nine mile point, unit 2, submittal of supplemental …seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys section 4...

James A. SpinaVice President, Corporate Site Operations100 Constellation WaySuite 200CBaltimore, Maryland 21202410-470-5203

Constellation *-, eDF

January 31, 2013

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852

ATTENTION:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Document Control Desk

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69Docket No. 50-410

Submittal of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Supplemental SeismicWalkdown Report

(a) Letter from M. G. Korsnick (CENG) to Document Control Desk (NRC)dated November 27, 2012, Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request forInformation, Recommendation 2.3, Seismic (ML 12348A086)

In Reference (a), Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station committed to perform follow-up seismic inspectionsfor Unit 2 by the end of the 2014 Spring outage. Attachment (1) provides a description of walkdownsthat were able to be performed earlier than the commitment date. As described in Attachment (1),equipment that was not accessible at the time of these walkdowns remains on the schedule committed toin Reference (a).

This letter does not contain any new or revised regulatory commitments.

If there are any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Everett (Chip) PerkinsEverett.Perkins(&cengllc.com at 410-470-3928.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 31, 2013.

Sincerely,

s A. Spina

JAS/EMT/bjd

ý-oo ILAU-

Document Control DeskJanuary 31, 2013

Attachment: (1) Supplemental Seismic Walkdown Report

cc: B. K. Vaidya, NRCW. M. Dean, NRCResident Inspector (Nine Mile Point)

ATTACHMENT 1

SUPPLEMENTAL SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT

Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLCJanuary 31, 2013

ATTACHMENT 1

SEISMIC WALKDOWN REPORT

Table of Contents

L ist o f T ab les ......................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. iii

1 I Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Approach ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

2 Personnel Qualifications ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 W alkdown Personnel ...................................................................................................... 2-1

3 Selection of SSCs ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Selection of Alternate Com ponents ................................................................................. 3-1

4 Seismic W alkdowns and Area W alk-Bys .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Seism ic W alkdowns ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Area W alk-Bys ................................................................................................................ 4-2

5 Licensing Basis Evaluations ............................................................................................................. 5-1

6 Peer Review ........................................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Peer Review Introduction ................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Review of Sam ple Checklist and Area W alk-bys ............................................................. 6-1

6.3 Review of Licensing Basis Evaluations ............................................................................ 6-2

6.4 Review of Final Subm ittal Report and Sign-off ............................................................... 6-2

7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1

A Project Personnel Certificates .......................................................................................................... A-1

B Seismic W alkdown Checklists (SW Cs) ......................................................................................... B-I

C Area Walk-By Checklists (A W Cs) ................................................................................................ C-1

D SWCsfor Supplemental Internal Inspections of Electrical Cabinets ............................................... D-1

E Plan for Future Seismic W alkdown of Inaccessible Equipment .................................................... E-1

ATTACHMENT 1


List of Tables

Table 2-1 Personnel Included in NTTF 2.3 Supplemental Walkdown .................................. 2-1

Table 3-1 Selection of Alternate Components Based on Plant Conditions .............................. 3-1

Table 6-1 Table of Peer Review Comments for SW Cs .......................................................... 6-1

Table 6-2 Table of Peer Review Comments for AW C's .......................................................... 6-2

Table B-I Summary of Seismic Walkdown Checklists Completed by NMP Personnel ................. B-1

Table C-I Summary of Area W alk-By Checklists ............................................................ C-1

Table E- 1 Summary of Inaccessible Equipment .............................................................. E-1

Table E-2 Summary of Equipment Subject to Supplemental Internal Inspections ........................... E-2

ATTACHMENT 1


Executive Summary

This Supplemental Seismic Walkdown Report documents walkdowns performed at Nine Mile PointNuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2) for components that were not accessible during the initial walkdownsand were not included in the response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information, Recommendation 2.3,and Seismic (Reference 3). These seismic walkdowns did not identify any adverse seismic conditionsthat required licensing basis evaluations or evaluation by the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station CorrectiveAction Program.

Three Seismic Walkdown Equipment List I (SWEL 1) components remain deferred as they requirespecific plant or maintenance configurations for the walkdowns. Table E-l lists these components andprovides the dates the walkdown results will be provided.

