82 design changes will be incorporated to eliminate the need for operator action. PSE&G 1 s position is detailed in our submittal, Volume 1,Section VII, basis 20.

PSE&G is confident that plant safety will not be jeopardized pending final resolution of this problem.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: E/P Converter (Fischer & Porter)

MODEL: 53EI3000 COM?ONUH NJ.: FA3160 FA3165 S\IJ223 FA3169 Flow Control FA3172 FA3176 Ni*:C IDC:NTIFIED DEF:CIENCIES: RPN PSE&'~ EVl\LU.l\TION OF DEFICIEt;CIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 49.

The safety function of containment fan coolers can be accomplished regardless of flow control operability. The safety function of the fan coolers will be accomplished without need for operator action. Long term recovery may require operator action to compensate for potential failures.

As an interim measure procedural charges will suffice to assure long term flow to fan coolers.

The final resolution will be to redesign flow control system so that operator action is not required to accomplish long term flow.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 20 details our schedule and justification for continued operation.

PSE&G 1 s evaluation of noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending final resolution.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Lim i t S\'J i tc h (Namco)

MODEL: EA-180 COMPONENT NO.: 1PR3, 1PR4, 1PK5, l1.IL12, l~IL96, 1VC7, 1VC9, lVCll, lVCi3 NRC IDEr:TIFIED DEFICIEtKIES: A, T, CS PSE~G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation For:!": page 61.

A - The aging evaluation review was completed with maintenance schedul2s ~3tatlished.

This information was added to the Evaluation Form in Revision 2.

T - The actual test resulted in a peak temperature of 349°F for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />. T~-;~ Salen1 required profile is 350°F for one Llinute. This is more than adequate to assure operability at Salem.

CS - This ite111 was addressed in our sub:nittal.

Further supporting data is available in our file EQ-13 .

PSE&G's evaluation of the NRC noted deficiencies was reaffirmed that Namco, EA-180 limit switches, are capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment at Sal em.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPOP1 EQUIPMENT: Thermocouples (Tern Tex Co.)

MODEL: 304-250-T l 2-SA2-1H-CC-TC COMPONENT NO.: TA4312, TA4313, TA4314, TA4315, TA4316, TA4317, TA4318, TA4319, TA4320, TA4321, TA4348 NRC lDErHIFIED DEFICIErKIES: EXI~

PS~&S EVALUAT IOi~ OF DEF I c I Er~c I ES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 80.

These particular instruments provido backup information for the operator on containment accident conditions. ::.1nc2 there are other parar:1eters v.r!1ic:-: ;~'t01.'ide the required infomation for dia'.3nos-is, the operators can maintain piaf:*~. ::;.'.ifcty.

t1 procedural change has been n:adr:: to alert the operators of potential inaccuracy of temperature indication.

This issue is addressed in our subr:1ittal, Volume I,Section VII, :asis 32.

PSE&G's evaluation of this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safE:ty is not jeopardized by the potential loss of this temperature indication.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Containment Humidity Detectors (Foxboro)

MODEL: 2711 AG COMPONrnT NJ.: TA357-Z, TA358-Z, TA359-Z, TA360-Z, TA356-Z

~ll\C IDC:NTIFIED DEF:CIErJC:JES: EXN PSE&S EV/\l_u.i;TION OF DEFICJEt;CIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 83.

These devices are not required for any safety function. Accident diagnosis is based on containment pressure, reactor coolant system pressure, steamflow,. steamline pressure and narrow range steam generator level. Therefore, these devices do not require qualification.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 37 details our position.

1 PSE&G s evaluation of the noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized upon failure of detectors.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Instrument Enclosures (PSE&G)

MODEL:

COMPON=NT NO.: 241, 245, 238 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFI CI ENCI ES: S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 62.

Submergence is not a problem. Panels will fill with water and cause instru-ments to be flooded. Flooding of instruments in these panels has been previously addressed and poses no problem since they perform their functions prior to flooding.

This item is addressed in our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 28.

Further supporting data is available in our file EQ-20.

/

PSE&G's evaluation of the NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that these Instrument Enclosures will perform the"ir safety function in a harsh environment.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch MODEL: D-2400X-ST COMPONENT NO.: WL108, WL13, WL97, WL99, NI25, WR30 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 42 These limit switches will be replaced with qualified switches prior to 6/30/82, Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis BA states our intentions and reasoning for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch (Microswitch)

MODEL: LSQ051 COMPONENT NO.: 1PR18 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 102 This limit switch will be replaced with a qualified switch prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis fSA states our intentions and reasoning for continued operation. Further sup-PSE&G 1 s evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch (Masoneilan)

MODEL: 496-2 COMPONENT NO.: llMSlO, 12MS10, 13MS10, 14MS10 21MS18, 22MS18, 23MS18, 24MS18 -(Unit 2 only)

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 20.

