Regulatory Guide 1.75: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML13350A340
| number = ML003740265
| issue date = 01/31/1975
| issue date = 09/30/1978
| title = Physical Independence of Electric Systems
| title = Physical Independence of Electric Systems
| author name =  
| author name =  
Line 10: Line 10:
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = RG-1.075, Rev. 1
| document report number = RG-1.75, Rev 2
| document type = Regulatory Guide
| document type = Regulatory Guide
| page count = 3
| page count = 4
}}
}}
{{#Wiki_filter:Revision 1 January 1975 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY  
{{#Wiki_filter:U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
COMMISSION
Revision 2 Septsmber 1978 REGULATORY GUIDE
* REGULATORY  
OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
GUIDE REGULATORY  
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.75 PHYSICAL INDEPENDENCE OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
GUIDE 1.75 PHYSICAL INDEPENDENCE  
A.
OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS  


==A. INTRODUCTION==
INTRODUCTION  
Section 505.5a. "Codes and Standards," of l0 CFR Part 50. "Licensing of Production arid Utiliz.ation Facilities," requires in paragraph (hi) that protectihon systems incel (tie requirenments set forth in tihe Institute ofl Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard,"'Criteria for Protectiun Systemis fur Nuclear Power Generating StatiolnS." (li'lE 271W .Section 4.6 of IEEE Std 279-1971 (also designated ANSI N42.7-1972)
Section 50.55a, "Codes and Standards," of 10
requires.
CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,"  
requires in paragraph (h) that protection systems meet the requirements set forth in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard,  
"Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations" (IEEE 279).1 Sec tion 4.6 of IEEE Std 279-1971 (also designated ANSI N42.7-1972) requires, in part, that chan nels that provide signals for the same protec tive function be independent and physically separated. General Design Criterion 3, "Fire Protection," of Appendix A,
"General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to I0 CFR
Part 50 requires, in part, that structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed and located to minimize, consistent with other safety requirements, the probability and effect of fires. General Design Criterion
17,
"Electric Power Systems," requires, in part, that the onsite electric power supplies, including the batteries, and the onsite electric distribution system have sufficient in dependence to perform their safety functions assuming a single failure. General Design Cri terion 21,
"Protection System Reliability and Testability," reqxiires, in part, that independ ence designed into protection systems be suffi cient to ensure that no single failure results in loss of the protective function.


in part. that channels that provide signals for the same protective function be independent arid physically separated.
This guide describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff of complying with IEEE Std 279
1971 and Criteria 3, 17, and 21 of Appendix A
to 10 CFR Part 50 with respect to the physical independence of the circuits and electric equipment comprising or associanted with the
'Copies may be obtained from the Institute of Eectrical and Electronics Engineers.


General Design Criterion
United Engintering Center. 345 East
3. "Fire Protection.'" it' Appendix A. "(Gencinal DXsiwi Criteria fur Nuclear Power Plants." to 10 CFR Part 50 requires.in part. that structuress, systems. and components important to safety be desitgned anid located to I miniriZe , consistent with other safety requiremen ts, the probability and effect of fires. General Design Criterion 1 7. "Electric Power Systeins," requires.
47th Street. New York, New York 10017.


in part. that the onsite electric power supplies, including the batteries.
Class 1E power system, the protection system, systems actuated or controlled by the protec tion system, and auxiliary or supporting sys tems that must be operable for the protection system and the systems it actuates to perform their safety-related functions. This guide ap plies to all types of nuclear power plants.


and the onsite electric distribution system have sufficient independence to performn their safety flunc-tions assuming a single failure. General Design Criterion 21, "Protection System Reliability and Testability," requires, in part. that independence desiLued into protection systems be sufficient to ensure that no single failure results in loss of the protection function.
This guide addresses only some aspects of defense against the effects of fires. Additional criteria for protection against the effects of fires are provided in Regulatory Guide 1-120,  
"Fire Protection Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants.,  
B.


This guide describes a method acceptable to the Regulatory staff of complying with IEEE Std 279-1971 and Criteria 3. 17. and 21 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 with respect to thie physical independence of the circuits and electric equipment comprising or associated with the Class IE power system, the protection system, systems actuated or controlled by the protection system, and'Copies may be obtained froemthe Institute ot' Electrical and Electronics Engineers, United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th Street, New York. New York 10017.auxiliary or supporting systems that must be operable for the protection system and the systemls it actLuaeCs to perlform their saf'ety-related I'ulctions.
DISCUSSION
Draft IEEE Standard, "Criteria for Separa tion of Class
1E Equipment and Circuits,"
dated July 20, 1973, was prepared by Ad Hoc Subcommittee
6 of the Nuclear Power Engineering Committee (NPEC) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The draft was -subsequently modified by NPEC in August. 1973 incident to the normal process of developing its technical content. The modified draft standard provided criteria for the separation of redundant Class IE equipment and circuits installed at nuclear power plants.