Seventeen electrical cabinets require follow-up internal inspection for other adverse seismic conditions.The industry was made aware of the NRC staff position on opening electrical cabinets after the onlineseismic walkdowns were completed. Follow-up inspections of the electrical cabinets will be completed,as required, during a unit outage or another time when the equipment is accessible. Table E-2 lists thesecomponents and provides the dates the walkdown results will be provided.

EPRI Technical Report 1025286 (Reference 1) was used to perform the engineering walkdowns andevaluations described in this report. In accordance with Reference 1, the following topics are addressedin the subsequent sections of this report.

" Personnel Qualifications

* Selection of Systems, Structures , and Components (SSCs)

" Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys

" Seismic Licensing Basis Evaluations

" Peer Review

ATTACHMENT 1


Personnel Qualifications

Personnel qualifications are discussed in Section 2 of this report. The personnel who performed the keyactivities required to fulfill the objectives and requirements of Reference 2 are qualified and trained asrequired in EPRI Technical Report 1025286 (Reference 1). These personnel are responsible for:

" Performing the Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys

* Performing the seismic licensing basis evaluations, as applicable

* Performing the peer reviews

Selection of SSCs

Selection of SSCs was completed and documented within Reference 3. This supplemental reportdocuments any alternate components that were selected by the Seismic Walkdown Engineers (SWE)when the original component was unavailable due to changing plant conditions or physical location.

Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys

Section 4 of this report documents the supplemental equipment Seismic Walkdowns and the Area Walk-Bys. The supplemental seismic walkdowns for NMP2 were performed on November 15, 2012 during aplanned outage. The walkdown team consisted of two SWEs, one from the station's Design Engineeringgroup, the other from the station's Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) group. Operations/Maintenancepersonnel were also available and called upon as needed.

The seismic walkdowns focused on the seismic adequacy of the items on the SWEL. The walkdownsfocused on the following:

" Adverse anchorage conditions

" Adverse seismic spatial interactions

" Other adverse seismic conditions (e.g., degradation)

Area Walk-Bys were conducted in each area of the plant that contained an item on the SWEL. The areawalk-by was performed to identify potentially adverse seismic conditions associated with other SSCslocated within the vicinity of the SWEL item. There were two area walk-bys performed during thesupplemental seismic walkdown on November 15, 2012 that encompassed the three components. Thekey examination factors that were considered in the area walk-bys included the following:

" Anchorage conditions (if visible without opening equipment)

* Significantly degraded equipment in the area

" Potential seismic interactions

* A visual assessment (from the floor) of cable/conduit raceways and heating, ventilationand air conditioning (HVAC) ducting (e.g., condition of supports or fill conditions ofcable tray)

* Potential adverse interactions that could cause flooding/spray and fire in the area

v

ATTACHMENT 1


* Miscellaneous other conditions including conformance of temporary installations togeneral seismic housekeeping procedures

The seismic walkdown team walked down three of six deferred components on the SWEL 1. Walkdownsfor the remaining three SWEL 1 components are being deferred due to accessibility issues (componentslocated in containment) and will be completed subsequent to this supplemental response.

During the supplemental walkdowns of NMP2, there were no adverse seismic conditions identified thatchallenged the licensing basis for the plant. No Condition Reports were issued as a result of thissupplemental walkdown.

Seismic Walkdown Checklists (SWC) and Area Walkdown Checklists (AWC) were completed for thethree components that were walked down. SWCs for the remaining deferred items and their associatedAWCs will be completed at the time of the follow up walkdowns and a supplemental report will be issuedwithin three months after the NMP2 Spring 2014 outage. Any SWCs or AWCs that need to be revised asa result of the deferred inspections will be updated and re-submitted in a supplemental report.

Seismic Licensing Basis Evaluations

EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Section 5: Seismic Licensing Basis Evaluation provides a detailedprocess to perform and document seismic licensing basis evaluations of SSCs when potentially adverseseismic conditions are identified during the equipment seismic walkdowns or area walk-bys. The processprovides a means to identify, evaluate and document how the identified potentially adverse seismiccondition meets a station's seismic licensing basis without entering the condition into a station'sCorrective Action Program (CAP). Further, the process directs that if a condition cannot be readilyshown to meet the seismic licensing basis, the identified condition should be entered into the station'sCAP where it will be determined that the condition does or does not meet the seismic licensing basis.