These switches are for position indication only.

The switches will be replaced with qualified switches prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 108 states our in-tentions and reasoning for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant 1

safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch (Namco)

MODEL: D-2400X-2 COMPONENT NO.: 11MS167, 12MS167, 13MS167, 14f~Sl67 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 20A.

These limit switches are used for position indication only. Verification of steamline isolation can be made using information such as steamline pressure and flow measurements. Our submittal. Volume I,Section VII, basis 108 details our reasoning for continued operation and our intensions to replace these switches with qualified ones prior to 6/30/82.

1 PSE&G s evaluation of the NRC noted Jeficjencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch (Namco)

MODEL: D-2400X COMPONENT NO.: SSllO, SS107, SS104, SS103 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. ~ualification Data Evaluation Form page 99 These switches do not require qualification. This situation was resolved in our response to FSAR Question 7.35 and 6.28.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 188 states our position.

PSE&G is confident that plant safety will not be jeopardized by failure of these switches, hPCA!'e.'/e..t- 1 to e"~ ....t..e. r-elic;ibi'lity we. will r-e.p/ac.e ile:se. :r:witcl.e..:s with '/.<Aallf!ied t0r1e.9.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch (Masonei lan)

MODEL: 496-2 COMPONENT NO.: WL16 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 77.

These switches do not require qualification. This situation was resolved in our response to FSAR Question 7.35 and 6.28.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 188 states our position.

PSE&G is confident that plant safety will not be jeopardized by failure of these switches, howeve.o-*1 to enhaY\c.e. r-elio.b;!ity c..Je ...;ii/ ,..e_pface. tke~e :swiRJ.es w ;t-k ~cActli (!,*ed on es.

c..orr-e c..t.* Dr\ t-o N RC S"EQ .

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Limit Switch MODEL: Masoneilan 496-2 COMPONENT NO.: 1VC2, 1VC3, 1VC6 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 77.

S - The limit switches for the VC2, VC3 and VC6 are not below the flood level as noted in the Evaluation Form. This will be corrected in the next revision to the report.

EXN - The limit switches for these valves are inside the containment. VC2 and VC3 valves are the containment isolation valves for the Contain-ment Purge System. These valves by license requirements (Tech Specs) are required to be closed and under administrative control during power operation. The valve is known by the operator to be closed by procedure and it cannot reopen due to the effects of the accident or failure of the limit switch. Therefore, the limit switches do not perform a safety function for the operator during accident conditions and do not require environmental qualification. The replacement of these switches does not result in any direct increase in safety.

The VC6 valve is the containment isolation valve for the Containment Pressure - Vacuum Relief System. This system is used minimally during power operation. The limit switches do not perform a control function but only provide position indication to the operator. Upon an accident, the VCb valves will close. A redundant outside isolation valve will also close. A redundant outside isolation valve will also close. The potential failure of the limit switch will not result in the operator taking action contrary to safety. This limit switch will be replaced with a fully qualified limit switch as available by 6/30/82.

Our evaluation of this item indicates that plant safety is not jeopardized pending installation of the new limit switch.

The SER indicates NAMCO limit switches for these valves although they are Masoneilan 496-2 as indicated in the Salem EQ Report.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUI,PMENT: Limit Switch (Mi croswi tc h)

MODEL: LSQ-051 COMPONENT NO.: 1PR17 NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 101.

These switches do not require qualification. This situation was resolved in our response to FSAR Question 7.35 and 6.28.

Our ~ubmittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 188 states our position.

PSE&G is confident that _pJant safety _wiJl_not _be jeopardized by failure of these sw~tches, ~~w:-v*u- 1 h. el\kar'.c__e.. r-e.\io.b;\:t-y we will -,...~pia~~--fi,~~~- *;.(.~;h.1.~

vJ I H" 'tV\Dd I f eel j fl "' f s .

S-1

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

Sensing Bellows I EQUIPMENT:

(Barton)

I MODEL: 351 I

I COM?ONErH NO.: PA2344, PA2345, PA2346, PA2568 I

I I

. NR.C IDt:N"TIFIED DEF:CIE:JC!L~-: T, A, CS, R, RT I PSE&S EV!\LUATIO~~ OF DEFICIC-r;c1ES:

II Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 54.

RT - The next update of our submittal will indicate a required time of 120 days.

A,R- The material composing this instrument is metalic and is insensitive to the effects of Aging and Radiation.

T - The next revision to our submittal will indicate a qualified temp of 350°F.

This temperature is arrived at based on Westinghouse test data which envelopes out plant profile.

CS - This item is addressed in our submittal. The EQ submittal will be revised to I include information on the oil filled system.

Other supporting data is available in our file EQ-28.

