ML20206U711

Temporary Instruction 2515/76, Evaluation of Licensee Program for Qualification of Electrical Equipment Located in Harsh Environments

ML20206U711
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/14/1995
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20206U672	List: ML20206U667 ML20206U680 ML20206U687 ML20206U694 ML20206U699 ML20206U705 ML20206U711 ML20206U717 ML20206U724 ML20206U729 ML20206U733 ML20206U743
References
FOIA-99-82 2515-76-01, 2515-76-1, NUDOCS 9902170293
Download: ML20206U711 (40)

Text

- .. _ - - - . -- -. .. - . . - - - . .- - -.

4 , * *

,l. - p .c ,4.% ,m e r '

Appendix F ss

<a

[e %b. UNITED STATES O

l" i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j 5. ' f OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT.

g.%. ....

,/ Washington, D.C. 20555 l INSPECTION AND. ENFORCEMENT MANUAL QAVT TEMPORARY INSTRUCTION 2515/76 i .

EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S PROGRAM FOR QUALIFICATION OF l j ELECTRICAL EQUIPHENT LOCATED IN HARSH ENVIRONMENTS l g.% A ..n .

j 2515/76-01 PURPOSE -d$/dMOEM9:W4

% ; ca t Y- ~

iY"l

)

To provide guidance (1) for the inspection. of licensee environmental qualification programs for electrical equipment important to safety located

in harsh environments as required by 10 CFR 50.49' and (2) for determining j that licensee commitments for resolution of outstanding issues t rom NRC l equipment qualification (EQ) safety evaluation reports (SERs) are being

! properly implemented. ,,

i 2515/76-02 OBJECTIVES . , I i  !

To review licensee's implementation of a program for meeting 10 CFR 50.49 l requirements. ,

l

! To review the Itcensee's implementation of SER corrective action commitments.

4 To review the licensee's implementation of a program for maintaining 'the

qualified status of equipment during the life of the plant..

l To perform a physical inspection of. equipmentc to determine that the installations agree with SER commi,tments : andjqualification requirements.

2515/76-03 BACKGROUND  : -

l In response to IE Bullet 79-01B and NUREG-0588, licensees submitted EQ '

documentation. This documentation was reviewed by the NRR-EQB staff, and SERs were issued listing the deficiencies in the documentation. Meetings were held with the licensees during 1983 and 1984 to establish commitments l for corrective action. 10 CFR 50.49 became effective on February 22, 1983, further establishing formal qualification requirements.

1 9902170293 990211 PDR FOIA i KOHN99-82 PDR , ,

l 9504250,m-19 ,0 950414 @%lM -

3

. l 3515/76-04 REFERENCES .

p  ;. :a 7 04.01 10 CFR 50.49, "Environmentals Qualification Lof. Electric. Equipment important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants,." effective. February 22, 1983, 04.02 Regulatory Guide 1.89, " Environmental Qualification of Certain Equip-ment important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants;" Revision 1. ' June 1984.'

04.03 NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment," (for Comments Version), July 1981, 04.04 " Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors," November 1979 (D0R Guidelines).

04.05*+ Technical Evaluation Report (TER), " Review of Licensees' Resolution of Outstanding Issues from NRC Equipment Environmental Qualification Safety Evaluation Report." An individual TER for each operating power plant pre-pared by Franklin Research Center under NRC Contract 03-79-118.

04.06+ NRC Safety Evaluation Reports concerning environmental qualification I of safety-related eiectrical equipment, including the SER that forwarded the  :

TER.to each licensee. l

~

04.07'+ Licensee's commitments for corrective action including May 1983 SER/TER l response, 1984 minutes of meeting with NRC, and_ subsequent changes.  !

1 04.08 Regulatory Guide 1.97 " Instrumentation for' Light Water-Cooled Nuclear ,

Reactor Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environmental Conditions-During and' Following an Accident," Revision 2, December 1980.

~

04.09 lechnical Evaluation Report, " Implementation Guidance for New and  :

, Corrective Equipment Environmental Qualification,'.' prepared . by Franklin Research Center Under NRC Contract 03-7.9-118. April 22,'1983.-  ;

i 04.10*+

! a. Licensee's list of equipment requiring environmental qualification (Haster List, submitted in May 1983),

b. Master List, version in effect at time of inspection.

04.11**

a. Generic Letter 84-24 D. G. Eisenhut to Licensees and Applicants, dated December 27, 1984,

Subject:

Certification of Compliance to 10 CFR 50.49.

b, Licensee's Response to Generic Letter 84-24.

' These documents shall be available for the inspectors' use thoughout the inspection.

o These documents shall be obtained' for' review before the inspection.

l

! l .

l l

Issue Date: 03/27/86 l

qQNi ,, ll' 04.12* Licensee's current System Component' baluation Worksheets ($CEW i sheets) or equivalent (earlier SCEW sheets may have been included in pre- l vious licensee submittals), j 04.13** Licensee's procedures applicable to equipment qualification (EQ pro-gram, procurement of qualified equipment, maintenance of qualified equip-ment and modifications to plant that could affect qualified equipment).

04.14" ticensee qualification documentation and/or files.

2515/76-05 RESPONSIBILITIES A team should be assigned to perform this inspection with the following members as a minimum: ,

a. Team Leader - A regionally b'asediinspec orLto lead discussion withi licensee, to conduct entrance and exit interviews, to coordinate team activities and participate in the inspection effort. (May also perform role b, c, or d below). .

b. Technic.) Specialist -

Knowledgeable about the application and operation of electrical power and control equipment requiring EQ. I

c. Quality Assurance Specialist - Knowledgeable of quality assurance requirements for procurement, maintenance, and testing of electrical equipment requiring EQ.

d. Equipment Qualification specialist - Knowledgeable of EQ testing and analysis requirements and requirements for documenting quali-fication results. ,

i 2515/76-06 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS i

06.01 Pre-Inspection Tasks '

The following tasks should b[accomp)Ished' before the site inspection:

a. Document Review Inspectors should obtain and review copies of the plant-specific documents marked by a plus (*) in Section 04 of this TI.

b. Sample selection The inspection will include evaluation of qualification documenta-tion and visual inspection of 10 to 15 equipment items. Selection l l

of the devices to be evaluated is important since multiple con- I cerns must be addressed by the inspection. Rank the sample list in  !

importance with the most critical devices first. The list of devices  ;

should conta.n as W,any different equipment types as possible and '

should be developed with the following concerns in mind: '

These the documents shall be available for the inspectors' use throughout inspection.

+

These documents shall be obtained for review .before the inspection.

2515/76 f.....n.... m...

fd & % :t4 % .W Ff % % R 2 m .

^

db b ) .

?y v .l

1. Table 4-1 and the EquipmentNltem;Checksh'ee'tSIndedin'Section!4 e of Reference 04.05 should be:.the starting point for. development of the sample list. ; Devices listedlin categories I.8, II. A.

II.B. II.C and IV may be chosen as samples. . Tables 4-2, 4-3,: .

and 4 4 provide further information concerning deficiencies in I the documentation. Reference 04.10 provides the base list of' items that the Itcensee has determined..to require qualification in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49.-

2. Outstanding IE bulletins ~and information notices related to quali- '

fled equipment should be considered." Generic Letter 84-24 (Ref-erence 04.11.a) lists several such bulletins and notices.. i

3. Plant-specific EQ-related problems reported under 10 CFR Part 21 i or paragraphs 50.72 and 50.73 should be considered. 1 l

4. Access to the equipment during the walk-through inspection should be considered.

5. Equipment which the licensee added to or. deleted from the list of devicesrequiringquali{lcationssincehi,ssuance.ofc. Reference 04.05 -

should be considered. p , w.g .aj.,g

~

6. Equipment that has changed from one' category to another (e.g. ,

from qualification not established totqualified) since issuance of Reference 04.05 should be. considered,?

7. Special attention should be given to devices ~1isted in Reference 04.05 for which no documentation ? was submitted for review.

i 8. Equipment that has been' installed as replacement for non-qualified I.

i equipment should be incl _uded..

I i 9. At least one piece of equipment qualified to the DOR Guidelines

(Reference 04.04) should be included.

i r

10. The list of samples should cover a variety of equipment types l

including transmitters, valve operators, solenoid ' operated valves, cables, limit switches, motors, terminal blocks, and l containment penetrations when possible.

i

11. Probabilistic Risk Analysis'(PRA) of the.'ssnsitivity of hypothe-4 tical severe accident damage ' to component failure should be

considered. Appendix A to this TI lists the most significant l EQ-related components identified in one study in order of de-1 creasing significance..

~ "

l

! 12. Partial review of certain files should be considered to address  !

l more rapidly, the treatment of specific concerns such as those cited in 06.01b.2 and 3 above. -

~

Some modification of the sample: list during the inspection may be desirable or necessary.

i I

i T e e s,e nato, n4 /97 /Ar., .a- a*

• r-,

i

+ '

3< .

=

. .n . .v . . , .->y c

c. Team Member Assianments:

The responsibility for the main " segments. of 7 the' inspection (see 06.02) should be divided among the team members before the inspec-  ;

tion. The segments may .be performed .in. parallel;, however, ;compar-ison and correlation of tinformation s discoverediduring ' the inspec-- j tion is necessary. . For: example, > maintenance . requirements described  ;

in qualification documentation. should be compared with maintenance procedures, and master list'. equipmenta descriptions. should be ~

compared with the. instal, led.equipmentjJ y p g .

a. . c ..v

d. Licensee Contact

.*'o Approximately 3 weeks [$efore the. inspection, the following items should be reviewed with the. licensee:1 c,

.f + ' .s ;.my%

u>

1. Detailed inspection scope.> M'

2. Documents to be made available for the inspection - see 04, References.

1

3. Advance copies of procedures - reference 04.13.

)

l 4. Licenset presentation in the entrance meeting covering:

I (a) organization chart with EQ applicability n . -

(b) overview of EQ program (c) overview of EQ documentetion file organization

5. Advance arrangementsifor p'lant swalk'down to -avoid , unnecessary,

' "~ '"

delays. P- '

6. Otherlogisticsmattersas.appropilate...-

,1 06.02 Inspection Tasks a ,. . - ;;l Q.? a q ' ' )'

a. Entrance Meetino' During the entrance meeting at the start of the inspection, the team leader will describe the scope of the ir.spection and identify the list of the samples selected, including identification of walkdown samples. The logistics of the inspection should be discussed. The licensee's presentation to describe its organization, EQ program, and the status of program implementation should be made.

b. Procedural and Programmatic Inspection

1. Review the licensee's procedures to determine that a program has been implemented to generate, maintain, and distribute the list i of equipment requiring qualification in accordance with 10 CFR {

50.49.