The process provided in Reference 1 was not needed to perform and document seismic licensing basesevaluations of SSCs with a potentially adverse seismic condition because no adverse conditions orquestionable conditions were discovered.

Peer Reviews

A peer review team consisting of two qualified individuals was assembled and peer reviews wereperformed in accordance with EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Section 6: Peer Reviews (Reference 1).The peer review process included the following activities:

* Review of the checklists prepared for the seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys

* Review of licensing basis evaluations, as applicable

" Review of the submittal report

* Provided a summary report of the peer review process in the submittal report

Section 6 of this report contains the peer review summary report. The peer review determined that theobjectives and requirements of the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter (Reference 2) are met. Further, the effortscompleted and documented within this report are in accordance with Reference 1.

vi

ATTACHMENT 1


Summary

In summary, the supplemental seismic walkdowns have been completed at Nine Mile Point NuclearStation, Unit 2 in accordance with the NRC-endorsed walkdown methodology. No degraded,nonconforming, or unanalyzed conditions were identified as a result of these supplemental seismicwalkdowns. Deferred walkdown items and expected completion dates are outlined in Appendix E.

vii

ATTACHMENT 1


1Introduction

1.1 Background

In response to the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.3 and Reference 2, seismicwalkdowns were performed at NMP2 in accordance with EPRI Technical Report 1025286 (Reference1). Results of the walkdowns are documented in Reference 3. The walkdown team was unable to inspectsome equipment at that time due to plant configuration and accessibility. This supplemental reportdocuments completion of three of the required seismic walkdowns for inaccessible equipment.

1.2 Approach

In accordance with Reference 1, the following topics are addressed in the subsequent sections of thisreport:

* Personnel Qualifications

" Selection of SSCs

" Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys

* Licensing Basis Evaluations

* Peer Review

ATTACHMENT 1


2Personnel Qualifications

2.1 Overview

This section of the report identifies the personnel that participated in the supplemental inspections for theNTTF 2.3 seismic walkdown effort. A description of the responsibilities of each seismic walkdownparticipant's role(s) is provided in Section 2 of Reference 1. Note that for this report, the only roles requiredwere for the walkdown team, licensing basis reviewer, and peer reviewer. Personnel responsible forequipment selection and IPEEE review are noted in Section 3 of Reference 3.

2.2 Walkdown Personnel

This table summarizes the names and corresponding roles of personnel who participatedSupplemental Seismic Walkdown effort.

in the NTTF 2.3

Table 2-1 Personnel Included in NTTF 2.3 Supplemental WalkdownSeismic Licensing

Walkdown Basis PeerPersonnel Role Engineer Reviewer Reviewer

Mr. Andrew Scheg X X

Mr. Jeff Park X X

Mr. Joshua Rocks X(1

Mr. Irineo Ferrer X

Note 1: Peer Review Team Leader

The following include a short synopsis of each individual's qualifications.

Jeff Park: Mr. Park is an engineer for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) design engineeringdepartment, working in the civil structural group. Mr. Park has a BS in General Engineering from the USMilitary Academy, MS in: Civil Engineering from the University of Arizona, Tucson, and is a SQUGCertified Engineer.

Andrew Scheg: Mr. Scheg is a former systems engineer with over 6 years of nuclear experience. He iscurrently working in the NMPNS Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) group. Mr. Scheg is fully qualified as aPRA engineer and has completed the 6-week EPRI Education of Risk Professionals Course. His past work inthe PRA field includes Risk Informed In-Service Inspection, significance determination evaluations,Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Member, and Mitigating System Performance Index evaluations. He isinvolved with the development and coordination for execution of NRC NTTF Actions 2.1 (Seismic PRA) and2.3 (Seismic Equipment Walkdowns).

ATTACHMENT 1


Joshua RocksMr. Rocks is an engineer for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) design engineering department,working in the civil structural group. Mr. Rocks has a BS and MS in Civil Engineering from the University atBuffalo, The State University of New York, and has completed the NTTF 2.3 Seismic Walkdown trainingcourse.

Irineo (Randy) FerrerMr. Ferrer is a mechanical design engineer for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) with over 30years of nuclear experience and is involved in supporting the Fukushima NTTF recommendations. Mr Ferrerhas a BS in Nuclear Science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and is a registeredProfessional Engineer in New York State.