I 1

PSE&G s evaluation ofthese instrument has reaffirmed that they can perform their safety related function in a harsh environment.

I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT II II EQUIPMENT: Level Switch (GEM)

I MODEL:

'I

I COM PON UH NJ.: LA0223, LA0224 11 ( l<e..plac.~ol LT- q3~ OAol LT-93'9) 11

.I W<C ID.~N"iIFIED DEF:crrnCIES: EXN, RPS I PS!::&G EV!\LU!~TIO'~ OF DEFICIE:r;cIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 81, 109, 110 A new level indication system has been installed. As of date it is not environmentally qualified. The manufacturer is in the process of qualification. This new system is I listed on pages 109 and 110 of our submittal, Rev. 3. Our basis for continued opera-tion is detailed in Volume I,Section VII, basis 31 and in Section XI.

I PSE&G is confident that plant safety will not be jeopardized pending qualification.

I I

I

~3

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT 11 I EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitters (Fischer & Porter)

I MODEL: 1082495 I

I COMPONErn NO.: FA1087, FA1091, FA1097 I

I I

NRC IDEriTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXf~, RPS I

PSE&G EVhLUATIOr; OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 23.

These pressure transmitters will be replaced with qualified units prior to 6/30/82, I Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 12 gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

I PSE&G s evaluation of this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety 1

is not jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I I

11 SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitters (Fischer & Porter)

I MODEL: 1082495 I

I COMPONENT NO.: FA1095 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EX~, RPS I

PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 24.

These pressure transmitters will be replaced with qualified units prior to 6/30/82, I Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 12 gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety I is not jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitters (Fischer & Porter)

I MODEL: 1062496 I

I COMPONErH NO.: FA7464, FA0226, FA1422, FA1423, FA7462 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS I

PSE&G EVALUATIOf~ OF DEFICIENCIES:

II Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 59.

These pressure transmitters will be replaced with qualified units prior to 6/30/82,

1 as they become *available. Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 27 gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

11 PSE&G's evaluation of this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitters (Fischer & Porter)

II MODEL: 1082495 I

'I* COMPONENT NO.: FA3160Z-1, FA3165Z-l, FA3169Z-1, FA3172Z-l, FA3176Z-1, FA1416, FA1419, FA0218, FA0432 I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS I

PSE&S EVALUATIOI~ OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form p~ge 58.

These pressure transmitters will be replaced with qualified units prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis Z01-2f glves this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of this, NRC noted, deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety 1

is not jeopardized pending replacement.

I I Note: uflder-lirie.d item~ are. correc.tioh To Nf'C sER.

I I

I

~7

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

~ EQUIPMENT: Square Root Extractor I

MODEL: 50ES3212 I

I COMPONENT NO.: FA3969, FA3970, FA3972 I

I I

NRC IDrnTIFIED DEFICIEtiCIES: EXN, RPS I

PSE&G EVALUATIO~ OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 25.

These instrwme.ni:S wi 11 be reloc."ti:d prior to 6/30/82, I as they become available. Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 12 gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

I PSE&G's evaluation of-this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending e.q.uiprn'2.nT r-e.loc.cttion.

I I

I I

I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Square Root Extractor (Fischer & Porter)

I MODEL: 50ES3212 I

I COMPONENT NO.: FA3971 I

I I

NRC lDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: EXN, RPS I

PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

II Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 26.

These insir<Ame.nT::s- wi 11 be reloc.Glt"e.o( prior to 6/30/82, I as they become available. Our submittal, Volume I,°Section VII, basis 12 gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

I PSE&G s evaluation of this 1

is not jeopardized pending NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety eq1.4ipment" t'e/oc.o.tlon.

I I

I I

I I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

EQUIPMENT: Pump Motor - Charging/Safety Injection I (Westinghouse)

I MODEL: WSpin #PNGCSAPCH (Unit 2)

- #PSECSAPCH (Unit 1)

I I COMPONENT NO.: llC/L, 12C/L I

I I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: A, RT I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Fonn page 27.

Environmental Qualification of these motors has been demonstrated. Our submittal addresses the NRC noted deficiencies .. The Required Time and Aging data was arrived I at based on Westinghouse test data which envelopes our plant profile. The aging information was added in Revision 2.

• 11 Supporting data is available in our file EQ-16.

1

• PSE&G s evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that these motors are capable of performing their safety function in a harsh environment.

I I

I I

I I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 I PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I EQUIPMENT: Pump Motor - Safety Injection (Westinghouse)

I MODEL~ W~pin #P~J SIAPSI (Unit 2)

I PSE SIA PSI (Unit 1)

I I COMPONENT NO.: 1151' 1251 I

I I NRC IDENTI Fl ED DEFI CI ENCI ES: A, RT I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 23 Environmental Qualification of these motors has been demonstrated. Our submittal I addresses the NRC noted deficiencies. The Required Time and Aging data was arrived at based on Westinghouse test data which envelopes our plant profile. The aging information was added in Revision 2.