2. Review EQ program documentation to1 determine that i the licensee has implemented procedures for review and approval of EQ .docu-mentatien and for establishing equipment' qualification.

g;, 4 n. .w. W ~

2515n6 . -S- Issue Date: 03/27/86

,< y a mq.y -

yr

~ ' o 1;. l;;( W Review selected caintenance and;Y

~

hkkhjph D A. - w. 5 4h

3. or-surve ance procedures to. ..

determine that EQ requirements havelbeenjincorporated.. ,

4. Determine that the procedures for procurement ~of replacement and spare equipment address EQ -requirements ~and that they require .

qualification of the equipment to be established prior to use in the plant. Review selected procurement documents to determine that EQ requirements have been incorporated. In most instances, Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 50.49 requires;thatireplacement equip-ment must be qualified to a higher level:than the D0R Guidelines.

RG 1.89, Revision 1, provides guidance.for alternatives to this requirement. , ,

5. Determine that the procedures for control'of plant modifications include evaluations of the effect of'the modification on quali- '

fled equipment (e.g. , the modification' requires equipment that is qualified or the modification 'affectss theJanvironment of qualified equipment). Review selected modification packages and related documents suche as ' work requestst to; determine?;that EQ.

requirementshavebeenj,ngerporated.g ddg,,.g ,

6. Determine by interviewing licensee personnel" performing work in-volving qualified equipment that they are aware of EQ require-ments and procedures. Determine that. personnel.performin0 re-view and approval of qualification documentation have appro-priate training or experience.

7. Determine that the licensee has established and implemented a mechanism for addressing IE bulletins and information. notices relating to equipment requiring qualification..

i I

8. Review licensee QA/QC audit records for evidence of conformance to procedure requirements.

Documentation File Inspection l c.

i

1. Review the completeness of the licensee's list of equipment re-quiring qualification by determining that' the list includes the equipment listed in the licensee's list of emergency procedures equipment and that equipment required byl RG 1.97. is included.

' Compare Reference 4.10a t to'4;10bt Revier the' changes made to the EQ list and determine that i

!they?beent made: in accordance

with established procedures.

~

2. Review the qualification files for'the samples selected in 06.01b to determine if they contain the qualification specification for the equipment, adequate documentation of the qualification of the equipment, and a positive statement that the documentation has been reviewed and approved and the equipment determined to be l qualified for its application. The review should be general in nature to determine that the important qualification requirements have been addressed. A checklist that can be used as a guide'for these reviews is contained in Appendix B. Not every checklist I item need be reviewed for. each file; the Comments Column can be L marked N/A for items not reviewed. In-depth review of one quali-l fication package is addressed in Subsection 06.02c.5 below.

I Issue Date: 03/27/86 -6; 2515/76

.. : . ,,.,n.~.

bd -

3. Review the documentation files to determine thatt the licensee

, has demonstrated that the qualifiedfdevices 7arei.the same as. '

7 or have been proven to be adecuatelypsimilarrtobthe devices' requiring qualification;(i.e.',Etiednstal. led equipment).: - +

4. FortheselectedsampisN n c ($mentsfor .

corrective action statsdiin Reference',04.0 or appropriate action is being taken.*# "7t have "' been fulfilled-

. . c :; . .

5. Determine if the licensee's procedures cfor review and approval of qualification documentation have . been implemented through-review of the documentation file for's new device tyvalified to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 or -for za piece of replacement equipment. '

~

This evaluation should entail an in-depth' review of'the adequacy of the qualification documentation in addition to the evaluation of the licensee's review and approval process. The check sheet provided in Appendix A should be completed for the in-depth review of one component file.

6. Obtain the equipment descriptions, model and serial number. and plant ID for use in the physical inspection. Determine any spe-cial requirements for device orientation, connections, housing seals, etc. dictated by the EQ documentation.e( pendix,C con ,,J tains checklists for sta dard piece ,

,4qu{qm,ent. j, .,

7. For Westinghouse plants, verify that the.1{censee has satisfac-torily addressed IE Information Notice g 484 90: concerning main steam line breaks. ,, ,.{ . y;.. y, ; , ,

d. Physical Inspection

1. At the beginning of the inspection, discuss the accessibility of the devices to be inspected with the. licensee.. Modify,the list. .a as appropriate, y "* '" *

2. Through use of the equipment checklists contained in Appendix C.

determine if the installed equipment is the same as that de-scribed in the licensee's documentation and that the equipment appears to be properly installed and maintained. The team member reviewing the documentation for a component should also perform the physical inspection, if possible. Physical inspection of the equipment by the entire team is desirable..

i 3. Determine if the equipment surrounding the device being inspected may fail in a manner that could prevent the device from perform-ing its safety function. Any condition that could adversely af-fect the safety function of equipment.being inspected should be noted for discussion with the licensee.

2515/76 Issue Date: 03/27/86

2515/76-07 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS D The team leader is responsible for the timely assembly and generation of the inspection report. The results of the inspection will be documented in a standard inspection report. A copy of the report shall be forwarded .

to the Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement, Vender Program Branch, and to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Environmental Qualification Branch.

2515/76-08 EXPIRATION DATE This temporary instruction shall remain in effect- for one year from the date of issue.

2515/76-09 IE CONTACT R. C. Wilson (492-4841) 2515/76-10 STATISTICAL DATA REPORTING The hours expended in the above activities should be reported under module 25576 on NRC form 766.

END Appendices

?

1 i

i Issue Date: 03/27/86 - 8 . ., ,

, , . . 2515/76

,1;,2L? Y 3: 3 - -

- va..'q}AQ:rhynl&;TO'+,f.7: e,y51TNd:

. v. ,

. r .m...._. .,.

,4 ' '. ;.

~.

^

. f .n:;- , ; y;, ~

_ rb I,n . ,,  :,

APPENDIX A HOST SIGNIFICANT EQ-RELATED COMPONENTS PWR Component Sensitivities, PRA Study Solenoid Valves for Control Valves Auxiliary Feedwater Motor Operators for Valves Pump Motors Auxiliary Feedwater Auxiliary Feedwater Motor Operators for Valves  !

Motor Operators for Valves High Pressure ECC I Pump Motors Service Water Motor Operators for Valves Service Water low Pressure tCC Pump Motors Pump Motors High Pressure ECC Low Pressure ECC BWR Component Sensitivities, PRA Stuh' '#' -

Motor Operators for Valves Motor Operators for Valves Low Pressure ECC

'Strvice Water Pump Motors Motor Operators for Valves Service Water

! Pump Motors High Pressure ECC Pump Motors Low Pressure l High Pressure ECC a ;a '4* '

ammee d ' $ 9P9e sge

5 APPENDIX 8' CHECKLIST FOR REVIEW 0F LICENSEE EQ DOCUMENTATION FILES

- This checklist is providedi for use'in' parforming. evaluations of the ade-quacy of e qualif t:ation package: forsatpiece of equipment.-

• Such' reviews ~

will determine tM- af n 'acyEof' tha? Eq/ program for: the device and will dete'ine the adequacy- ' theflicensee s the en ament. Perform a complete?revisw[ forreview and. approval one file. For otherprocess files, for items ;reviewedshouldbe.: marked 2N/A"(i(CommentsColumn.

. .r- m :; y, Plant / Docket No.: .ggyg,w,p; e

Compor ent(s):

^ -

4 @'

• Equip:.ent Documentation File: # 'Y Y'

_- Criteria: 10 CFR 50.49 on DDR Guidelines or Other

, Covered in EQ Documentation 0 Issu' J,es l  !!! Comments

[

1. Positive statement by the licensee that the equipment

'~

is qualified for 'ts  : .c .

application. ' '

2. Full description of the) ' - -

equipment. ~ -

~

3. If qualifier.tfon sample'is-not identical to the instal- -

led devices, a siellarity -

analysis has been provided.E

4. Allowed mounting methods'and orientations. -

5. Interfaces - conduit, housing seal. etc. -

6. A qualified life has been established based on accel erated aging-thermal, radiation, cyclic, as appropriate.

7. All type tests' performed on the same specimen (N/A DDR Guidelines), y

/'

~

1 , a

f. g w- .

%%5

m. .

73QQ:.?h .

,J ' . ,(,4 .

j Component (s): X"- ~ ' i^ ' 5' -

Covered in EQ Documentation 7 EO Issue yes g comments

8. Performance / acceptance _ ,,,_,

criteria (operating time, ,

transmitter accuracy, etc.

as applicable to component)..

9. Test sequence conforms to IEEE 323-74 or justifica tion has been provided (N/A -

DOR Guidelines).

_ w,y ;o.g y 4. f.y. ~

^ ~

10. Radiation dose covers accident ""~ ~

and normal service (00R Guide lines permits analysis). ,. x ,: .,.,.

11. DBE exposure simulation meets ~ ~

plant requirements:

Steam Exposure -

Temperature ~ """"

Pressure "'"~ ~

i l

Humidity ~

I (DOR Guidelines requires test l for steam environment.)

12. Cnemical or water spray ~" '~~

simulation performed when -

required.

13. Accident environment - ~~

rargint (N/A 00R Guidelines).- l a

I 14. Submergence test (if required.' ,

for application). w. r.li~ 4  % '

15. Test anomalies resolved.

i

16. Applicable ins, etc. resolved. _ _

17. Maintenance / Surveillance -

Criteria and Life Defined.