2-2

ATTACHMENT 1


3Selection of SSCs

3.1 Overview

Section 4.0 of Reference 3 details the selection methodology utilized for this report and SWELdevelopment. Selection of SSCs is outside the scope of work performed within this report.

3.2 Selection of Alternate Components

The three components inspected under the supplemental walkdown are located in containment. Thewalkdown of components in containment was performed on November 15, 2012 during a planned outage.This walkdown required coordination between equipment maintenance in progress at the time of thewalkdown, required operating equipment, and ALARA dose concerns. Three originally selectedcomponents could not be inspected due to plant conditions or accessibility issues. In these cases, thewalkdown team inspected an alternate component (same equipment class) credited with performing thesame function. The potential substitution of components due to changing plant conditions was discussedwith the peer review team during the preparation of Section 4.0 of Reference 3. Table 3-1 provides anevaluation of the original SWEL 1 component against the alternate components.

Table 3-1 Selection of Alternate Components Based on Plant ConditionsOriginal SWELl Alternate

Equipment Class Component Component Basis For Change Evaluation

21CS*M0V128, This component is2NMP*RE3217D, RCIC Steam physically located Acceptable -

8 Radiation Detector Supply inside inside the Reactor 21CS*MOV128 has(LPRM) to Automatic core and should not the same class as

LPRM1 Auomatic be included in the 2NMP*RE3217DIsolation Valve SESWEL I

2CPS*AOV108 Acceptable - bothcomponents have

Purge Exhaust Containment located above a large the same equipment7 from Drywell Purge to Drywell opening; performing class and perform

inside Automatic inside Automatic wad i th the sameIsolation Valve Isolation Valve area was a safety containment

concern isolation functionAcceptable - both

2MSS*PSV121, 2MSS*PSV120, components aremain steam safety

22 Safety/Relief Safety/Relief Ease of access relief valves, sameValve Valve model, and perform

the same function

ATTACHMENT 1


4Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys

4.1 Overview

Three additional walkdowns of drywell components were conducted November 15, 2012 during aplanned outage. All inspections were performed by a two-person team of trained Seismic WalkdownEngineers in accordance with Reference 1. The seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys are discussed inmore detail in the following sections.

4.2 Seismic Walkdowns

The components included in the seismic walkdowns are shown on the NMP2 SWEL I in Appendix B ofReference 3. A Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) from Appendix C of Reference 1 was completed foreach item on the SWEL except for those items deferred. Additionally, photos are included with SWCs toprovide a visual record of the walkdowns. Subsequently, seismic walkdowns were completed for 3 of the6 deferred items on the NMP2 SWEL 1 list and are included in Appendix B. Three SWEL list items inthe primary containment are being deferred to the earliest window of accessibility. Table E-1 inAppendix E includes the list of deferred walkdown equipment items. Table E-2 in Appendix E includesthe list of equipment subject to supplemental internal inspections because they were not opened duringwalkdowns. These are cabinets with doors or panels with latches or thumbscrews that can readily beopened during normal maintenance activities. Internal inspections for these cabinets are to be completedin accordance with the station work management scheduling in order to complete them all before the endof the next refueling outage in Spring 2014 (Regulatory Commitment NL-2012-000044-003).

4.2.1 Anchorage Configuration Confirmation

As required by Reference 1 (page 4-3), 50% of the items were confirmed to have anchorageconfigurations consistent with plant documentation. Appendix B, Table B-i indicates the anchorageverification status for components as follows:

N/A: components that are line-mounted and/or are not anchored to the civil structure and thereforedo not count in the anchorage confirmation total. It is noted that Reference 1 includes Question 6on the SWCs which asks, "Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free ofpotentially adverse seismic conditions?" and only provides for a Yes, No or Unknown answerchoice. The answer for question 6 is therefore given a "Yes" when the answers to question 1 is"No" and questions 2 to 5 are either "N/A" or "Yes" on the check list.

Y: components anchored to the civil structure that were confirmed to be consistent with plantconfiguration documentation.

N: components for which anchorage drawings were not designated for retrieval because they werenot included in the 50% sample or they did not have specific anchorage associated with thembecause they were in-line equipment items.

ATTACHMENT 1


4.2.2 Issues Identification during Seismic Walkdowns

There were no issues identified by the SWEs during the equipment walkdowns.