This guide a pplics to all types of niclear power plants.
Inasmuch as there was an urgent need for explicit guidance in the area of physical inde pendence of electric systems and in view of the considerable guidance already available from the modified -IEEE draft standard, the staff prepared a document entitled "Appendix 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.75 - Physical Independence of Electric Systems." This- Appendix, which was essentially the modified IEEE
draft standardi further modified to (a) address ac ceptably those portions of the standard on which there was not complete agreement, (b)
*Lines indicate substantive changes from previous issue.


==B. DISCUSSION==
USNRC REGULATORY GUIDES
Draft II'I"E Standard.
1egmatumy Guidee am band to &oxbo mid ruW
WsHIMl
&M
Ie pt*1c nietodsoospable to la NRC eteff Of knmoain
0
e- c WW
-
lie Se0ef prob poei*dted
*
e*derm or so po"
gAdence 10
ml e
I
tdpMry GAd we not hedtfuftn fW mqs, aid arm V1 with lambI not requke. Melsad end sa&udmw ebrn
10
o
*-oee K ut
& In tho s p ud b e to cepbo ah N lt v ro s a bob fore ta *W
usgmIb~ pw bounnce or earitirwnsoe pe1 i
&
kOr @OWN
b Canuiets aid euggeelion for harovenientah In 0-
gidsa we encoasgjac at eld Oim&oWd rgde w be etwbed. as ep te Pr


"'Criteria t or Separation ot Class IE IEquipnment and Circuits," dated July 20. 1973.was prepared by Ad 1l0c Subcomnmnittee
====c.  o d ====
0 of the Nudear Power Enghieering Comlmittee (NPE(") of the lInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Enilneers.
o th w4d to re~ct ume Inonilon or axpelence. This ii was meted ma mult of eslienei receitved *rom to pidec ond eddkonad gaff rviw.


The dralft was subsequently miodified by NPEC in August 1973 incident to the normnal process of' developing its technical content. The modified draft standard provided criteria for the separation of redundant Class IFI equipment and circuits installed at nuclear power plants.Inasnmuch as there was an urgent need for explicit guidance in the area of physical independence of electtic systems and in view of the considerable guidance already available from tile modified IE-E draf't standard, the Regulatory staff prepared a document entitled, "Appen-dix I to Regulatory Guide 1.75--Physical Independence of Electric Systenms." This Appendix, which was essentially the nmodified IEEE draft standard further modified to (a) address acceptably those portions of the standard on which there was not complete agreement.(b) describe logical extensions of the standard's provisions that were acceptable to tile Regulatory staff.and (c) provide clarification where necessary.
a imw dsid be em W W In ft liCowN
a Wo ied N eo I. Poum RcOtMrs


was endorsed by the February 1974 version of this guide.Subsequent to the issuance of the February 1974 version of this guide, the modified IEEE draft standard upon which the guide and its Appendix were based evolved, in the normal course of standard developnment.
====s. vmrxon ====
2. ReeahwdimdTeat Revmo~
7. Traiopution S. Fukl m
od Metmkba F~im
::o
=o M
4. Esikonmiirm mid 1::hig
5.ari~itR~
& Mstmwih mid ProectW
a eral feqoast for uhig egooes of bmaed dMn Wkhd noy be uprOduce) or tar i
ancemen aien asmaswefc detkution kt f *de cone of kftns gides
""ons ei*Id be nod& In ug W"
W
U,& Nuch Reg.Aty Comnakn. Wi*kns
.
D.C. Z.


into IEEE Std 384-1974, "IEEE Trial-Use Standard Criteria for Separation of Class IE Equipment atid Circuits," (also designated ANSI N41.14). IEEE Sid 384-1974 has undergone balloting within Ad Hoc Subcommittee
AtmnW
6 arid NPEC and was approved by tile USNRC REGULATORY
Dkocw.
GUIDES Copies of published quides may be obtained byV equest indicating the divisions fdett ited to the U.S, Nucle,,, Reguatinty Commiiveon.