1

18. References clearly identified - ""~

l and attached or retrievable-(including 1.D. of plant equipment).

l Itsue Date- 01/?7/A6 R-2 ann neuv R 9es e tic

~. .. w. ,, p. g .a . .  ;: 7:a

> . q4

, n.,

.. - :e s

- . , L g ,

f. ,'

u. - , ,, .; n ; . d.

APPENDIX C N '#g^ &" ;# w M 3 n' } '

. .mp . v 3

,, , sy

'. t PHYSICAL INSPECTION.CHECXLIS nn n%wwnn y'U W .~.

- b. ~.G M- g m

This appendix contains checklists %for.use in physical ' inspection of envi- J onmentally qualifled' equipment. -Prior to the physical -inspection, check- '

lists should be prepared for each device snatEis. to. be inspected. The blank spaces in h the " Documented Information Isoction - of the checklist

' should be completed from the information in the licensee's documentation files relating to the device. Alternately, SCEW sheets, other licensee's

current equivalent, may be used in lieu of completing some of the check-sheet spaces. During the physical inspection,'-the ' installed ' condition 4 l

' should be compared with the documented condition.- Agreement-between the - ',

- "As-installed" and "As-documented"~'information' should be marked in the  :'

"Yas" column. A disagreement should be marked ~with a "No" and a descrip-l tion of the nature of the disagreement placed in the " Comments" column.

j A space is provided fer general comments at the bottom of the checklist.

Checklists are provided for the following equipment:

y ,

i

. ?ressure Transmitters (also to be useo for. level and flow transmitters)

Motorized Valve Actuators  ;

gj, ., j m ,ept, ..9ar Limit Switches -

/.....p z' aa . :: y .:

Solenoid Operated Valves ' -@y. .

MfMW3'c *?hF9 O.j e... :#". .,

~

WMW#2PNW J' Electric Motors -

Cables '

'7 l 8r  !

A general form is provided for other! devices; .

j i

I t

i 4

E 1

a :<

{

4 a

Appendix C, 2515n6 C-1 Issue Date m / m ac l

w*,v;.y

W P; % W 'W W JW k R N n % t$" V's ^: S$

lw%

i&-Mqih)*Nih'DOdi?~PuAdhus.i,$'{fQ@$b??

h iik&;% . . .

'H* I* W, ' ~W' *

- W 4 p p & Q tZ &" .

,v/y4.. . f.,%f-@$ps>%

s i.Q$gh$1sp .

.p~: Q?;fi. ,'4s W ~ -CO

. i;j , -

' 7

. o TRANSHITTERPHYsICAl.7.%s~ 1N m < 1.ge hidm g -Q.'pg'qug .a.fe# .e.,$..-i4($,.

ccxr...SPECT 0 ,Clpw i. STw. .;m ,

.A) .

x ~ :c ..

Component 10 No.:. j  % ReviewerrN y y + ;, ,9,7 .. ,.. . .

+. '

Y !nstalled Condition-Agrees with Documented Documented Information .. . _Ye, s. : , _., c .N o ..

, Comments .

1. Location Bld9 Room Elev .-

2. Manufacturer _ _

3.a. Model No. ~'

b. Range / Type Code _ . , , , , , ,

c. Serial No. -

., v- > < m*n~~ "r p W; .; .<

'h A,'. '

Hounting Description Mt pw  ? tar.1,S&- e.i..d$r}k~S&f%W5h 0 ?? ' .'

4.

N

~

ND~ ,

4 %fff y.cw

,ifCC"5.Q  :,& .

':b- .

5. Orientation +..,- - -

, p. , .

. ..e ,. . .,

., .u..,. .c.

6. Procest Connection Type -

)

r~

s: -

Electrical Con.,ection Type l 7.

- x.  : - t . --:

i ,

8. Housing Seals in Goed Condition. - -

1 Covers in Place

9. Does Installed Device Experience _ (If yes, review a Significant Tempere %re Rise documentation to from Process? determine whether considered).

1

~'

10.

Ambient ture Range Normal Expected?-s. Tempera-t T _;s.M M t). t.erature exceedsA ".(If ambie normal. expected,

^

4 , ,

.y' , ..". verify that quali-

.g.: .

m. .,

., fled life evalu-l ation considered) i l General Comments on Physical Inspection:

r l

l l

i h

i

~ e, -

, mp - '

- - &x%WR sq;;, ,:mg.W; dkM uy$qpy,y&nw~' Fi  ; ,"' -l-9.j p e '

' h 'Y$fb hN Y  : $

HOTORIZED VALVE ACTUATOR PHYSICAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST Component ID No.: Reviewer: _ .

Installed Condition Agrees-with Documented Documented Information 'Yes g Comments

1. Location '

Bldg. Room Elev v '

1

2. Manufacturer "  ;. V' , 7 f,M i' 3.a. Model No. .', '

y;g. ....

41. .:., L s.

Serial No.

b. '

4 Mounting Description l

.c

5. Orientation

6. Housing Seals in Good Condition. ~

Covers in Place ~

7. Housing and Motor Drains

8. Does Installed Device Have a Brr.ke ?

(If yes, verify qualificatic.i status)'

9. Conduit Seals r ._t

+ >l Ambient Hornal Expected *

10. - v Temperature Range

" If' ambient temp-J ~ C ".e(rature exceeds normal expected conditions, verify that' licensee has co.1sidered the elevated tempera-ture in the quali-fled life evalua-tion)

General Comments on Physical Inspection:

l Appendix C, 2515/76 C-3.

Issue Date: 03/27/86

_ . . - , . . . - - . . ~ . . .. .. .-. - . ~ . - - . _ _ . . . - . _ , . . .

' " + '

s %t'9 / ~ '- i_'9 5; Y9eeyyp+ 2 %Tgf_t). ~*'. - . :s -

~.,

t ? '. -

, 7 l -

P t

i 1

• ~

~ '

LIMIT $ WITCH PHYSICAL INSPECTION CHECKLISTE i

y,Mai al ... -

Component ID No.: d(Reviewer,tMrd4#dN6hysMf;fJ: . 4fyWw "-

On

1 2/5.g(fi%5dOp(NISe  ! -

~>

'Insta11od Condition N .

f Acrees y th Documented ? ' ".

i Documented Information Yes .g Comments

1. Location "J' -

Bldg. Room Elev ' i

) 2. Manufacturer - -

l

3. Model No. -

1 L 4. Mounting Description _ _ r 1

> l

5. Orientation _ _

2 .. _. +.

Electrical Connection Type '

6. - ..  : - w; *p.;t..,.m . ..

i:lC .-

< 7. Housing Seals in Good Condition ', ,,, ;_. gf.r. , ,

l-l . :-c. .; . -

l 8. Ambient Normal Expected .

.p~:(!f. ambient temp-l l

1emperature Range morature exceeds i

. .. norma) expected conditions, verify ',

,. .thatLlicensee has

.s ? - "

Jaconsidered the -

-elevated tempera-  ;

ture in the qualified  ;

life evaluation)

General Coments on Physical Inspection: '

. - w

,e i

e Issue Date: 03/27/86 C-4 Appendix C, 2515/76

' -e.g.. .+.

x use.m. r 7<7 + =

s M, a inL : n: , w M g a rsg.5;m,'.f M&:w%%s9pppWg .: y,p yy.n:. +9t ~q

i-s% '

- SOLEN 0IDOPERATEDVALVE?PHYSICAGINSPECTIONchECKL!$T:  :

O ,.f ,. 3 M p y4.;"

~

T Component ID

• [ReNehhh.

... .y . - <

2 Installed Condition i e Agrees with Documented Documented Information Yes j{o -Comments ,

1. Location Bldg. Room Elev _ .- -

2. Manufacturer .

3. a. Model No. - _

b. Voltage '

c. Configuration ..p.m r ~

Mounting Description 4

_ j. _ j'; ,,

g W%tij .

DMNNE '

' .,b

5. Orientation - -

l

6. Process Connection Type _, '_

7. Electrical Connection Type _.. .

8. Heusing Seals in Good Condition -

9. Does Installed Device Experience (If yes, r%cumenta-a significant Temperature Rise tion must be from Process?

reviewed to deter-eine if the tempera-ture rise was -

considered)

I

10. Ambient Normal Expected Temperature Range 'O Arc

~ If. ambient temp-

" J M ' ~ ^'e(rature exceeds '

i i

normal expected

. conditions, verify that licensee has.

considered the elevated tempera-ture in the

-qualified life evaluation)

General Comments on Physical Inspection:- '

9 Appendix C, 2515/76 C-5 Issue Date: 03/27/86

i 1

Jyiq6m.V%#S.s#Gr6

-%4 i

/).cin.as/M.; WM.s '.4 e~

- ELECTRICMOTORPHYS!bklINSPECTION: CHECKLIST 1

Component 10: Reviewer:

Instal'edAondition .

4 Agrees w1 th )ocumented

_..~..,. .,

l ]

Documented Information . Yes c::Jt?'.+ gg ! , ,; Comments.y )

, . _m. ; . . - -. s

. W l', . . . w e ..

1. Location CD i

Bldg. _ Room _ Elev. _ ' '

, _' ' 3C' '

L'..

~'

1

2. Manufacturer _ ' " "Z , -

3.a. Model No. .-

y.y.,u-:.e . x c, :r.< y., '- ,

b. Serial No. 9

a,'

._ - f_

c. Voltage Hp

4. Mounting and Orientation _ _

, 5. Accessortes _

Coolers , -

E Lubricant Reservoirs i 4

Heaters

, . ,-- .,+ .

?

6. Housing Seals and Covers "

~' '~"

in Place and Tight l 7. rea Surrounding Motor is ,

. Clean and Dry ,ggw,;g , , . ;;pau. p29se v .- - ,

.c

8. Ambient Normal Expected

~

Temperature Range 9.a. Junction Box Type _ _

b. Drainage Method General Comments on Physical Inspection:

1 c, . . . . 1 4; .N .- '

l Issue Date: 03/27/86 C-6' , , f Appendix C 2515n 6 1

1 .