4.3 Area Walk-Bys

In accordance with Reference 1, Area Walk-by Checklists (AWC) were performed for each room or areawithin a large room (35 foot radius) which included one or more items on the SWEL. All completedAWCs are included in Appendix C. These include overhead areas and other equipment items not on theSWELs in the area. A total of two AWCs were completed for NMP2 during this supplemental walkdown.

4.3.1 Issue Identification during Area Walk-bys

No anomalies or issues were identified by the SWEs during the area walk-bys.

4-2

ATTACHMENT 1


5Licensing Basis Evaluations

There were no issues identified during the supplemental seismic walkdowns and area walk-bysdetermined to be a "Potentially Adverse Seismic Condition" that could have potentially challenged thesite's licensing basis.

ATTACHMENT 1


6Peer Review

6.1 Peer Review IntroductionThe peer review was performed in accordance with Reference 1. The scope of the Peer Review waslimited to the following activities, as the SWEL development process has already been peer reviewed bythe original peer review team:

* Review of all the checklists completed for the Seismic Walkdowns and Area Walk-Bys

* Review of the final submittal report

* The inclusion of a summary of the peer review process in the submittal report

6.2 Review of Sample Checklist and Area Walk-bys

6.2.1 Walkdown Review and Review of Checklists

Mr. Joshua Rocks and Mr. Irineo Ferrer completed a peer review of all SWCs and AWCs completed bythe SWE walkdown team.

In addition, an interview was conducted by Mr. Rocks with the SWE inspection team, after review of theSeismic Walkdown Checklists (SWC) and Area Walk-By Checklists (AWC), to ascertain the quality andvalidate adherence to the Seismic Walkdown Guidance (Reference 1). Peer reviewerobservations/comments are documented in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2.

Table 6-1. Table of Peer Review Comments for SWCs

SWEL 1COMP ID Item # Description Location Observations/Comments

Shutdown Cooling Based on interview and

2RHS*MOV 112 42 Supply Inside Automatic PC 249' pictures provided,Isolation Valve checklist responses are

appropriate.

100 OHM @ ODeg C Based on interview and2CMS TE 10 76 Platinum Resistance

2CMS*TET20 76 Deteto nio PC 249' pictures provided checklistyemp TemetoraMoiture responses are appropriateDrywell Temperature

Based on interview and

21CS*MOV128 1 RCIC PC 261' pictures provided,checklist responses are

appropriate.

ATTACHMENT 1


Table 6-2. Table of Peer Review Comments for AWCs

Area WalkdownArea # Location Observations/Comments

Description

Primary Containment- Az170, in the vicinity of No pictures provided due to no adverse2CMS*TE 120 and conditions identified.

2RHS*MOV1 12

Primary Containment- Az No pictures provided due to no adverse43 188, in the vicinity of PC 249' conditions identified.

2ICS*MOV128

6.2.2 Evaluation of Findings

No issues were identified during the peer review.

6.3 Review of Licensing Basis Evaluations

6.3.1 Overview of Licensing Basis Evaluations

Because there are no issues identified during the seismic walkdowns or area walk-bys, no formallicensing basis evaluations were required.

6.3.2 Insights and Recommendations

None.

6.4 Review of Final Submittal Report and Sign-off

The supplemental inspection report has been reviewed by Mr. Joshua Rocks and Mr. Irineo Ferrer. Thereport was found to meet the requirements of Reference 1.

6-2

ATTACHMENT 1


7References

Note: Reference drawings related to SWEL items are provided in the Seismic Walkdown Checklists andif applicable, in the Area-Walk-by Checklists.

1. EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, dated June 2012

2. Letter from E. J. Leeds (NRC) and M. R. Johnson (NRC) to All Power Reactor Licensees andHolders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, dated March 12, 2012, Request forInformation Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) RegardingRecommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from theFukushima Dai-ichi Accident

3. Letter from M. G. Korsnick (CENG) to Document Control Desk (NRC) dated November 27, 2012,Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information, Recommendation 2.3, Seismic

ATTACHMENT 1


A Project Personnel Certificates

Andrew Scheg, Equipment Selection .................................................................... A-2

Jeff P ark, S W E .............................................................................................. A -3

Joshua Rocks, Peer Review Team Leader .............................................................. A-4

A-]