Washir.glot,.  
Dmiden Of Tedhad bInu.on mid Documeo Caga.
0 C 20b55.Regulatory Guides ae kt~ild Io des~cribe and matke available to the public Altelmn Director of Standards Oeveelopme.nt Commentts and %utgeest-inis tIn method% acceptable to the NRC staff of impfrrntenling specific parts of Iliae in these guides are encoutraged and hIe sent to the.Commisslion's regutaiotr,, to detinatet ftchn


====i. hitueS ====
I
ust.t1 by the staff in srcetlatv of the? Comlmiisin.
*


U.S Nucleart Regulatorv Comtnlitssll.
describe logical extensions of the standard's.


evaluating specific ptoblemls or postulated accidents.
provisions that were acceptable to the staff, and (a) provide clarification where necessary,. 
was endorsed by the February 1974 version of this guide.


or to provide guidance to Washingtotn.
Subsequent to the issuance of the February
1974 version of this guide, the modified MEEE
draft standard upon which the guide and its Appendix were based evolved, in the normal course of standard development, into IEEE Std
384-1974,
"IEEE Trial-Use Standard Criteria for Separation of Cuss JR Xupmen-
-Cir- cults" (also designated ANSI N41.14). IEEE Std
384-1974 has undergone balloting within Ad Hoc Subcommittee .6 and NPEC and was approved by the IEEE Standards' Board on February 28,
1974. This revision to the guide endorses, with certain exceptions, IEEE Ptd 384-1974.


0 C 20555. Attention Oockeling and Service Section applicants Regulatery Guides sre ntof %ubslitutes fot tegllation$
The NRC staff does not agree with certain"
and compliance with them is not tegqired.
provisions of the trial-use standard such as those pertaining to the definition of "raceway,"
the routing of power cables through the cable spreading area(s) and control room', and tie status of non-Class-lI circuits that are. not separated from associated circuits by accept able distance or bairiers. This lack of agree ment is reflected in Regulatory Positions C. 1,
2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12.


Methods aid soluftons different from those set out irn The guides ate issued its the fallowing feti broad division%the guides wtll be acceptable if Ihey provide a ba$si$i for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of A permit or license by the Commission. "i Power Reactots 6. Products 2. Reearch and Toes Reacturs
There are also several regulatory positions that are logical extensions of the standard's provisions and reflect current staff review practice.


===7. rtiansporinaort===
For example, a provision of the standard that addresses the
3. Fuels and Materiail lactlilies
"degree of separation commensurate with the damage
8 Occupational Health Published guides will be tevised periodicitlly.
3otential of the hazard" does not specifically zover cable tunnels which, in the event of a fire, may not effectively separate redundant circuits or equipment. As another example, the standard requires that methods of identification distinguish between redundant Class
1E
systems, associated circuits, and non-Class-IX
systems.


as appropriate.
By implication, associated circuits assigned to different redundant divisions should also be identified.


to accommodale
However, the provision is implicit.
4 Envitonmental and Silinit 9 Antitrust Review comments and to reflect new informatlort or esperience
5. Materials and Plant Protection
10. Genteral IEEE Standards Bfoard on February 28, 1974. This revision to tile guide endorses, with certain exceptions.


IEEE Std 384-1974.The Regulatory staff does not agree with certain proisions of the trial-use standard such as those pertaining to the definition of "raceway." the routing of power cables through the cable spreading area(s) and control room, and the status of non-Class It: circuits that are not separated from associated circuits by acceptable distance or barriers.
An explicit provision should be provided.


This lack of agreement is reflected in Regulator)y lositions C.1. 2. 4. 6. 7, 9. 10. and 12;There are also several regulatory positions that are logical extensions of the Standard's provisions and reflect current Regulatory staff review practice.
Detailid bases are included herein for those regulatory positions that are significantly at iariance with the standard's provisions. The remaining regulatory positions are logical ex tensions or clarifications of the standard's pro visions.


For example, a provision of the standard which addresses the"'degree of separation commensurate with the damage potential of the hai.ard" does not specifically cover cable tunnels which, in the event of a fire. may not effectively separate redundant circuits or equipment.
C.


As another example. the standard requires that methods of identification distinguish between redundant Class IE systems, associated circuits, and non-Class IE systems.By implication, associated circuits assiged to different redundant divisions should also be identified.
REGULATORY POSITION
IEEE Std 384-1974 sets forth criteria for the separation of circuits and equipment. that are redundant. The determination of which circuits and equipment are redundant and the degree of redundancy required is outside the scope of this guide and the standard. The standard also sets forth criteria relating to tests and analyses for determining the flame-retardant characteristics of proposed cable installations.