. i l

CABLE.;.g.PHYS!.

.. CAL

~INSPECTI.ON.CHECKL!sT..

/+nyp g-qy g

, u ,

1

, 'h ' :U;, !. 5h*~.

Afhbf\ sf*YW!h"*.

';,4, -

.U w/14 g .411ed Condition  !

..'Acrees with Documen".ed Documented Information l Cyg,- hI . g- Comments

1. Location '

Bldg. _ Room _ Elev'_ ._y _

2.a. Manufacturer

b. Model No.

t

c. Batch No.

3.a. Insulation Type

b. Jacket Type c.

Number of Conductors .. ._ .,

d. Conductor Site

. e, a .s

.. .. r s.:x. e ~# '* ,

m *>. : _19. ' g

e. Shield Configuration '

4 Voltage Rating 1

~~ i

~ 'm(General Information ay not be discernible as installed)-  !

5. Ambient Normal Expected

~

Temperature Range ~ 1 i

6. General Condition of Installed None $ome i Cable

a. Obvious signe of mistreatment

b. Obvious surface flaws - -

c. Obvious flaws on conductor ~

insulation at terminations ~

General. Coonents on Physical Inspection:

1 i

..x. .

Appendix C, 2515/76 C-7 Issue Date: 03/27/86

'* ~

' " @'4

' m'hapskyy.y@? !is % q:ry $k *' $ h9lMx - W" EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION t - .

(

Component 10 Reviewer _

l Instelled Condition Agrees with Documented Documented Information g ypo Comments

1. Location '

B1dg. Room Elev _ _, _

2. Manufacturer '"

l '. .,,,,,,,

• h_ '

3.a.

Mode! No.

f b. Serial No. M...$ b . ^ f.-"-

4 Mounting Description ,,,,,,,,

, ' ., , ~ t -

5. Orientation - -

(

6. Process Connection Type _ ,,,,,,,

I 4

7. Electrical Connection Type _ _ i

8. Housing Seals in Good Condition, _ _

Covers In Place j 9. Ooss Installed Device Experience ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,... (I f yes , document-a Significant Temperature Rise ation must be from Process? -^,

i

't reviewed to deter-p f y,., , :mine if the temper-f,pcyM . ,^

,; ~:2)er e ature rise was -

1 _ considered)

10. Ambient Normal Expected -

_ _ (If ambient temp-Temperature Range erature exceeds normal expected conditions, verify that licensee has considered the elevated tempera-ture in the qualified life evaluation)

General Comments on Physical Inspection:

4 I

Issue Date: 03/27/86 :C-8 . .

Appendix C, 2515/76

. -.; a > ., . ,. +.

, ,1

,: -s *

,;.,.3,; .

~ .

+  :.: ., w :.. .

, 3 . . . . ., ,

k / k ,+ - #.  ;,) . e4

, - ese, sy , ~ r: p,e,,'-..t,C.n,cM, ,.* = , 3 ha

• ya*$ y ',je#9 'd *$ g ES  %,= f I 4

. . ;; . 9.. . , , ,, . y;< ,

s - - .

4. . .n,

- _t. ,. a .

1 4 4 9

y so ' %

r.. '.

s .. ** .

4

',(-

.s' ,- ~.........J

..  %;g.. .,

'W.

y ,, ,. . r*1 ' *

s. . . 4...- .

77

,, r , A. g..e,s

,% s u;g,.r

-r.'.l.7 ;

i

. .a f.. .

I l

3 EQ PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS f

• 4.

• 1 U .e -- ' +'4 3 6

[ .'.S (h},g'i[._

.v

.~.

4

• , t.. * ' ,,w,. ,

9 ,n . / k

$ , #, , ) ,e e ,[ ' $, p *

g. ;

L d'[g

,c gcq ,.16u: 3 g,- s'.,h %#^ 4,lC't4, 4. , v7 , , ,4'.i .:. GN : + , & -

t e* g b 6 -

• ~

n..

i>,V. d[ ; .,'p - *% 4

' f'e.?,')*,9..4

[,f -

4

, - . - [' , , .

c

.4'-

l 4' 1

I l

i

, 1 . . .!, ....  :.9e ,~.., . , .

.. 2. ; - , .c. . - ,. .

+ Q.. ,4 ..

g- -

.=.s

1. - d 8

g y g * . h e, .I '+ q

[. .

x- . ...+ : . a .. : w ,,

,y,

, ft

e,# h.b ,@W, & .sM G .n Mj5 p. @ Qf

.g.

T4Wi.w%m);M&ys saw. ~ -

EQ PROGAAM EVAL.UATION RESULTS At KEWAUNEE (00R)  ;

i ConstructionPermit(CP): 8/6/64 ""

Operating Perwit (OP): 12/21/73;  ;

. a Technical Evaluation Renart (TEA) lanuary 14. leM .

l As a result of the review performed by Franklin Research Center (FRC). the 17:

equipment items on the Kewaunee master equipment list were rouped into the  ;

following categories: LSee Appendix 8 for a detailed descri tion of each  ;

category and tfie overall met sodology FRC used to conduct th a review)

Category 1.A E qu i pme n t qu al i f t ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . 14 Category 1.8 Equipment qualification pendlN modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Category ll. A Equipment qualification not 1 es",ablished.................. 74 Category 11.8 Equipment not '..o... ..... 4............. 0-

. w, Category ll.C Equipment sat {qualif. led.sg !Ptibehtt?tXceptquallfled tf141.4114e life or replacement schedu ? justified...................20 Category !!!.A Equipment exempt from quellfication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !

Category !!!.B Equipment not in the scope of> the . review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Category IV Documentation not made available.......................... 18 l 1

The deficiencies that were identified for each equipment item were further  !

categorized into the following groupst

1. Documented evidence of inadequate quali fication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

2. Adequate stellarity between' equipment'and test' specimen was not 3.

estab11shed...............................i.......................... 44 Aging degradation was not evaluated adequately....................... 59 4 Qualified Ilfe er replacement schedule was not established .......... 58

5. Program to identify aging degradation not estab11shed................. 0

6. Criteria regarding aging simulation not met............................!

7. Criteria regarding temperature / pressure exposure P Criteria regarding spray not satisfied............(EQ testing) not met. 8

.................... 5

9. Cri teria regarding submergence not satisfied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....?

10. Criteria regarding radiat'en not satisfied....................... .....g

11. Criteria regarding test se vence not satisfied 6................... 2

12. Criteria regarding test fa lures or severe >anom.. a lies not satisfied.... 0

13. Criteria regarding functional testing not ' satis fied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

14. Criteria regarding instrument accuracy not satisfied.................. 1

15. Test duration margin not satisfied .. 4.......................... 0

16. Criteria regarding margins not satisfied.............................. ..... 0 The most common problems among the equipment items at Kewaunee included inadequate or missing documentation, lack of similarity between tested and actual devices, and inadequate evaluation of aging. FRC stated that many of the references used by the Itcensee were not included'in the submittal. making the review difficult.

FRC also made the following observations about the licensee's program defic 1enelas:

i o_ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ - - -

1 _, ..

.v t-t, p >. ; v- . -

2

• lt was not possible to determine, for the ites: th! referenced

! documentation that the qualtfled results were applicable to the installed equipment, especially for c1Me,

]

. The Itcensee referenced agin i not include them for review.g analyses.and evaluations, but often did

) .

s . -

i . In many cases, when responding to the staff's safety Evaluation Report I (SER) of the satst tal submitted for It Bulletin 79-01B. the licensee

! stated "an evaluation is in progress. U.Ne plan y the Itcensee for the resolution of,.the_ prpbles.p,st, W.# schedule was given by

{ .

w -

i . The Limitorque operator evalua Ne:n . onlye e.nt x,. wder i w63 ,~er.y:m t ms and switches.

1 Torque switches, wiring, etc.. .shogid have also been included.

es e w m- , .

Accuracy was not included in theilicenste's4t nnlysis ef instrumentation i circuits. It was not possible to determine whether the instrument was functionally adequate for.its application.

j . v. ,

! TER SER February 2. 1983 b

' On February 2, 1983 the staff issued An IER on the licensee's EQ progran whichincludedthefRCTERasanattachment. In the SER the staff concurred j withtheprogramdeftctanciesidentifiedbyFRCintheTIR.andrequestedthat

the Itcensee send additional information related.to those deficiencies.

the staff did not accept the licensee's Based onThe program. the staff results of the FRC requested that t TER,he licensee resolve the issues identified in the TER, and devote special attention to the tiens in Categories I.B. !!.A.

and !!.B where justification for continued o eration wat'not submitted, and the deftetencies identified in the Master [ ipment1,ist quellfication of .

submerged eo9tpoent, documentation of:quali editemsPLlefterqueoperator qualtftcation, and instrumentation. 9 ~_

l

< ~

. ..,, x : q.;..n

, . c. . ~ '

final SER July 11. 1984

. g ;,'

.

., . e w . ~,

Based on a meeting with the licensee'en January 10.'1984, and the March 16, 1984 submittal to clarify any outstanding issues from the FRC TER, the staff

'l accepted the licensee's EQ program. :.In general NRC acceptance of the

licensee'sEQprogramwasbasedon1)theresolutionofdefletencies i identifled in the FRC TER, 2) progrt.a compliance with 10 CFR 50.49, and 3) a i

justification for continued operation for those equipment items for which

! qualtf tcation had not yet been established (because all of the equipment at l Kewaunes was accepted as qualtfled, no justhfication for continued operation j cas warranted).

j The staff used the methodology in Appendix C to perform the safety evaluation.

l

e

. . , ., s.

gw .~ygpuh:

i l

nw. . , n .c. +

-e w -

4

G-3 l Site insonetton March 9 to Aer113fl987r-@/m spesV% *

n. . . m. u ws , .,

The staff conducted a special,' announced intpactlen of the Xewaunee EQ progran i from March 9 to April 3, 1987. 'The sinft used the inspection. methodology in Appendix E to perform the inspection. O

~

l The objective of the inspection was to deteneint whether the licensee's EQ program complied with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. To accompitsh this objective, the st&ff reviewed the licensee's luplementation of their EQ

! program and the licensee's actions on $ER/TER coenitments. The staff focussed

! on the adequacy of the EQ documentation, and included a plant walkdown of EQ

components.