~Er~IJ

10

Certificate of Completion

Andrew Scheg

Training on Near Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.3

- Plant Seismic Walkdowns

June 27, 2012

Date Robott K( KaswaraEPRI Mrwqer

SUtA&urlI Reliabtkt & 141agiIty

derifiratb of AW~ieurmnrdQt4is is lu (irrtifij Illat

Jeffrey .M. ParkiL Ia 4as GirampleW t4v §(TU(31 Wallibown

zulb ;5-pisaxir ýEualuatlan Cýrailliklocrerni

Jot 1-1 r s p

Daeof2 L

aQUG RcprcscnLDLlvu- Pt illk 1,4.A- Ai*l -

Trn4o-or-iiIng, Coor q ALltTttrllS(r0tQr

arI ra2 I I ,4 I!II I

Certificate of Completion

z

Q

0

Josh Rocks

Training on Near Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.3

- Plant Seismic Walkdowns

J une 21, 2012)bale

EPFRI Marmaqu '51r~udursi IRelabIlfly & Inteanwy

ATTACHMENT 1


B Seismic Walkdown Checklists (SWCs)

Table B-1. Summary of Seismic Walkdown Checklists Completed by NMP Personnel

SWEL AnchorageComponent ID Item # Description Verification Page

Confirmed?

SWELl Items

2RHS*MOV 112 42 Shutdown Cooling Supply Inside N/A B-2Automatic Isolation Valve

100 OHM @ 0 Deg C platinum2CMS*TE120 76 resistance temp detector, monitors N B-6

drywell temperature

21CS*M0V128 I RCIC steam supply inside automatic N/A B-9isolation valve

B-1

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: M N USeismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)

Equipment ID No.: 2RHS*MOV112

Equipment Class: (8) Motor-Operated and Solenoid-Operated Valves

Equipment Description: Shutdown Cooling Supply Inside Automatic Isolation Valve

Project: Nine Mile 2 SWEL

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Primary Containment, Elevation 256', AZ 1710

Manufacturer/Model:

Instructions for Completing Checklist

This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on theSWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments andfindings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

Anchorage1. Is anchorage configuration verification required (i.e., is the item one of the 50% No

of SWEL items requiring such verification)?

2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors?

5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note:This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorageconfiguration verification is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free ofpotentially adverse seismic conditions?

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

B-2

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: N USeismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)




Interaction Effects

7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? Yes

8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles and lighting, and Yesmasonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment?

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Yes

10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of Yespotentially adverse seismic interaction effects?

Other Adverse Conditions11. Have you looked for and found no adverse seismic conditions that could Yes

adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment?

Comments

Evaluated by: Andrew Scheg , .•$ 2 - Date: 11/15/2012

Jeff Park 11/15/2012

B-3

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: F( N USeismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)




Photos

B-4

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: [-V N U

Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)



EauiDment DescriDtion: Shutdown Coolina SUDDIV Inside Automatic Isolation Valve

B-5

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: - N U

Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)

Equipment ID No.: 2CMS*TE120

Equipment Class: (19) Temperature Sensors100 OHM @ ODEG C PLATINUM RESISTANCE TEMP DETECTOR,

Equipment Description: MONITORS DRYWELL TEMPERATURE


Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Primary Containment, Elevation 249', Az 1670

Manufacturer/Model:


This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on theSWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments andfindings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

Anchorage1. Is anchorage configuration verification required (i.e., is the item one of the 50%

of SWEL items requiring such verification)?No

2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors?

5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note:This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorageconfiguration verification is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free ofpotentially adverse seismic conditions?

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

Yes

B-6

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: M N USeismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)


Equipment Class: (19) Temperature Sensors100 OHM @ ODEG C PLATINUM RESISTANCE TEMP DETECTOR,

Equipment Description: MONITORS DRYWELL TEMPERATURE

Interaction Effects





Other Adverse Conditions

11. Have you looked for and found no adverse seismic conditions that could Yesadversely affect the safety functions of the equipment?

Comments

Evaluated by: Andrew Scheg Date: 11/15/2012


B-7

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: [Y N USeismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)


Equipment Class: (19) Temperature Sensors

100 OHM @ ODEG C PLATINUM RESISTANCE TEMP DETECTOR,Equipment Description: MONITORS DRYWELL TEMPERATURE

Photos

B-8

ATTACHMENT 1



Equipment ID No.: 21CS*MOV128


Equipment Description: RCIC STEAM SUPPLY INSIDE AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVE


Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): Primary Containment, Elevation 264', Az 1880

Manufacturer/Model:Instructions for Completing ChecklistThis checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on theSWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments andfindings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

Anchorage1. Is anchorage configuration verification required (i.e., is the item one of the 50% No

of SWEL items requiring such verification)?