However.the provision is implicit.
The criteria are acceptable provided such tests and analyses are based on realistic premises and are otherwise fully applicable to the actual.


An explicit provision should be provided.I.)tailed bases are included herein for those regulatory positions that are significantly at variance with the standard's provisions.
cable installations.


The remaining regulatory positions are logical extensions.
The guidance in IEEE Std 384-1974, "IEEE
Trial-Use Standard Criteria for Separation of Class IR
Equipment and Circuits,"
dated
,farch 15, 1974, is generally acceptable to the NRC staff and provides an adequate basis for complying with IEEE Std 279-1971 and the Commission's General Design Criteria 3, 17, an& 21- of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part. 50 with.


or clarifications.
respect to the physical independence of the circuits and electric equipment comprising or associated with the Class 1E power system, the protection system, systems actuated or controlled by the protection system, and auxiliary or supporting systems that must be operable for the protection system and the systems it actuates to perform their safety related functions, subject to the following:
1. Section 3,
"Isolation Device," should be supplemented as follows:
"(Interrupting de vices actuated only by fault current are not considered to be isolation devices within the context of this document.)"
Basis: Logical extension of the standard's provisions. The standard defines "isolation device" in terms of preventing malfunctions in one section of a circuit from causing un acceptable influences in other sections of the circuit or other circuits. Under the postu lated conditions of a loss-of-coolant accident,. 
loss of offsite power, and a cable tray fire, the proximity of circuits energized from re dundant Class 1E power sources could lead to concurrent high fault currents (e.g., short to ground) which, in turn, threaten the re dundant main circuit breakers.


of the standard's provisions.
Also, the susceptibility of non-Class-IE loads ener gized from redundant Class 1E power sources to design basis events (e.g., seismic events)
could similarly threaten the redundant main circuit breakers. Tripping of the main circuit breakers would cause the. loss of emergency power to redundant "divisions" of equipment.


C. REGULATORY
It is recognized that proper breaker or fuse coordination would preclude such an event.
POSITION IEEE Std 384-1974 sets forth criteria for the separation of circuits and equipment that are redundant.


The determination of which circuits and equipment are redundant and the degree of redundancy required is outside, the scope of this guide and the standard.
However, because the main breakers are in series with the fault and could experience momentary currents above their setpoints, it is prudent to preclude the use of inter rupting devices actuated only by fault cur rent as acceptable devices for isolating non Class-IE circuits from Class 1E or associated circuits.


The standard also sets forth criteria relating to tests and analyses for determining the flame-retardant character- istics of proposed cable installations.
Breakers that trip on receipt of a signal other than one derived from the fault current or its effects (e.g., an accident signal) are acceptable since the downstream circuits would. already be isolated from their respec tive power sources under accident conditions and could pose no threat to these sources.


The criteria are acceptable provided such tests and analyses are based on realistic premises and are otherwise fully applicable to the actual cable installations.
1.75-2 KYý


The guidance in IEEE Std 384-1974, "IEEE Trial-Use Standard Criteria for Separation of Class IE Equipment and Circuits," dated Match 15, 1974, is generally acceptable to the Regulatory staff and provides an adequate basis for complying with IEEE Std 279-1971 and the Commission's General Criteria 3, 17, and 21 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 with respect to the physical independence of the circuits and electric equipment comprising or associated with the Class IE power system, the protection system, systems actuated or controlled by the protection system, and auxiliary or supporting systems that must be operable for the protection system and the systems it actuates to perform.their safety-related functions, subject to the following:
2. Section 3,  
I. Section 3, Isolation Device, should be supplemented as follows: "(Interrupting devices actuated only by fault current are not considered to be isolation devices within the context of this document.)" Basis: Loigcal extension of the Standard ' prow isons.The standard defines "isolation device'" in terms of preventing ,nalfinct ions in one section of a circuit from causing unzacceptable influences in other sections of the circuit or other circuits.
"Raceway". Interlocked armor
"enclosing cable should not be construed as a
"raceway".
Basis: There is no precedent or other known R
reason for considering such cable to be a "raceway". This regulatory position is con sistent with current industry practice, including the provisions of the National Elec tric Code.


Under the postulated conditions of a loss-of coolant accident, loss of offsite power, and a cable tray' fire. the proximity of circuits energi2ed from re'dundant Class IE power sources could lead to concurrent high fault currents (e.g. short to ground)which, in turn, threaten the redundant main circuit breakers.
3. Section 4.3 should be supplemented as.