I Supporting data is available in our file EQ-16.

PSE&G's evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that these motors I are capable of performing their safety function in a harsh environment.

I I

I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Pump Motor - RHR (Westinghouse)

I MODEL: W- Spin #PSEACAPRN (Unit 1)

I #PJNACAPRfl (Unit 2)

I COMPONENT NO.: llRHR, 12RHR I

I I

NRC IDEtnIFIED DEFICIENCIES: A, RT I

PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Fonn page 29.

Environmental Qualification of these motors has been demonstrated. Our submittal I addresses the NRC noted deficiencies. The Required Time and Aging data was arrived at based on Westinghouse test data which envelopes our plant profile. The aging in-formation was added in Revision 2. A required time of 120 days will be added in the I next EQ submittal revision.

Supporting data is available in our file EQ-16.

I PSE&G s evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that these motors 1

are capable of performing their safety function in a harsh environment.

I I

I I i I - l

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPOP.T I

EQUIPMENT: Pump Motor - Chemical Spray I (Westinghouse)

I MODEL:  !'.!_Spin #PSESIAPCS (Unit 1)

1. PNISIAPCS (Unit 2)

I I COM?ONENT NO.: llCS, 12 CS.

I I

I NRC rn::r;TIFIED DL:FICIEt~ClES: A, RT I PS::&s EVA~U!-."'."IOt, or o::FJCIEtJCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form pagE 79.

I -

Enviromiental Qualification of these motors has been demonstrated. Our submittal addresses the NRC noted deficiencies. The Required Time and Aging data was I arrived at based on Westinghouse test data which envelopes our plant profile. The aging information was added in Revisio11 2. A required time of 120 days vJill be added in the next EQ submittal revision.

11 Supporting data is available in our file EQ-16.

PSE&G 1 s evaluation of these NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that these I motors are capable of performing their safety function in a harsh envirorunent.

I I

I I

I

---

--~-- ~-- --

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Electrical Penetrations (Conax)

I MODEL: Canister Type - LVP, MVP I

I COMPONENT NO.: 1-1, 1-7, 1-8, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-19, 1-21, 1-23, 1-29, I 1-34, 1-35, 1-37, 1-38, 1-39, 1-.lfl, 1-43, 1-%, 1-1-/7, 1-48, 1-49, 1-50, 1-53, 1-57, 1-59, 1-60, 1-61, 1-62, 1-63, 1-64, 1-65, 2-63, 1-El, 1-E2 I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: A, CS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 66.

These, NRC noted, deficiencies are addressed in our submittal on the above referenced page. Tl..e. a~i"'3 i".f?or-rY10.tio"' "'"'Q.s a.c:foled. i"' r-evi~ion.. t...

I Documentation is available in our file EQ-02.

I PSE&G 1 s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Conax Penetra-tions are capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment.

I I

I

~I

I SALEM UNITS.I AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

Solenoid Valves I EQUIPMENT:

(ASCO)

I MODEL : NP Series I

I C0!*1PONrnT NO.: SV0802, SV0803, SV0927, SV075Cf 1 SV07C.0 I

I I

w~ c ID t N"f I FI ED DEF: cI rn cI Es : A' ;n ' cs I PSE&S EV/\LU!-1TIO~~ OF DEFICit:t;CIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 60.

All NP series valves are fully qualified for adverse environmental conditions. All NRC noted deficiencies are addressed in our submittal. All supporting ~nformation .1 I for th~se. valves is contained in our file EQ-12. The.. "~;""~ i"Por-m"T'o"' ""a..::s i"td"'4oltol 1n r-e..vc -s 1 o" 1...

PSE&G s evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies, has reaffirmed that ASCO NP Series 1

r1 I

valves are capable of performing sfaety functions in a harsh environment.

I I

I I

I I C2

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MO~EL: LB831654 (Unit 1)

X 8342B3 (Unit 2)

I I

COMPONUH NO.: SV1078, SV1080, SV1082, SV1084 I

I I

Ni~C lDE:NiIFIED DEFlCIEtlCIES: RPS, RT I PSE&~ EV.l\L.U.£\TI0~4 OF DEFICIEi:CIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 32, 89 These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this schedule and I our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G 1 s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I I

I I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPME.NT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

I MODEL: 83165Jf I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0249, SV0164 I tAF\it

[ O"I~

t1 I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 91.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

I jeopardized pending replacement.