As a result of the inspection, the staff concluded that the licensee's program me'. 10 CFR 50.49 requirements.

The inspection covered the following EQ program areas at Xewaunse:

ticensee actions on previous inspection findings

• Responses to NRC Bulletins Actions on SER/TER commitments

!

• Progran compliance with 50.49 -

4 terstnations, Documentation file review terminal blocks, motors, $0Vs,including cables, penetrations, seals, spilces, lubricants i

transmitters RTDs, rad monitors, switches 6 and afscellaneous e,lectrical j

devices. Some discrepancies were noted in'auditability and performance '

criteria of the equipment. ,

i a

Physical plant inspection ..

AnissueregardingRaychestplices(!N8453)atKewtunee I t

" %e ' **

I i

I 4

ee

n.g .~m,rn ys,. - : < ~

ggym ..y g .q q , - -

y .

,f .

_?

..m~n; .

4 M.7 ~ . .PR0fAAM '

l EVALUATION RESULTS At PAL!$ADES j

(00R-SEP)'

1 CP: 3/14/67  ;

4 1

OP: 10/16/72 , i

! Svitematic fvaluation Plant lifP) TER May 30.14A0 l j j i The Itcensee identified 42 separate safety related equipment items in their '

I 1978 submission for SEP plants to the NRC. These. items were reviewed by FRC i 1 and categortred into three classest 1) fully satisfied the utdelics, 2) does -

not satisfy the guidelines r and 3 not (includes a review of deviatl6nsMost of the items reviewed fel .In t i within the guide ine scope.

] satisfied: deviation judged to be unacceptablo g g ; % y :

• '$I The majority of the deviations felldnto eneleff,dNfollodlNg gPoups!*

i g-4 ~ :yw- \

a relationship between installed and t. dad etfulpment'not established l l

• aging not evaluated and quallflod lhe not calculated. I

]

• duration of steam exposure not' sufficient':U: . t j

• steam exposure does not fully envelope the accident profile 1 j

• vendor Certification of Compliance cited at evidence of qualification I s

a submergence not addressed in test program-radiation not included in test program, ,g

! TER SER December 30.,,,,,R$2 -

l As a result of the review perform d by FRC, the 143 equipment items on the Palisades master equipment list were grouped into the following categories:

(see Appendix 8 for a detailed description of each category and an overall l methodology FRC used to conduct this review)  ;

i i

l Category 1.A E qu i pme n t qu a l i f t ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 i

Category 1.8 Equipment qualification pending modification............. 20 l Category ll.A Equipment qualification not estab11shed.................. 33 Category 11.B E qu i pmen t no t qu al l fl ed . . . . . . . .w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Category !!.C Equipment satisflasc all. requirements exce Ilfe or replacement' schedule

! Category ill.A Equipment exemptcation....................... from qualifi. justified...pt

. .. ............. 24 3

qua

) Category 111.8 Equipment not in the scope of' the review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Category IV Documentation not made available.......................... 0 The deficiencies that were identified for each equipment iten were further i categorized into the following groups:

l 1. Documented evidence of inadequate quali fication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

! 2. Adequate similarity between equipment and test s established.....................................pecimen not . . . . . . . .............. 23

)

l 2. Aging degradation evaluated inadequately............................. 22 l 4. Qualified life or replacement schedule were not established ......... 42 i S. Program to identify aging degradation not established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 I

6. Criteria regarding aging simulation not met........................... I

! 7. Criteria regarding temperature / pressure exposure (EQ testing) not met. 8 l

t L_.___-__-________________-__-__________-______-_____

a l

G-5  ;

8. Criteria regarding spray not'tatisfied................................ 2 'O

9. Cri teria rega rding submergence not satis fied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 i 10. Criteria regarding radiation not tatitfled............................ 6

11. Criteria regarding test sequence not satisfied........................ 2

12. Criteria regarding test failures cr. tevere anomallet not' satisfied.... 6

13. Cri teria regarding functional. test ing not satis fled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

14. Criteria regarding instrument' accuracy notesstisfled.................. 0

15. Test duration margin not satisfied.......;............................ 3

16. Criteria regarding margins not,satisfled.............................. 0 FRC identified three basic concernt'fol10 wing theIP reflew of the Palisadet EQ  ;

program. For the items placed in Categor Itfe deficiencies lack of documentation,yorII.A. sany had incomplete aging or quallfled traceability of the

tested specimen to the installed item.

1

ifR SER Aer11 25. 1983 j

. On April 25. 1983, the staff issued an SER on the licensas's EQ program which '

included the FRC TER as an attachment. In the SER. the staff concurred with ,

the program deficiencies identified by FRC in the TER, ad requested that the l licensee send additional information.related to those deficiencies.

Based on the results of the FRC TER. the staff did not accept the licensee's l program. The staff requested that the licensee resolve the issues identified '

l in the TER, and d vote special attention to items in Categories 1.8 and II.A where justification for continued operation was not subchted, and to the resolution of deficiencies with items.in Category'll.B.

~

1 ..

i final SER January 31. 1985 e mm u

.; w., <1 Based on a meeting with the Itcensee on~ January 10'1984, and the february 14 and June 15, 1984 subalttals from the licensee to clarify any outstanding issues from the FRC TER, the staff accepted the.Ilcensee's EQ program. 1he program's acceptance was based upon 1) the proposed resolution of EQ deftetencies identified in the April 25. 1983 SER, and the December 30, 1982 i

FRC TER 2) comp 11 nce with the requirements of 10 CfR 50.49, and 3) JCOs for those egulpment items (13) for which EQ was not estabitshed at the time of the SER.

The staff used the methodology described in Appendix C to perform the safety evaluation.

Site Insoection December 8. 1986 to January 13. 1987 l

The staff conducted a special. announced inspection of the Palisades EQ program from December 8,1986 to January 13, 1987. The staff used the inspection methodology described in Appendix E to pa form the inspection.

a... . . . . . . .. ..

Y&%1&&#n ' + ~ -

l NNNI!ihedN- % % % i W F ~ % *p$ N $I N I

.c y x . .

G-6 Theobjectiveoftheinspectionwastodeterminewhetherthelicensee' SEQ  !

program complied with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. To accomplish this  :'

objective, the staff reviewed the licensee's-inglementation of their EQ program and the licensee's actions on SER/TER commitments. The staff focussed ,

on the adequacy of the EQ documentation, and included a plant walkdown of EQ components.

As a result of the inspection, the staff concluded that the licensee's program  !

met 10 CFR 50.49 requirement.s.  !

i i The inspection covered the following EQ program areas at Palisades:

1 Licensee acitons on previously identified EQ findings j

• Licensee actions on SER/TER coenitments "" "'

• Program compliance with 50.49 3

i Documentation file review including cables, splices, terminations,  :

i terminal blocks, motors HOVs. SOVs, penetrationsi seals lubricants, i transmitters, RTDs radiation monitors. thd miscellaneous, elestrical

! devices. Some discrepancies were noted th auditability and completeness

! of some flies, use of similarity between as-tested and as-installed

{ equipment, and the performance e.rlteria of some equipment. .

l NRC Bulletins were reviewed against the licenste's documentation. I

'

• A plant walkdown. During the walkdown ene discrepancy Was.noted on Limitorque operator T-drains being plugged.

f l

l I

i b l l l i

l l l l

l

)

.jm . c.c t. , ym -

g.

.y.

g ,,

./

{ 6* *  ?.>'

, 3 .

EQ PROGRAN .

EVALUATION RESULTS AT NINE MILE POINT 1 (DDR)-

CP: 4/12/65 OP: 12/26/74 TER Auourt 28. 1982 W YY 7' TN As a result of the review performed byiFRC ithe;100' equipment items on the Nine Mile Point 1. (MPl? master;equipmentdistfWere# grouped :into th 1 categories: See Appendix B for.'a~ detailed overall metho(dology FRC used to conductithl:deteription-of s! review),

each category and an'm Category 1. A Equ i pmen t qu al i fi ed . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Category 1.8 Equipment quali fication pending modi fication. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Category !!. A Equipment quali fication not established. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Category 11.B Equ i pment not qual l fl ed. . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 I Category ll.C Equipment satisfies all requirements except qualified  !

li fe or replacement schedule justified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Category Ill.A Equipment exempt from qualification........................)

Category Ill.B Equipment not in the scope of the review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Category IV Documentation not made aval14ble.......................... 2  ;

i The deficiencies that were identified for each equipment item were further i categorized into the following groups:

1. Documented evidence of inadequate qualification...................... 68

2. Adequate simliarity between equipment and test specimen was not 5.

established..............................i............................ 24 Agin de radation not evaluated adequately, . .:. m . 4 .-. . . . . ~. . .:. n . 2 2 oh

4. Qual fie life or replacem6nt.'shhedulthiet esbV l~shed - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5. Program to identi fy aning degradationi netistabl t shed.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

6. Cri teri a regarding ag' ng s imul ation not met. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

7. Criteria regarding temperature / pressure. exposure (EQ testing) not met. 6

8. Criteria regarding spray'not satisfied............................s....)

9.

10.

Criteria regarding submergence not satisfied........................ 0 Criteria regarding radiation not satisfied............................ .. 8

11. Criteria regarding test sequence not satisfied........................ 0

12. Criteria regarding test failures or severe anomalies not satisfied.... 0

13. Criteria regarding functional testing not. satisfied................... 1 14 Criteria regarding instrument' accuracy not satisfied.................. 0

15. Test duration margin not satisfied................................. 0

16. Criteria regarding margins not satisfied.............................. ... 0 l i

FRC identified some additional basic concerns in their review of the Nine Mile Point 1 (NMP1) E0 program.