Also. the susceptibilityv of non-Class I1:" loads etrergized fromi redundant Class IE power sources to design basis event (e.g., seismic events) could similarly'
follows: "In general, locating redundant cir cuits and equipment in separate safety class structures affords a greater degree of assur ance that a single event will not affect redun dant systems.
threaten the redundant main circuit breakers.


7Tipping of the mttain circcuit breakers wouhld cause f/ie loss of elercgen'c, pow'er to redundant "divisionss" of equip-ni'nf. It is rec-ognized that proper breaker or fiise coordination would preclude such an event. However, because the main breakers are in series with the fault and could experience monmentaryv currents above their setpoints, it is pnrdent to preclude the use of inter-rupqting devices actuated onl' by fault current as acceptable devices for isolating non-Class A1 circuits from Class IE or A ssociated circuits.Breakers that trip on receipt of a signal other than one derived from the flhult crurrentt or its effects (e.g.. an accident sigital) are acceptable since the downstream circuits would already be isolated from their respective power sources under accident conditions and could pose nro threat to these sources.2. Section 3, Raceway: Interlocked armor enclosing cable should not be construed as a "raceway".
This method of separation should be used whenever practicable and where its use does not conflict with other safety objectives."  
Basis: There is no precedent or other ktrown valid reason for consideritig such cable to be a "raceway" 77Tis regulatory position is consistent with current industry practice includinig the provisions of the National Electric Code.3. Section 4.3 should be supplemented as follows: "In general, locating redundant circuits and equipment in separate safety class structures affords a greater degree of assurance that a single event will not affect redundant systems. This method of separation should be used whenever practicable and where its use does not conflict with other safety objectives." 4. Associated circuits installed in accordance with Section 4.5(1) should be subject to all requirements placed on Class IE circuits such as cable derating, environmental qualification, flame retardance, splicing restrictions, and raceway fill unless it can be demonstiated that the absence of such requirements could not significantly reduce the availability c,f the Class IE circuits.1.75-2 Basis: This is a logical extension of the standard s provisions.
4. Associated circuits installed in accordance with Section 4.5(1) should be subject to all re quirementa placed on Class lE circuits such as cable derating, environmental qualification, flame retardance, splicing restrictions, and raceway fill unless it can be demonstrated that the absence of such requirements could not significantly reduce the availability of the Class IE circuits.


The specified minimum acceptable separation distances for raceways carrying Class IE circuits are predicated on assumptions related to flame r?,tardawce, cable derating.
Basis: This is a logical extension of the stanaard's provisions. The specified minimum acceptable separation distances for raceways carrying Class 1E circuits are predicated on assumptions related to flame retardance, cable derating, etc. The placement of cables of lesser qualification in these raceways would nullify these assumptions.


etc. The placement of cables of lesser qualification in these raceways would nullify these assumptions.
5. The "Note" following Section 4.5 should be supplemented as follows: "This exemption is limited and does not extend to other require ments such as those of General Design Criter ion 17."
6. Analyses performed in accordance with Sections 4.5(3), 4.6.2, and 5.1.1.2 should be submitted as part of the Safety Analysis Report and should identify those circuits installed in accordance with these sections.


5. The "Note" following Section 4.5 should be supplemented as follows: "This exemption is limited and does not extend to other requirements such as those of General Design Criterion
Basis: Extension of Regulatory Guide 1.70,
17." 6. Analyses performed in accordance with Sections 4.5(3), 4.6.2, and 5.1.1.2 should be submitted as part of the Safety Analysis Report and should identify those circuits installed in accordance with these sections.Basis: Extension of Regulatory Guide 1. 70 to provide the information needed in order for the staff to independently verify conformance to the standard.7. Non-Class IE instrumentation and control circuits should not be exempted from the provisions of Section 4.6.2.Basis: There is no firm technical basis for an unrestricted exemption of these circuits.
'Sfhdard Format and Content of Safety Ana lysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,"
to provide the information needed in order for the staff to independently verify conformance to the standard.


Exetnptions should be justified by analysis.8. Section 5.1.1.1 should not be construed to imply that adequate separation of redundant circuits can be achieved within a confined space such as a cable tunnel that is effectively unventilated.
7. Non-Class-lE instrumentation and control circuits should not be exempted from the pro visions of Section 4.6.2.


9. Section 5.1.1.3 should be supplemented as follows: "(4) Cable splices in raceways should be prohibited." Basis: Splices have been identified as the initiating cause of several fires in raceways.
Basis: There is no firm technical basis for an unrestricted exemption of these circuits.