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL: HTX 8344A75 (Unit 1)

HT8344A77 (Unit 2)

I I

COMPONUff NO.: sv 1023 I

I I

, Ni\C IDENTIFIED DEF~CIEriCIES: RPS I PS~&'j E\.l\LU.~TIO'~ OF DEFICrc:r;crES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 34A, 93 These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I I

I I

I SALEM UNJTS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATlON REPQ~T I

I EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valve$

(ASCO)

I MO~EL: HT8344.l\75 I

I CC'.*1?GNr:.1;"'." r~J.: SV0804, SV1025 I (Unit 2)

I I

,. ... ,- ID:-.,,. I c-

• c:-n "'

,,,.,,_ .... )'\; I:.._,_) l'i.\., ~c

• UL F'... C'l E'*"I t__,. RPS I

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 94.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

I Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffinned that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I I

I I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I {ASCO)

I MODEL: NP Series I

I CO~*l?ONt.r~T l~J.: SV0924 I / J 11 Ir ...._!

I I

N~C ID~N1IF!ED DEF!CIE~CIES: RPS I PSE&S EVf..LUl.:IO~~ OF DEFICic:r;cIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 60.

All NP series valves are fully qualified for adverse environmental conditions. All NRC noted deficiencies are addressed in our submittal.' All supporting information I for these valves is contained in our file EQ-12. T"-i.:s cs-ole."IP*ol v~lv~ oleie:s "'"t-f'!.1,l.\ir--e.. ~p l~l'l"\.t..r\t-.

PSE&G's evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies, has reaffirmed that ASCO NP Series I valves are capable of performing sfaety functions in a harsh environment.

I I

I I

• I I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

EQUIPMENT: Instrument Enclosures I (PSE&G)

I MODEL: 1, 2, 3, 4 Bay Vertical & NEMA 12 Enclosures I

I COMPONENT NO:: 335, 445A-H, 444A-M, 684A-D, 685A-D, 686A-D, 6831A-D, 6681A-D, 6891A-D, 687A-D, 691A-C, 215, 219, 202, 101, 102, 743, 311, *233, 234, 235, 236, I 208, 325, 318, 713, 714, 317, 440A-F, 224A-C, 316A, 3168, RPI RACK,690, Unit 2 only - 797A, 797B Unit 1 only - 241, 237 I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 62.

Instrument enclosures must only be able to survive the initial pressure and tempera-ture transients. The time duration is approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. After 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> our I plant profile shows a steady state condition, and these steelenclosures will not be affected.

1* A 24-hour LOCA test was conducted by PSE&G to prove these instrument enclosures.

Results of tests are available in our file EQ-20.

I PSE&G's evaluation of the noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that PSE&G instrument enclosures c~n perform safety functions in a harsh environment.

I I

I I

I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Terminal Blocks (Buchanan)

I MODEL: 2B112N I

I COMPONENT NO.: See attachment.

I I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: T, CS, A PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. *~ualification Data Evaluation Form page 64.

Subject equipment has been environmentally qualified. The above referenced page addresses all noted deficiencies. A~.-1\~ ,*".Pot-""-eo..t-io"'- "-"cX.~ i"'d~ol.ec:A i " l'-t:Vi"Ziol\. Z.

Supporting data on testing and analysis is available in our file EQ-19.

I PSE&G's evaluation of the NRC noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Buchanan Terminal Block can perform safety functions in a harsh environment.

I I

I I

I I -

1*

I ATIACHMENT I

I COMPONENT NO.: JN628, JN629, JN630, JN631, JN632, JN633, JN634, JN635, JN661, JN662, JN663, JN664, JN665, JN667, JN668, JT7, JS168, JS170, I JS682, JT57, JT525, JT578, JT582, JT579, JT583, JN145, JN148, JN149, JN107, JN109, JN345, JN346, JN347, JN348, JN349, JX94, I JX95, JT9, JTlO, JN89, JN90, JN91, JN92, JN94, JN95, JN96, JN97, JT376, JT377, JT350, JS618, JS619, JN673, JN674, JN610, JN613, I JS620, JT480, lVCl, 1VC2, 1VC3, 1VC4, JT528, JT529, 1VC5, 1VC6, 448A, 448B, 448C, 4480, 684A, 684B, 684C, 6840, 685A, 685B, 685C, II 6850, 686A, 686B, 686C, 6860, JN666, JT631, 6831A, 6831B, 6831C, 68310, 6891A, 6891B, 6891C, 68910, 6881A, 6881B, 6881C, 68810,

'* 691A, 691B, 691C, 690, 215, 219, 713, 714, 317, 101, 102, 211, 224A, 224B, 224C, 216A, 216B, 241, 743, 311, 208, 233, 234, 235, 236, 325, 218, JT558, JT559, JT560, JT561, #11 Ref. Jct. Box, I #12 Ref. Jct. Box I UNIT 1 ONLY