FRC pointed out that NMP1 had not resolved the staff's concern over the identification of safety-related systems and display instrumentation. FRC's review found that the list of systems and display instrumentation was still- -

incomplete and recommended that the licensee submit,a complete and

.. v . .. ~ .

Qfl * ~*

l

. , i I y.?y wes .

.Qhga w .&

y e .;

.- p ._

fhTck8}. ,gg ,) .

j_ ,, g q

- comprehensive list of systems to be qualified to:th' aNRC for review and )

approval. .

i i

k. ,

in addition, even thou h the deficiencies identified'in the original staff SER  !

were addressed by the icensee, no. schedule...was,gi. van. for their resolution. - 1

, .g ;

TER SER December 20. 1982 i

On December 20, 1982, the staff issued an SER on the licensee's EQ program l which included the FRC TER as an attachment. In the SER, the staff concurred I with the program deficiencies identified by FRC in the TER, and requested that j the licensee send additional information related to those deficiencies. '

Based on the results of the FAC TER, the staff did not accept the licensee's program. The staff requested that the licensee resolve the issues identified in the TER, and devote special attention to items in Categories I.8, !!.A and 11.8 where justification for continued operation was not submitted, and to the resolution of concerns regarding the completeness of the safety-related -

equipment list and display instrumentation specifically.-identified in the FRC -

TER.  % *

,l ~' '

hh[ . l,f, ' .

final SER January 10. 1985 '

. p. -

3 , h.. k - ' "b Based on a meeting with the licensee'onLMaEcC15,"4 i

-f984,0and'theMay 31,'1984 '

submittal to clarify any outstandin accepted the licensee's EQ program.g <The issues program's from the:FRCwas acceptance TER, theupon based staff the 1) the proposed resolution of EQ deficiencies identified in the December 30, 1982 SER, and the August 6, 1982 FRC TER, 2) compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49, and 3)-JCOs for those components (408 tag numbers in 88 equipment item groups) for which EQ was not established at the time of the SER.

The staff used the methodology described in Appendix C to perform the safety j evaluation.

Mte Insoection Auaust 19 to 23. 1985 '

The staff conducted a special, announced inspection of the NMPI EQ program i from August.19 through 23, 1985. The staff used thetinspection methodology -

1 described in Appendix E to perform.the inspection.~ '

i

,~

The objective of the inspection was.to determine whethersthe, licensee's EQ .  ; 4"  !

program complied with the requirements ofl10 CFR 50'.49MTo' accomplish this l i

' objective, the staff reviewed the licensee's implement.at. ion of their EQ i program and the Itcensee's actions on SER/TER comitr es. The staff focussed '

on the adequacy of the EQ documentation, and includei a plant walkdown of EQ components.

24

G-9 As a result of tiie inspection, the staff conclude that the licensee had I implemented an " interim" EQ program that met 10 CFR 50.49 requirements. 1 However, the interim program had significant deficiencies. The most significant program deficiencies identified during the inspection were

1) lack of auditable documentation to support qualification, and, in several instances, 2) Information provided by the licensee did not support the qualification of the equipment item. During the course of the inspection, the licensee provided a schedule for implementing the final EQ program.

The inspection included the following EQ program areas at NMPl:

. . 2 Licensee actions on previousl[ideritffNdlid b$dNds$ [ ~

Licensee actions on SER/TER commitments -

Program compliance with 50.49; including procedures, master equipment list, maintenance and surveillance program, procurement and upgrading, QA and training , "

Documentation file review including cables, splices, terminations, terminal blocks motors, HOVs, SOVs, penetrations, seals, lubricants, '

transmitters, RTDs, radiation monitors, and miscellaneous electrical devices. Some discrepancies were noted i' auditability and completeness of some flies, use cf similarit equipment, and the performance'y.batwor, crite;is of some as-tested and as. installed equipment.

Licensee activities regarding appitcable NRC Bulletins and Notices ,

{

= A plant walkdown '

l l

l I

6 1

1 l

4 l

j l

1

j

} -

l , -

i EQ PROGRM

! EVALUATION RESULTS AT TURXEY POINT 3/4 j (DOR).

~

l l4by

' 4 - -

CP: 4/27/67 ..,m'.1w.a(g OP:(3) 7/19/72 m4 m ..d & w.. .

(4) 4/10/73 g p ,9,#<t,,

i , c J a c,,

j TER Sectember 30. 1982 -

! As a result of the review performed by FRC, the 111 equipment items on the i Turkey Point 3/4 master equipment list were grouped into the following categories: (see Appendix B for a detailed description of each category and an

overall methodology FRC used to conduct this review),

Category 1.A Equipment qualified..................~......................!

l Category 1.8 Equipment qual i fication pending modi ficat ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Category ll.A Equipment quali fication not estab11thed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Category 11.B Equ i pme nt no t qu a11 f i ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Categor< II.C Equipment satisfies all requirements except qualified life or replacement schedule justified................... 34 l Category fil.A Equipment exempt from qualification....................... 0 l Category !!!.B Equipment not in the scope of the review.................. 8 ,

Category IV Documentation not made available.......................... 0 The deficiencica that were identified for each equipment

ites were further j categorized into the following groups: .

- am' l.

.a Documented evidence of inadequate qualification.'.u.:;.:.w~..

w ~

... . . ..$. .. . 40 i 2. Adequate similarity between equipment and test specimen not

{

, 3.

estab11shed..........................................................

Aging degradation not evaluated adequately........................... 66 24 l 4. Qualified life or replacement schedule not established ... . . . . . .. . . . . 69

, 5. Program to ident i fy aging degradation not established. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6. Cri teri a regarding aging s imul ation not met. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

, 7. Criteria regarding temperature / pressure ex l 8. Criteria regarding spray not satisfied....posure (EQ testing) not met.23

.......................... 12 1 9. Criteri a regarding submergence not satisfied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .3 l 10. Criteria regarding radiation not satisfied........................... 10

! 11. Criteria regarding test sequence not satisfied........................ 2 l

12. Criteria regarding test failures or severe anomalies not satisfied.... 8

13. Criteria regarding functional testing not satisfied................... 2 j 14. Cri teria regarding instrument accuracy not satis fied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

15. Test duration margin not satisfied.................................... 4

16. C r i t e r i a reg a rd i ng ma rg i n s no t s a t i s f i ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 l

! Even though no common problems were identified in the FRC TER evaluation. the

! FRC evaluation indicated problems with aging evaluation. qualified life j determinations, and adequate documentation regarding equipment' qualification.

i i

i i

w . ummes = .. -

]

l .y m i '"

W M$,f G l % ? # W . W E X +

ym.M.gf&g,c y tW+WW m

n j ,

ty, fang C

• 9b; *' '

) p g. v.v .,. - - ,

~ . U IU LF8 bf

• U 1888

.hgjghh. k%@h & - *d j

On December 13, 1982, the staff issued an $ER 'on the licensee's'EQ program which included the FRC TER as an attachment. In the SER the staff concurred

! with the program deficiencies identified by FRC in the TIR. and requested that j the licensee send additional information related to those deficiencies.

l Based on the results of the FRC TER, the staff did not accept the licensee's i program. The staff requested that the Itcensee resolve the issues identified .

j in the TER, and devote special attention to items in Categories I.B. !!.A, and i II.B where justtfication for continued operation was'not submitted.-and to the g j

resolution of c.ecerns regarding the qualification of safety-related equipment j listed in Catraory !!.8. ,

i

y, ,n- v.ke ys k ,e'\'r l Unil sra October 25. 1984 J;3V - w w p p fM ' ,

1 ge i

q Based on a meeting with the licensu en May 8;1944.7andthe'Juiyit,1984 i submittal to clarlfy any outstanding issues from the FRC TER i accepted the Ilconsu's EQ progras. .;Progr:a acceptance was da.the staff sed.on 1% the C l ance uith10CFR50.49,and3)ajustification'forcontinu(ed) operation'(JC0 for resolution s o

those equipment items for which qualification had not yet been establi hed. l AllequipmentwasacceptedasqualifiedforUnit43.therefore.-no  :

! Justification for continued operation was warranted. JC0s.for three limit '

l switches and six flow switches were accepted for Unit 3.

The staff used the methodology in Appendix C to perfons the safety evaluation.

! Site Intenetion March 2 to 6, 1987 i

The staff conducted a special, announced inspection of the MP1 EQ program free March 2 through 6, 1987. The staff used the inspection methodology j described in Appendix E to perform the inspection.

The objective of the inspection was to determine whether the licensee's EQ

! program complied with the rec'uirements of 10 CFR 50.49.. To accomplish this l cbjective, the staff reviewed the licensee's implementation of their EQ t 1

program and the licensee's actions on SER/TER comultaents. The staff focussed l on the adequacy of the EQ documentationo and included a plant walkdown of EQ .

! components. .cg,.~ ,. m @py h

- ~ ,- '

~

As a result of'the inspection, the staff concluded that the licensee had taplemented a EQ program that met 10 CFR 50.49 requirements, however several unresolved deficiencies were identified. NodeficiencieswereidentIfledin

! the implementation of SER/TER comaltaents.

j The most significant program deficiencies identified during the inspection

! were: 1) lack of auditable doctumentation to support qualification, and l several instances, information provided by the licensee did not suppor[ the2) in

! qualification of the equipment ites; for example, Rayches splices were found i.

~'

7 .c . .

] .;/ ~ /

, ., ,s .

I G-12 l ,

in unqualified configurations, and references to' Scotch electrical tape j qualification data were not properly related to 3M-brand electrical tape +

installed in the plant. ,

z.

j The inspection included the following EQ program areas at. Turkey Point l i

• Licensee actions on SER/TER connitments,MSi ' ;ds ~ ~ '

i

• Progran taapilsus wla 50,0s luledlM precedern documentation i

requirements, master equipment list, defining enviro,nmental zones,  ;

modifications and new equipment, maintenance procurement andand survalliance upgrading,'QA and program,ining(.

tra .