Even where the separation distance is adequate to prevent a fire in the raceways of one division from affecting cables in a redundant division, all practicable means should be used to prevent the occurrence of a fire. This position against splices in raceways is therefore prudent. Splices are nrot, by themselves, unacceptable.
Exemptions should be justified by analysis.


If they exist, the resulting design should be justified by analyses.
8. Section 5.1.1.1 should not be construed to imply that adequate separation of redundant circuits can be achieved within a confined space such as a cable tunnel that Is effectively unventilated.


The analyses should be submitted as part of the Safety Analysis Report.10. Section 5.1.2, the phrase -at a sufficient number of points" should be understood to mean at intervals not to exceed 5 ft throughout the entire cable length. Also the preferred method of marking cable is color coding.Basis: 7This is a logical extension of the standard's provisions.
9. Section 5.1.1.3 should be supplemented as follows: "(4) Cable splices in raceways should be prohibited."
Basis: Splices have been identified as the n--iUting cause of several fires in raceway$. 
Even where the separation distance is adequate to prevent a fire in the raceways of one division from affecting cables in a
redundant division, all practicable means should be used to prevent the occurrence of a fire. This position against splices in race ways is therefore prudent. Splices are not, by themselves, unacceptable. If they exist, the resulting design should be justified by analyses. The analyses should be submitted as part of the Safety Analysis Report.


A 5 ft maximum marking distance is considered necessary to facilitate visual verification that the cable installation is in conformance with separation criteria.I1. Section 5.1.2 should be supplemented as follows: "The method of identification used should be simple and should preclude the need to consult any reference material to distinguish between Class IE and Non-Class IE circuits, between Non-Class IF circuits associated with different redundant Class-IE systenms, and between redundant Class IE systems.'12. Pending issuance of other acceptable criteria, those portions of Section 5.1.3 (exclusive of the NOTE following the second paragraph)
10. Section 5.1.2, the phrase "at a sufficient number of points" should be understood to mean at intervals not to exceed 5 ft throughout the entire cable length.
that permvi the routing of power cables through the cable spreading area(s) and.by implication, the control room. should not he construed as accepiwble.


Also. Section 5.1.3 should be supplemented as follows: "WWhere feasible, redundant cable spreading areas should be utilized.-
Also, the preferred method of marking cable is color coding.
Basis: This is a pnident specific interpretation o" thc standard's provisions in thi absncee sPcciic guidan.wc.


The Regulator'
Basis: This is a logical extension of the nsn-ard's provisions.
staff recognizes that vibset,qent investigation may, prove that this approach is too conservative, however, in the absence of supporti,:e evidence to the contrarY, this cotisern'ative apprroach is desirable.


The use of redundant cable sprcading art-as is a logical extension of the standard's pr.'f)isions (relf Scction 5.1.1.1).13, No significance should be attached to the different tray widths illustrated in Figure 2.14. Section 5.2.1 should be supplemented as follows: "And should have independent air supplies." 15. Where ventilation is required, the separate safety class structures required by Section 5.3.1 should he served by independent ventilation systems.16. The first paragraph of Section 5.7 should be augmented as follows: "The separation requirements .of 5.6 apply to instrumentation cabinets."
A
5-ft maximum marking distance is considered necessary to facilitate visual verification that the cable installation is in conformance with separation criteria.


==D. IMPLEMENTATION==
11. Section 5.1.2 should be supplemented as follows: "The method of identification used should be simple and should preclude the need to consult any reference material to distinguish between Class 1E and Non-Class-lE circuits, between Non-Class-lE circuits associated with different redundant Class 1E systems, and between redundant Class lE systems."
The purpose of this section is to provide information to applicants and licensees regarding the Regulatory staffs plans for utilizing this regulatory guidu.This guide reflects current regulatory practice.Therefore, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative method for comn-plying with specified portions of the Commission's regulations, this guide will be used by the Regulatory staff in evaluating all construction permit applications for which the issue date of the Safety Evaluation Report is February I, 1974, or after.1.75.3}}
12. Pending issuance of other acceptable criteria, those portions of Section 5.1.3 (ex clusive of the Note following the second para graph) that permit the routing of power cables through the cable spreading area(s) and, by implication, the control room, should not be construed as acceptable.
 
Also, 'Section 5.1.3 should be supplemented as follows: "Where feasible, redundant cable spreading areas should be utilized."
Basis: This is a prudent specific interpreta
-n--of the standard's provisions in the ab sence of specific guidance. The staff recog nizes that subsequent investigation may prove that this approach is too conservative;
however, in the absence of supporting evidence to the contrary, this conservative approach is desirable.
 