'*I JN120, JN139, JT536, JT362, JT534, JT455, JT456, JT457, JT458, JT459 UNIT 2 ONLY JN146, JN147, JN839, JN840, JX39, JT363, JT535, JT460, JT461, JT462, JT463, JT464 I

I I

I I

I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

EQUIPMENT: Cable Splices I (Raychem)

I MODEL: WCSF-(l I

I COMPONENT NO.: 335, 440A, 4408, 440C, 440D, 445A, 4458, 445C, 445D, 445E, 445F, 445G, 445H, 444A, 4448, 444C, 444D, 444E, 444F, 444G, 444H, 4441, 444J, 444K, I 444L, 444M, 245, 238, 341, JN-148, lVCl, 1VC2, 1VC3, 1VC4 Unit 1 only - 241, 237 Unit 2 only - 797A, 7978 I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: A, CS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 65.

The subject splices are fully qualified and are addressed in our submittal, Volume I,Section V, page 65. All noted deficiencies have been addressed and I supporting. infQrm?tjon is available in our file EQ-01. Tl...~ a~i'"'tj *,,....for-1'\.-\l{t;oh.

inc...11.A olec.J 1~ ~e.v1~10 "'- :(..

c...V~s PSE&G's evaluation of noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that Raychem Cable Splices I can perform safety functions in a harsh environment.

I I

I I

I 71 I

- - - - - ------------*-----------*--*-----*----1 I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Motor (Westinghouse)

I MODEL: Spin #PSE-RCADCF (Unit 1)

I PNJ-RCADCF (Unit 2)

I COMPONENT NO.: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: A, CS I

PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 75.

Environmental Qualification of these motors has been demonstrated. Our submittal I addresses the noted deficiencies. The Aging and Chemical Spray data was arrived

• at based on Westinghouse test data y..ihich envelopes our plant profile. Tke. a~i"'3

\t\..POr-Mci\ti't>...._ c..'O.'S o.Jd£ol ii'\ r-~'{1'SiOl"I. ;l.

I Supporting data is available in our file EQ-15.

PSE&G's evaluation of these noted deficiencies has reaffirmed that these motors are capable of performing their safety function in a harsh environment.

I I

I I

I I 72..

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I EQUIPMENT_: Pressure Transmitter (Barton)

I MODEL: 763 Prod. Lot l I

I COMPONENT NO.: PA0039, PA8088 I (Unit 2)

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT, A, S PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 4.

These pressure transmitters will be replaced with qualified units prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 2, gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation. The.se.. !r-a/\sm.itter--:s: a.r-e.

Mt S1.Abme.r-9e.ol. Tke. -e.lt'al1A01tion for-rn. 1'nc;{:c.ate~ t-ke.y ai-e. ~6olt'e tk~ ffo~J le.vel.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT_: Pressure Transmitter (Barton)

MODEL: 764 Prod. Lot 1 COMPONENT NO.: LA0086, LA0087, LA0088 (Unit 2)

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT, A PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 6.

These pressure transmitters will be replaced with qualified units prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 2, gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G 1 s evaluati6n of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitter (Fischer & Porter)

I MODEL: 50EP1031 I

I COMPONENT NO.: PA0230, PA0231, PA0236 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 148.

These devices will be replaced by 6/30/82, in order to comply with NUREG 1.97.

Our submittal Volume I,Section VII, basis 24 details our position and justification for continued operation.

PSE&G Evaluation of noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

7.,-

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I EQUIPMENT_: Pressure Transmitters (Fischer & Porter)

I MODEL: 50 EP1041 I

I COMPONENT NO.: PA0227, PA7461, PT0942 I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I

PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 51.

Replacement of these transmitters is not anticipated. Inoperability of these 0 t I devices would not result in termination of safety injection,Dr- t:tH-tt-tp\AttT -:seq'<- Y*

Our justification for accepting these devices as they now exist is detailed in our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 21.

PSE&G s evaluation of noted deficiences has reaffirmed that these transmitters 1

will perform their function.

7C

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL: LB831654 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0114, I

I I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 32.

I These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our sul:xnittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not

.1 jeopardized pending replacement.

Il 77

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL: X8342B22 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0558, SV0559 I

I I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICirnCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page I 33.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

I jeopardized pending replacement.

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL:  :-IV 202-302-lF I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV*J395, SV0507 (u,,.;t t on.l'd J I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 34.

I These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I 7'1

--- - - - - - - ----- - - - -~-----------~------- --- ------~ - - - - - - - - - ------ --- --~- - --- - --*--------

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL: HT834477 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV1024 I

I I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFI CI ENCI ES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 35.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82, Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

jeopardized pending replacement.

I

--- ----- --- ----- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - --- ~- -- - -- ------- - - ---- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ----- ----- ---------

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASC))

I MODEL: HT834475 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0805 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 36*

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

I jeopardized pending replacement.