%cumentation file review including cables, splices, terminations, i terminal blocks motors, MOVs, SOVs, penetrations seals, lubricants, j transsitters,RTDs,radiationmonitors,andmiscellaneouselectr4 cal.

i devices. Some discrepancies were noted in auditability and comoisteness l et same th, ma .4 stenar%, hetassem em and mehuN6 i equipment, and the performance criteria of:some equipment.

l Licensee activities regarding appilcable NRC Bulletins and Notices. i

• A plant walkdown. '

4 i

l 1hf* 4 ,l',,.D' 4 g e s

, g f , [ g u ,, c' 4 i - I j,

4 )

i l

)

l 4

i .'

7' l

- ,.- . - . - ~ . . - . - - - - . . .

q,j - . c W.Ap@ 4A' - #

]

, ~

• ff. - '

b j

i phh[$ hhhhbNNkYN '

O!

k

f. J ' M@c , ,  !

! .rE0 PROGRAM- & & p" '* mw: N . -

3 i EVALUAT!0N RESULTS:ATh i e MONTICELLOMMs.d - w A , '

P  !

n lY 'h Y '

Y'

! CP: 6/19/67 WM ** 9*

1 j OP: 1/9/81 -

s l y ,

m + t

TER Auaust 23. 1932 y** ' N"- -

l l

1 1

l As a result of the review performed by FRC, the 150 equipment items on the r Monticello master equipment list were grouped into the following categories:  ;

! (See tppendix B for a detailed description of each. category and an overall  !

methodologyFRCusedtoconductthisreview)-

$ .,. {

Category 1.A Equipment qua11fied....................................... 7 Category 1.8 l

! Equipment quali fication pending modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 j Category II.A Equipment qualification not established.................. 65 l i

i Category !!.B Equipment not qua1tfled................................... 8.  ;

j Category !!.C Equipment natisfies all requirements except qualified life or rt..'acement schedule justified.......-............ 11 -

Category !!!. A Equipment *.empt from qual i fication.'. .~. . .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 l Category 111.8  ;

) Equipment not in'the scope'of tho l Category IV Documenta tion noLeadej ( wava t.14ble,'.geview;.

..W............... 0s. .

4,a!

.L' fa.

i .

4 fW M M "~ # N:

The deficiencies that were' identifiekplWMW@j@pmentsit@en forfeacitaqu were;furthe  ;

categorized into the following groups

f ' f "  !

l 1. Documented evidence of inadequate quali fication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 ,

i 2. Adequate stellarity between equipment and test. specimen not  ;

I 3.

established..........................................................

Aging degradatic- 'ot evaluated 29  !

} adequately.~.......................... 48

4. Quall fied li fe or replacement' schedule not ~ established. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 l

5. Program to identify aging degradation not. established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 i i 6. Criteria regarding aging simulation not' met........................... 9

7. Criteria regarding temperature / pressure ex l 8. Criteria regarding spray not satisfied....posure (EQ testing) not met.38

............................ 2 l

i 9. Cri teri a regarding submergence not sat i sfied. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 l 10. Criteria regarding radiat ion not satisfied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 j 11. Criteria regarding test sequence not satisfied........................ 0 1

12. Criteria regarding test failures or severe anomalies not satisfied...13

13. Criteria regarding functional testing not satisfied....................! l

14. Criteria regarding instrument accuracy not satisfied.................. 2 1 1 15. Test duration margin not satisfied.................................... 0-I j 16. Cri teria regarding margins no( satisf$dg.ypf ,,.. .. . . ..'. 4. . . . . . . . . . .0 -  %-

~ ' s c , .y .. . .

The most common problems among the' equipment" items;'at'Monticello included i

inadequate or missing documentation, in&dequate evaluation of aging or qualified life, incorrect temperature or pressure exposure criteria associated j alth qualification testing, and lack of similarity between tested and actual devices.

FRC observed that the licensee tried'to qualify some equipment for LOCA or

! HELB environments by analysis using inadequate technical. justification; 1

A 1

, , ,. pnu. -

.: O _} '

>. . \

r ;xy.

} G-14: y; pp[ j _

i specifically for references, assumptions, failure-mohs-and-effects analysis.

. and the identification of materials based on valid manufacturer's information, i The licensee also tried to qualify Rotork A series MOVs using a test report j with unsubstantiated testing anomalies.

t l FRC also indicated that some of the assumptions the licensee used to (,ualify i certain component; were in error or incomplete (e.g., post accident drp ell i temperatures). In addition, the licensee did not provide post-acciden; i environmental service conditions for the torus and other affected areas of the

! plant. FRC also noted that the licensee's method for' aging and determining i qualified life was not technically valid. J.'

i 1 n. , ,

TER SER January 4. 1983 yg 7.g f , j( 1

On January 4, 1983, the staff issued an SER on the licensee's EQ program which included the FRC TER as an attachment. In the SER, the staff concurred with the program deficiencies identified by FRC in the TER, and requested that the  !

i licensee send additional information related to those deficiencies.  !

a mi, emad-i Based on the results of the FRC TER, the staff did not acce% the licensee's

! program. The staff requested that the licensee resolve the deficiencies in the TER, and devote special attention to the items in Categories !.8, II.A, and 11.B where justification for continued operation was not submitted, and the deficiencies identified for Category 11.8 where equipment was determined )

not to be qualifted.

l l Final SER December 13. 1984 1

i Based on a meeting with the licensee on December 12 1983, and the )

February 10, 1984 submittaltoclarifyanyoutstandingissuesfromtheFRC  !

l TER the staff accepted the licensee's EQ program. Program acceptance was j

! based on 1) the resolution of deficiencias identified int he FRC TER, 2) '

, program compliance with 10 CFR 50.49, and 3) a justification for continued

! operation for those equipment items for which qualification had not yet been

established. Because all equipment was accepted as qualified, no l justification for continued operation was warranted at Monticello.

i j The staff used the methodology in Appendix C to. perform the safety evaluation.

i i

! Site insoection October 26. 1987 throuah January 28. 1988 i

i Th2 staff conducted a special, announced inspection of the Monticello EQ j program from March 9 to April 3, 1987. The staff used the inspection j methodology described in Appendix E to complete the inspection.

! The objsetive of the inspection was to detaruine whether the licensee's EQ

! program complied with the requirements of 20 CFR 50.49. To accomplish this l objective, the staff reviewed the Itcensee's implementation of their EQ program and the licensee's actions en SER/TER commitments. The staff focussed i

~

'l

) G-15

} on the adequacy of the EQ documentation, and included a plant walkdown of EQ components. '

l ,

~

As a result of the inspection, the staff concluded that.the' licensee's program j met 10 CFR 50.49 requirements, v ? <f <

, .c wjkhy dm99-W63 s .

1 TheinspectioncoveredthefollowingEQj,in+w/seAreasa@t[Msticello!.progr n . .

i Actions on SER/TER conailtments -

j

• Licensee's implementation of Regulatory Guide:1,97J-(0 pen-Item review) i e Responses to NRC Bulletins and Information Notices i e Program compliance with 50.49; including procedures, master equipment list, maintenance and survalliance program, procurement and upgrading, QA and training.

~

~

i

• Documentation file review including cables Dsplices,' terminations, j terminal blocks, motors, SOVs, penetrations. seals, lubricants, j transmitters, RTDs, rad monitors," switches,:and miscellaneous electrical j devices. Some discrepancies were noted in auditability, and performance

criteria of the equipment.

l

• Physical plant inspection '

i i

During the documentation review, the inspectors identified several equipment

! installation and file auditability deficiencies.

I i

.. ay.s. -

., ;:-,;;-ayv&;[rn-y Jn -

4 Q. ,7 + , jp '. 3 1

l  ;+. -

1 i

l .

t l

t a

i j a L-----_L------_-.---_-.----__-__-._-----------_-- -- -.. - .

.A++.sm

^

&:.?nes.- n ,,

hw M GM.,[$%.$d W' a;Oupmq er vx , .

9!

a,

~&

Q&'Clr&&4 ,,% a% s ,1.if5 f g,q"y& M )Q Q" & * .uk *;

EQ PROGRAM EVALUATION-RESULTS A B C ; e m PEACH B0TTON UNITS 2 E3/..L ,

.s .

j CP: 1/31/68 /,

m OP: 7/2/74 TER Auoust 3. 1982 As a result of the review perforr.ed by FRC. the 130 equipment items on the Peach Bottom master equipment list were grouped into the following categories:

j (See Appendix 8 for a detailed description of each category and.an overall j methodology FRC used to conduct this review)-

j Category 1.A E q u i pme n t q u a l i f t e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Category 1.8 Equipment qualification pending modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Category II.A Equipment qualification not established.................. 66 Casegory 11.8 Equ i pme nt no t qu al l f l ed . . . . . . n. o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 i Category ll.C Equipment satisfies.;all requirements.except qualified li fe or replacement

schedule justified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Category ill. A Equipment exempt from qual i fication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Category !!!.8 Equipment not in the~ scope of the review..........;........ 5

Category IV Documentation not made

Available..~....... . ............... 0 I The deficiencies that were identified for each equipment item were further categorized into the following grouptU '

) 1. Documented evidence of inadequate qualification...................... 57 1

2. Adequate similarity between equipment and test specimen not

established.......................................................... 25

3. Aging degradation not evaluated adequately............................ 57

, 4. Qualified life or replacement schedule not established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 1 5. Program to identify aging degradation not established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

6. Criteria regarding aging simulation not met........................... 0 1

7. Criteria regarding temperature / pressure exposure (EQ testing) not met.24

! 8. Criteria regarding spray act satisfied.................................I

9. Criteria regarding submergence not satisfied...........................)

j 10. Criteria regarding radiation not satisfied............................ 4

11. Criteria regarding test sequence not satisfied........................ 0

12. Criteria regarding test failures or severe anomalies.not satisfied.... 0

13. Criteria regarding functional testing not satisfied................... 4

14. Criteria regarding instrument' accuracy notcsatisfied.................. 0

15. Test duration margin not satisfied........

16. Criteriaregardingmarginsnotfsatisfied..p.........................0...............,............ 0 The most common problems among the equipment items at Peach Bottom included I inadequate or missing documentation., inadequate evaluation of aging or qualified life, incorrect temperature or pressure exposure criteria associated with qualification testing. and lack of similarity between tested and actual

devices. FRC also identified generic problems with the'llcansee's response to I the NRC's original SER, specifically ta the area of scheduling required upgrades, and explaining environmentalf assumptions on the component evaluation worksheets.