1.75-3
 
The use of redundant cable spreading areas Is aloic" extension of the standard's provi sions re. Section 5.1.1.1). 
13. No significance should be attached to the different tray widths Illustrated in Figure 2.
 
14. Section 5.2.1 should be supplemented as follows:
"And should have independent air supplies,
15. Where ventilation is required, the sepa rate safety. class structures required by Sec tion 5.3.1 should be served by independent.
 
ventilation systems.
 
16. The first paragraph of Section 5.7 should be augmented as follows, "The separation re UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20551 O*FI*IAL
MJSI NESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. 3300
quirements of 5.6 apply to instrumentation cabinets."
D.
 
IMPLEMENTATION  
The purpose o this section is to provide in formation to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide. This guide reflects current NRC staff practice. Therefore, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative method for complying with specified portions of the Commission's regulations, this guide will he used by the NRC staff in evaluat ing all construction permit applications for which the issue date of the Safety Evaluation Report is February 1, 1974, or after.
 
POSTAGI AN: PIECE PAID
U.S. NUCLIAN UEDULATO1"
COMU15gS6ON
1.75-4}}


{{RG-Nav}}
{{RG-Nav}}

Latest revision as of 02:06, 17 January 2025

Physical Independence of Electric Systems
ML003740265
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/30/1978
From:
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
To:
References
RG-1.75, Rev 2
Download: ML003740265 (4)


U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Revision 2 Septsmber 1978 REGULATORY GUIDE

OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT

REGULATORY GUIDE 1.75 PHYSICAL INDEPENDENCE OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS

A.

INTRODUCTION

Section 50.55a, "Codes and Standards," of 10

CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,"

requires in paragraph (h) that protection systems meet the requirements set forth in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard,

"Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations" (IEEE 279).1 Sec tion 4.6 of IEEE Std 279-1971 (also designated ANSI N42.7-1972) requires, in part, that chan nels that provide signals for the same protec tive function be independent and physically separated. General Design Criterion 3, "Fire Protection," of Appendix A,

"General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to I0 CFR

Part 50 requires, in part, that structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed and located to minimize, consistent with other safety requirements, the probability and effect of fires. General Design Criterion 17,

"Electric Power Systems," requires, in part, that the onsite electric power supplies, including the batteries, and the onsite electric distribution system have sufficient in dependence to perform their safety functions assuming a single failure. General Design Cri terion 21,

"Protection System Reliability and Testability," reqxiires, in part, that independ ence designed into protection systems be suffi cient to ensure that no single failure results in loss of the protective function.

This guide describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff of complying with IEEE Std 279

1971 and Criteria 3, 17, and 21 of Appendix A

to 10 CFR Part 50 with respect to the physical independence of the circuits and electric equipment comprising or associanted with the

'Copies may be obtained from the Institute of Eectrical and Electronics Engineers.

United Engintering Center. 345 East

47th Street. New York, New York 10017.

Class 1E power system, the protection system, systems actuated or controlled by the protec tion system, and auxiliary or supporting sys tems that must be operable for the protection system and the systems it actuates to perform their safety-related functions. This guide ap plies to all types of nuclear power plants.

This guide addresses only some aspects of defense against the effects of fires. Additional criteria for protection against the effects of fires are provided in Regulatory Guide 1-120,

"Fire Protection Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants.,

B.

DISCUSSION

Draft IEEE Standard, "Criteria for Separa tion of Class

1E Equipment and Circuits,"

dated July 20, 1973, was prepared by Ad Hoc Subcommittee

6 of the Nuclear Power Engineering Committee (NPEC) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The draft was -subsequently modified by NPEC in August. 1973 incident to the normal process of developing its technical content. The modified draft standard provided criteria for the separation of redundant Class IE equipment and circuits installed at nuclear power plants.

Inasmuch as there was an urgent need for explicit guidance in the area of physical inde pendence of electric systems and in view of the considerable guidance already available from the modified -IEEE draft standard, the staff prepared a document entitled "Appendix 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.75 - Physical Independence of Electric Systems." This- Appendix, which was essentially the modified IEEE

draft standardi further modified to (a) address ac ceptably those portions of the standard on which there was not complete agreement, (b)

  • Lines indicate substantive changes from previous issue.