2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware? N/A

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation? N/A

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? N/A

5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: N/AThis question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorageconfiguration verification is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of Yespotentially adverse seismic conditions?

B-9

ATTACHMENT 1






Interaction Effects





Other Adverse Conditions

11. Have you looked for and found no adverse seismic conditions that could Yesadversely affect the safety functions of the equipment?

Comments

Evaluated by: Andrew Scheg " Date: 11/15/2012


B-10

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: [V N USeismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)




Photos

B-ll

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: W N USeismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC)



Eauipment Description: RCIC STEAM SUPPLY INSIDE AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVE

B-12

ATTACHMENT 1


C Area Walk-By Checklists (AWCs)

Table C-1. Summary of Area Walk-By Checklists

AWCNo. Building Elevation Room-Area-Description Page

Primary Containment- Az 170, in the vicinity of42 PC 249'-0" 2CMS*TE 120 and 2RHS*MOV 112 C-2

Primary Containment- Az188, in the vicinity of

43 PC 261'-0" 2ICS*MOV128 C-4

C-1

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: M N UArea Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Area 42- Primary Containment- Az 170, in the vicinity of

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): 2CMS*TE120 and 2RHS*MOV112


This checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. Thespace below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentiallyadverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

Yes

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significantdegraded conditions?

Yes

3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways andHVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g.,condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to beinside acceptable limits)?

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

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

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

6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactionsthat could cause a fire in the area?

C-2

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: T N UArea Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Area 42- Primary Containment- Az 170, in the vicinity of

Location (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): 2CMS*TE120 and 2RHS*MOV112

7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes

associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, andtemporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could Yes

adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?

Comments

Evaluated by: Andrew Scheg - _ Date: 11/15/2012


C-3

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: ] N UArea Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Area 43- Primary Containment- Az188, in the vicinity ofLocation (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): 21CS*MOV128

Instructions for Completing ChecklistThis checklist may be used to document the results of the Area Walk-By near one or more SWEL items. Thespace below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentiallyadverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

Yes

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significantdegraded conditions?

Yes

3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways andHVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g.,condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to beinside acceptable limits)?

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial

interactions with other equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Yes

Yes

Yes5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactionsthat could cause flooding or spray in the area?

6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactionsthat could cause a fire in the area?

Yes

C-4

ATTACHMENT 1


Status: N UArea Walk-By Checklist (AWC)

Area 43- Primary Containment- Az188, in the vicinity ofLocation (Bldg, Elev, Room/Area): 21CS*MOV1287. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions Yes

associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, andtemporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?

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

Comments

Evaluated by: Andrew Scheg .•4(__ Date: 11/15/2012

Jeff Park 11/15/2012(jU

C-5

ATTACHMENT 1


D SWCsfor Supplemental Internal Inspections of Electrical Cabinets

No SWC component supplemental internal inspections were perfomed as part of the inspection scope addressed inthis report.

D-I

ATTACHMENT 1


E Plan for Future Seismic Walkdown of Inaccessible Equipment

There are three items that have been deferred until the next refueling outage (RFO). Table E-1summarizes the reasons each item is inaccessible during normal plant operation, and notes the plannedSeismic Walkdown date. There is also one area walk-by associated with these items. Condition ReportCR-2012-008440 has been written to schedule the seismic walkdowns (and area walk-bys) for theseitems.

All items will be walked down before or during the next RFO, which occurs in the Spring 2014. Asupplemental report will be provided within three months of the completion of this outage.