< j yy % w wn.wd n >

flNQ:g;.5Mc;&yj& -

Nh ;

, hMhO .WdNN $ ' + .i#

l

.o. - + .

G-17 J

l' TER SER December 20. 1982 l On Decembe'r 20, 1982, the staff issued an SER on the licensee's EQ program

".l .

!- which included the FRC TER as an attachment, in-the SER.-the. staff concurred . j f

with the program deficiencies identified by FRC in:the TER,.and requested that .,._j the licensee send additional information related!to those deficiencies. "

l 1

4 .ms%4Qp%W.n e : -

m; Based on the results of the FAC TER,'the staff did not accept the licensee's  :

i program. The staff requested that the'11censee' resolve the deficiencies in ,

! the TER, and devote special attention to:the items"intCategories I.Si'I.I.A, i L and II.B where justification foricontinued operation.was not submitted.1to ,J  ;

!' resolving deficiencies regarding.the completeness:cf the master equipment e,j list, and to providing plans for the~ replacement or. qualification of <

unqualified equipment and a schedule forlaccomplishing the corrective actions. -

g  : , ~ ~ .w l i k S % W W. @ &plY 12- - - '  %

33 l

l Final SER October 18. 1984 V ga j l Based on a meeting with the licensee on December.5, 1983, and the February 21 i i and June 13, 1984, submittals to clarify any outstanding issues from the FRC l

! TER, the staff accepted the licensee's EQ program. Program acceptance was t

} based on 1) the resolution of deficiencies identified in the FRC TER, 2) .  :

program compilance with 10 CFR 50.49, and 3) a justification for continued  :

operation for those equipment items (19 for each plant) for which j l qualification had not yet been established. '

l The staff used the methodology described in Appendix C to perform the safety 1 evaluation.

i i Site insoection October 26. 1987 throuah' January 28.'1988' ^

l e l The staff r soducted a special,' announced inspection %cf the' Peach Bottom EQ i

program from June 15-19, 1987. The staff used the inspection methodology in ,

j Appendix E to complete the inspection.. - -

_ ,  : 6 ,:.f ys " , ..

6,1 i

The objective of the inspection w $as 'to"detemine whether the licensee's EQ i program complied with the requirements of.10 CFR 50.49. To accomplish this L

i objective, the staff reviewed the licensee's implementation of their EQ program and the licensee's actions on SER/TER commitments. The staff focussed j on the adequacy c' the EQ documentation, and included a plant walkdown of EQ components..

1 As a result of the inspection, the staff concluded that the licensee's program j met 10 CFR 50.49 requirements.

[ The inspection covered the following EQ program areas at Peach Bottom:

l

• Actions on SER/TER commitments. 1

j. .

Licensee's implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97.

j

,. g;;

l

{ ,

fi l l '

G-1B ,

~

s

• Responses to NRC Bulletins and.Information_ Notices,_and actions.ralated to IN 86-03 and IN 86-53,'!.-  ;< a .i. : .v . . C J 1 ?" -

• Program compilance with:50.49;iincluding! procedures.i: master equipment..

s

.e.

list, maintenance and surveillance lp!;ogr.ac,: procurement' and .

modifications, QA and training. ^- - --

Documentation file review including cables, splices, terminations, terminal blocks, motors.sSOVs, penetrations,tseals, lubricants, transmitters, RTDs, rad monitors.' switches, and miscellaneoa electrical devices. Some discrepancias were noted in general ptocedures for controlling file contant, which subsaquently lead to problems with auditability, and documenting the performance criteria of the equipment.

QA/QC interfaces. .

• Physical plant inspection.. ,

During the documentation revier, the inspectors identified several deficiencies. Among the unresolved items were deficiencies in procurement procedures, ge'neral file deficiencies, a component not meeting Reg Guide 1.97 requirements, i; complete or not updated files, and incomplete master equipment list.

l

, *$ '

• f. ,

?P

' #f' ~

i; @'yh,':h7hId5.j;jShji4l"M'

.y7 4

tg .

~ '

h 9 i e -

o ".

e m+ w+,a w + e .t.s.

~

6 M.m ^.gg;w;g.y an w

.gEQ PROGRAN c- .

EVALUATION RESULTS AT~ 4 ST. LUCIE 1.(DOR):

3. . ,

, I CP: 7/1/70 OP: 3/1/76 ER February 28. 1982 i As a result of the review performed by FRC. the 182. equipment items on the St.

t.ucie Unit I master equipment list ~were grouped into the following categories:

'T I

~,

(See Appendix B for a detailed description of each category and an overall w thodology.FRC used to conduct this review)

Category 1.A Equipment qualified...'......... d ......................... 6, Category 1.8 Equipment qual i fic ation pending . modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Category ll.A Equipment quali fication mot establ.ished.u .7. . . f.i . . . . . . . 59 "6 Category !!.B Equipment not qualified.l.'... m .!V.i....'................. 9 Category !!.C Equipment' satisfies lallerequirements'exce.

m Category Ill.A life or replacement-schedule" ....,.

justified..}.

..'......... 2 pt'qualified

. 3 4 I Category 111.B Equipment not in the scope' of ~ the review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Category JY Documentation not, made . avail abl e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The deficiencics that were identified'for each shipment item were further categorized into the following groups:

1. Documented evidence o f inadequa'te quali fication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2. Adequate similarity between equipment and. test specimen not established....................................... 4....,............ 28

) 3. Aging degradation not evaluated adequately........................... 53

4. Qualified li fe or replacement. schedule not established . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 72

5. Program to identi fy aging degradation not established . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .I

6. Criteria regarding aging simulation not met.................. ....... 10

7. Criteria regarding temperature / pressure exposure-

8. Criteria regarding spray not satisfied............(EQ...................

testing) not met.43 15

9. Criteria regarding submergence not satisfied..........................

8 *

10. Criteria regarding radiation not satisfied.4... . '

p......... ........ 12

11. Criteria regarding test sequence not satisfied.j....... ... ......... 9

12.  ;

Criteria regarding test failures or. severe anomalies no,t si.. sfied.. 9

12. Criteria regarding functional i...?............. '. 2 '

14 Criteria regarding instrumentgtestingaccuracy notisatisfiedM not satisfied............

i 1

15. Test duration margin not satisfied.................................... ......

16. Criteria regarding margins not satisfied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . 11 The most common problems among the equipment items at St.~Lucie Unit 1 included inadequate or missing documentation. inadequate evaluation of aging or qualtfled life. incorrect temperature or pressure exposure criteria associated with qualification testing.' and lack of similarity between tested and actual devices. FRC cited several Fischer and Porter level and pressure transmitter models with inadequate qualification test packages. In addition.

the licensee's qualification rathods that included extrapolating thermal aging analyses and saturated steam test results were questioned by FRC. Before the

.e ar >

G-20 licensee could use these techniques, adequate technical justification had to be presented. ,

~ . .

TER SER April 21. 1981

. w f

• is % , G j y &fI 4 Q! Q 5 % M ": -

~

~ W&

.p.g; . :.s.g. ,

On April 21, 1983, the staff issued an SER on thatlicensee's~EQ program which ,

included the FRC TER as an attachment @ !nithe35ERP the-staff concurred with the program deficiencies identified by"FRCrin the"TER,' -' requested that the.

licensee send additional information related to;those attsciencies.

. ,.,,v, ,

s Based on the results of the FRCMTER,ithe' staff;did notLaccept the licensee's program. The staff requested that'the 1.icensee. resolve the deficiancies in the TER, and devote snecial attention torthecitems.in Categories I,B and IV  !

wH re justification for continued ~ operation was not submitted, to resolving deficiencies regarding the equipment in Categoryi!!.B (Equipment Not Qualified), and to resolve the staff concerns regarding the radiation dose ,

rate inside the containment identified in the FRC TER. l final SER November 15. 1984 Based on a meeting with the licensee on May 8,:1984,'and the July 12, 1984, ,

submittal to clarify any outstanding issues from.the FRC TER, the staff  !

accepted the licensees EQ program.. Program acceptance was based on 1) the  ; ., ;

resolution of deficiencies identified in the' FRC.TER,!2). program compliance "" '

with 10 CFR 50.49..and 3) a justification for' continued' operation' for those-equipment items (22) for which qualification had not yet.been established.

The licensee responded to the SER in December..1984 by. stating that all of.the ,

equipment items within the scope of.10 j CFRg50,4 have been t qualified. y i The staff used the methodology described in Appendix;C;to perform the safety 3 evaluation. ,

- e

m. .. .;< m. 4 .. ,c ,

Site Inspection.

>ntwn #, p;;s 3,.

e m,.n w

" ~

The staff conducted special, announced inspections 1of:the licensee's EQ ~

program to verify that the program had been implemented adequately. The EQ inspection at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 were conducted.in two phases due to plant operation. The staff issued a single inspection report for each phase of the inspection covering both units. Each unit was inspected against its own EQ requirements (i.e., Unit 1: DOR, Unit 2: Category II).

Phase 1: March 31. 1986 to Aoril 4. 1986 The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's implementation of -

a program meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 at Unit 1. Phase 1 of the site inspection verified that the documentation in the EQ files supported qualification, and checked the as-installed configuration of EQ equipment located outside the containment.;;The

'"' inspection

~ ~

covered;the following EQ

" ' ~ ~

program areas at St. Lucie:

. EQ Program procedures.

.in

.c Q: . .

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