I 1'1

~-----

--~

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL: LBX83146 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0514, SV0515, SV0516, SV0517, SV0505 rut\: t 21 I Lot\td I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 37.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G 1 s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

-'i'Z

---=-=**------...-.~~~~-

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL: FT8320Al01 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0510, SV0511, SV0512, SV0513 I

I I

NRC lDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 38.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82, Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

__ I

---

- - - - - - - - ------~---- - - - - - - - ---- - - -

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL: FT8321A2 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0706, SV0707, SV0708, SV0709, SV0402, SV0398, SV0396 I u....*t

[ o" \~

t]

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 39.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82, Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

-t1

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Level Transmitter I

MODEL: Barton 332/352 I

I COMPONEIH NO.: LA-0217 I

I I

NRC IDEUTIFIED _DEFICIENCIES: RPS I

PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Data Form page 53.

Basis 23 of Section VII indicates that this instrument does not perform a safety I function needed by the operator. Plant safety is not affected whether the device fails or not. Replacement is not required.

I PSE&G's evaluation of this NRC noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not dependent on this instrument.

I I

SALEM UNITS 1 AN~ 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

I MODEL: FT831654 I

I I COMPONENT NO.: SV0117, SV0118, SV0119, SV0164, 8 oftk---

I I .

["r\ita i]

On

~V0575 P-<";t Lo" I~

i]

~I\&  ::::>

I I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 57.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82, I Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 25, gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

I PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

_ _j

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT

• 1 EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

I MODEL: LB8314B6 I

I COMP ON ENT NO. : SV 0505 ( £,{"; t 1. or'\ I~)

I I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 103.

I These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT EQUIPMENT: Radiation Monitors I (Vic toreen)

I MODEL: 877, M865T, M866I, M862S, FU, CD, M8688 I

I COMPONUH NO.: RA-4314, 2R21 I (Unit 2)

I I

NRC IDEN1IF!ED DEF:CIE~CIES: RPS I PSE&G EV.l\LU.£\TIO~~ OF DEFICirnCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 85, 85A.

I Per our submittal, this device was to be replaced in Spring, 1981. Due to qualification and delivery problems, installation at that time was not accomplished. At this time I qualification has been established and the units will be installed once delivered.

1t\5 "fo. I I01t-io" wi 11 be. ~c.c.o 11'\ p I i:;\..ecl i"' o cc.o r-do.l'IC.. v.:i *'+I.. T'M I f'<Cj.~ ,* ,..c:,_"' ~" 1 '!:'c.J...(..Of "'{I.

• Our submittal, Volume 1,Section VII, basis 34 details our intentions and justification I for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized pending replacement of these units.

I I

I

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I EQUIPMEN~: Pressure Transmitter (Barton)

I MODEL: 384 I

I COMPONENT NO.: LA0009, LA0015, LA0021, LA0027 I

I I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT, A PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 14.

These pressure transmitters will be*replaced with qualified units pri.or to 6/30/82, I Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 5, gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I

1 jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I

SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I EQUIPMENT_: Pressure Transmitter (Barton)

I MODEL: 384 I

I COMPONENT NO.: LA0228, LA0229, LA0233, LA0237, LA0230, LA0241, LA0242, LA0234 I

I I

NRC iDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RT, A I

PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 14A.

These pressure transmitters will be replaced with qualified units prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 24, gives I this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

-**----*--~-- *~ ------- - * - - - - -

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT_: Pressure Transmitter (Fischer & Porter)

I MODEL: 50EP 1031BCXA-NS I

I COMPONENT NO.: PA0244, PA0243, PA0239, PA0240, PA0235 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I

PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 148.

These pressure transmitters will be replaced with qualified units prior to 6/30/82.

I Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 24, gives this schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I

_j

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves I (ASCO)

I MODEL: LB8300B64RU I

I COMPONENT NO.:

I I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 95.

I These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our sutxnittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I 11

,I*

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

I MODEL: FT831654 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0688 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 96.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our su!:xnittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I I

_I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

• 1 EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

I MODEL: FT8314B6 I

I COMPONENT NO.: SV0400, SV0423 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: RPS I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 97.

These solenoids will be replaced with qualified valves prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 17, gives this I schedule and our justification for continued operation.

PSE&G's evaluation of these deficiencies has reaffirmed that plant safety is not I jeopardized pending replacement.

I I

I I

93

- --~ ==-===--=---=------.=-_-__ -- --:___ __ --_ ~--- -- - ---

---

~~--- -~ - --

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

Fan Motor

'I EQUIPMENT:

(Westinghouse)

I MODEL: TBFC I

I COMPONEfH NO.: None I

I I NRC ID~NTIF!ED DEF!CIENCIES: S I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 88.