Table E-1. Summary of Inaccessible Equipment

SWEL-1 Planned PlannedBuilding and Plann Updated Reason for

List Item Component ID Description Location Walkdown/ Submittal InaccessibilityReport Date

CONTAINMENTPURGE TODRYWELL Item in Primary

PC, Elevation Spring 2014 Containment.17 2CPS*SOV122 INSIDE 96A 50 RO7/31/14

AUTOMATIC 296', Az 65 RFO Walkdown

ISOLATION cannot be

VALVE performed withunit at power or

PC: EL 296', withoutSAFETY/RELIEF Spring 2014

22 2MSS* PSV120 VALVE Rad = 20, RFO 7/31/14 temporaryAZ=30 lighting and

scaffoldingADS VALVE PC: EL 299', Spring 2014

89 21AS*TK34 ACCUMULATOR Rad = 0, AZ=O RFO 7/31/14

Table E-2 includes the list of equipment items that require supplemental internal inspections because theywere not opened during the walkdowns. Cabinets that have been identified as requiring thesesupplemental internal inspections are those with doors or panels with latches or thumbscrews and can bereadily opened during nornmal maintenance activities. Internal inspections for these cabinets are to becompleted in accordance with the station work management scheduling in order to complete them allbefore the end of the next refueling outage. CR-2012-009635 and Work Order C92057302 has beeninitiated to perform the internal inspections.

E-1

ATTACHMENT 1


The Seismic Walkdown Checklists for the 17 equipment items identified in Table E-2 that can be openedfor internal inspections will be revised at the time of the supplemental walkdown to indicate the results ofthese internal inspections. In addition, for items 94, 4 and 7 (2DMS*MCCA1, 2EHS*MCC102, and2ENS*SWGIO1), the internal anchorage needs to be verified to the design drawings. The walkdown foritems 94, 4 and 7 only verified configuration compliance with the external anchorage.

Table E-2. Summary of Equipment Subject to Supplemental Internal Inspections

PlannedSWEL-1 Building Updated

List Class Component ID Description and SubmittalItem # Location Report

Date

2DMS*MCCA1 ABN, 7/31/1494 14 (Notel) 125VDCMCC EL. 240'

2EHS*MCC102 ABN,4 1 (Note•) EMER MCC 102 EL. 240' 7/31/14

5 2 2EJS*PNLI04A 600V EMERGENCY PANEL AN, 7/31/14EL. 240'

RECTIFIER / INVERTER / CR,67 16 2VBA*UPS2C STATIC SWITCH EL. 7/31/14STATIC SWITCH EL. 237'

2CES*PNL405 REMOTE SHUTDOWN CB,85 20 (Note 2) CONTROL PANEL EL. 261' 7/31/14

63 14 2SCM*PNL103A 120/240V AC DIST PNL CRR, 7/31/14EL. 288'

2ENS*SWG101 CSA,7 3 ~Note 1) 4160 EMER SWGR 101 EL. 261' 7/31/14

UNINTERRUPTIBLE PWRSUPP INCLUDING REG CSA,

66 16 2VBA*UPS2A SUPICUIGRGCA 7/31/14TRANSFORMER&MANUAL EL. 261'

BYPASS SWITCH

93 14 2BYS*SWG002A 125VDC SWITCHGEAR CSA, 7/31/14EL. 261'

600V U.S EMERGENCY CSA,6 2 2EJS*US SWITCHGEAR EL. 261' 7/31/14

61 14 2EJA*PNLI01A CB 120/240V HEATER PANEL CSA, 7/31/14EL. 261'

SWGR RM A EMERGENCY CSA,62 14 2EJS* PNL 100A 6VANLE21' 7/31 /14600V PANEL EL. 261'

PANEL (120 VAC POWER CTR,64 14 2VBS*PNLIO1A DISTRIBUTION FROM EL. 288' 7/31/14

2VBA*UPS2A)

95 14 2BYS*PNL204A 125VDC DIST PNL DG, 7/31/14EL. 261'

E-2

ATTACHMENT 1


125 VDC HPCS DIESEL DG,96 14 2CES*IPNL414 GENERATOR DISTRIBUTION EL. 261' 7/31/14

PANEL

SERVICE WATER STRAINERS SA,102 20 2CE S*PNL504 COTO AE L 6' 7/31 /14CONTROL PANEL EL. 261'

SW,106 1 2EHS*MCC101 EMERGENCY MCC 101 EL. 261 7/31/14

Notes: 1) Additional internal anchorage also needs verification during this supplementary walkdown.

2) Need to confirm that panels are bolted together for 2CES*PNL405 in accordance withplant documentation.

E-3

nine mile point, unit 2, submittal of supplemental …seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys section 4...

Documents