I Subject motors do not require environmen,tal qualification. They do not perform a safety function. Failure of these motors does not affect the course of action in I response to a design basis accident. Therefore, submergence is not a consideration.

This item is addressed in our submittal,volum.e1 1 $'ec.tio"-"YIL, basis 3b.

I PSE&G's evaluation of the noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not jeopardized due to motor failures.

I I

I I

---

~~=-==-=-------------------------- -

- - - - -- - - - - - --~--

I I III.B. NRC Noted Deficiencies of Appendix C The attached information provides an evaluation of the specific com-

• 1 ponents/equipment identified by the NRC. Only those items with a cited deficiency are included. Items in Appendix C without a cited I deficiency were assumed to have been acceptable to the Staff.

The major concern in this section is the aging evaluation program at I Salem. The Staff review was based on Revision 1 of the Salem Environ-mental Qualification Review Report. Revision 2 of the report in-I cluded the results of the Salem aging review which was described in Section X of the report. Maintenance schedules for selected equip-I ment were provided in the Qualification Evaluation Data Forms of Section V in Revision 2 of the report.

I I

I I

I I

I 1*

11 i

I I

_I

--~--~~======--=-~-~-~-~-~--~--~-*-----------_------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- --

I SALEM UNITS I AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitters I (Rosemount)

I MODEL: 1 t 5'"3 AG-A I

1--

COMPONErn NO.: PA0082, PA0083, PA0084, PA0097 I

I I NRC ID~NTIF!ED DEFICIENCIES: A I PSE&G EV/\LU.D,TION OF DEFICIEr;cIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 7.

I An aging review is being conducted for these devices. As of date a qualified life has not been established. These transmitters will either be qualified or replaced I prior to 6/30/82.

Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 1 details our position and justification I for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

jeopardized pending qualification.

I I

I I

I I 97

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

I EQUIPMENT: Solenoid Valves (ASCO)

I NP Series MODEL:

I I

COMPONENT NO.: SV0920, SV0921, SV0922, SV0923, SV0924, SV1022, SV1026, SV1077, I SV1079, SV1081, SV1083, SV0506 I

I NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIEfKIES: A I PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

'I Ref. Qualification Data Evaluation Form page 60.

All NP series valves are ful1f qualified for adverse environmental conditions.

I All NRC noted deficiencies are addressed in our submittal. All supporting in-formation for these valves is contained in our file EQ-12. This solenoid valve does not require replacement. These valves are qualified for a 40 year life provided coils and elastomers are replaced every 4.4 years.

I PSE&G's evaluation of NRC noted deficiencies, has reaffirmed that ASCO NP series valves are capable of performing safety functions in a harsh environment.

I I

I I

I I

I SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 PSE&G RESPONSE TO NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT I

11 EQUIPMENT: Pressure Transmitters (Rosemount)

I MODEL: 1153AHA I

I COMPONENT NO.: FAlOl, FA102, FA103, FA104, FA0688, FA0689, FA0690 I

I I

NRC IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: A PSE&G EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

Ref. Qualification Data Eval~ation Form page 11.

An aging review is being conducted for these devices. As of date, a qualified life has not been established. These transmitters will either be qualified or replaced prior to 6/30/82.

I Our submittal, Volume I,Section VII, basis 2 details our position and Justifi-cation for continued operation.

PSE&G s evaluation of noted deficiency has reaffirmed that plant safety is not 1

I jeopardized pending qualification.

I I

I I

I 978

I I REFERENCES

1. Salem Environmental Qualification Review Report - Revision 1 I dated 12/1/80.

2. Salem Environmental Qualification Review Report - Revision 2 I dated 1/16/81.

)I 3. Salem Environmental Qualification Review Report - Revision 3 dated 2/9/81.

I 4. Letter, Mr. R. L. Tedesco, NRC to Mr. R. L. Mittl, PSE&G dated 3/6/81 transmitting preliminary Staff Equipment Evaluation I Report for Unit 2.

5. Letter, Mr. R. L. Tedesco, NRC to Mr. R. L. Mittl, PSE&G dated I 5/28/81 transmitting Staff Environmental Qualification Safety Evaluation Report for Unit 2.

I 6. Letter, Mr. R. L. Mittl, PSE&G to Mr. F. J. Miraglia, NRC dated I 3/19/81 transmitting PSE&G response to Staff ~reliminary evaluation.

~1 7. Environmental Qualification Documentation Files of PSE&G Corporate Home Office, EQ-1 through EQ-30 I 8. NRC Trip Report (issued 4/28/81) of December 9-10, 1980 Audit of PSE&G s Qualification Documentation in Newark, New Jersey.

1 I 9. NRC Exit Interview Report (preliminary) of January 7-9, 1981 Audit I of PSE&G s Qualification Documentation in Newark, New Jersey.

1 11 I;

9P-