USNRC REGULATORY GUIDES

1egmatumy Guidee am band to &oxbo mid ruW

WsHIMl

&M

Ie pt*1c nietodsoospable to la NRC eteff Of knmoain

0

e- c WW

-

lie Se0ef prob poei*dted

e*derm or so po"

gAdence 10

ml e

I

tdpMry GAd we not hedtfuftn fW mqs, aid arm V1 with lambI not requke. Melsad end sa&udmw ebrn

10

o

  • -oee K ut

& In tho s p ud b e to cepbo ah N lt v ro s a bob fore ta *W

usgmIb~ pw bounnce or earitirwnsoe pe1 i

&

kOr @OWN

b Canuiets aid euggeelion for harovenientah In 0-

gidsa we encoasgjac at eld Oim&oWd rgde w be etwbed. as ep te Pr

c. o d

o th w4d to re~ct ume Inonilon or axpelence. This ii was meted ma mult of eslienei receitved *rom to pidec ond eddkonad gaff rviw.

a imw dsid be em W W In ft liCowN

a Wo ied N eo I. Poum RcOtMrs

s. vmrxon

2. ReeahwdimdTeat Revmo~

7. Traiopution S. Fukl m

od Metmkba F~im

o

=o M

4. Esikonmiirm mid 1::hig

5.ari~itR~

& Mstmwih mid ProectW

a eral feqoast for uhig egooes of bmaed dMn Wkhd noy be uprOduce) or tar i

ancemen aien asmaswefc detkution kt f *de cone of kftns gides

""ons ei*Id be nod& In ug W"

W

U,& Nuch Reg.Aty Comnakn. Wi*kns

.

D.C. Z.

AtmnW

Dkocw.

Dmiden Of Tedhad bInu.on mid Documeo Caga.

I

describe logical extensions of the standard's.

provisions that were acceptable to the staff, and (a) provide clarification where necessary,.

was endorsed by the February 1974 version of this guide.

Subsequent to the issuance of the February

1974 version of this guide, the modified MEEE

draft standard upon which the guide and its Appendix were based evolved, in the normal course of standard development, into IEEE Std 384-1974,

"IEEE Trial-Use Standard Criteria for Separation of Cuss JR Xupmen-

-Cir- cults" (also designated ANSI N41.14). IEEE Std 384-1974 has undergone balloting within Ad Hoc Subcommittee .6 and NPEC and was approved by the IEEE Standards' Board on February 28,

1974. This revision to the guide endorses, with certain exceptions, IEEE Ptd 384-1974.

The NRC staff does not agree with certain"

provisions of the trial-use standard such as those pertaining to the definition of "raceway,"

the routing of power cables through the cable spreading area(s) and control room', and tie status of non-Class-lI circuits that are. not separated from associated circuits by accept able distance or bairiers. This lack of agree ment is reflected in Regulatory Positions C. 1,

2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12.

There are also several regulatory positions that are logical extensions of the standard's provisions and reflect current staff review practice.

For example, a provision of the standard that addresses the

"degree of separation commensurate with the damage

3otential of the hazard" does not specifically zover cable tunnels which, in the event of a fire, may not effectively separate redundant circuits or equipment. As another example, the standard requires that methods of identification distinguish between redundant Class

1E

systems, associated circuits, and non-Class-IX

systems.

By implication, associated circuits assigned to different redundant divisions should also be identified.

However, the provision is implicit.

An explicit provision should be provided.

Detailid bases are included herein for those regulatory positions that are significantly at iariance with the standard's provisions. The remaining regulatory positions are logical ex tensions or clarifications of the standard's pro visions.

C.

REGULATORY POSITION

IEEE Std 384-1974 sets forth criteria for the separation of circuits and equipment. that are redundant. The determination of which circuits and equipment are redundant and the degree of redundancy required is outside the scope of this guide and the standard. The standard also sets forth criteria relating to tests and analyses for determining the flame-retardant characteristics of proposed cable installations.

The criteria are acceptable provided such tests and analyses are based on realistic premises and are otherwise fully applicable to the actual.

cable installations.

The guidance in IEEE Std 384-1974, "IEEE

Trial-Use Standard Criteria for Separation of Class IR

Equipment and Circuits,"

dated

,farch 15, 1974, is generally acceptable to the NRC staff and provides an adequate basis for complying with IEEE Std 279-1971 and the Commission's General Design Criteria 3, 17, an& 21- of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part. 50 with.

respect to the physical independence of the circuits and electric equipment comprising or associated with the Class 1E power system, the protection system, systems actuated or controlled by the protection system, and auxiliary or supporting systems that must be operable for the protection system and the systems it actuates to perform their safety related functions, subject to the following:

1. Section 3,

"Isolation Device," should be supplemented as follows:

"(Interrupting de vices actuated only by fault current are not considered to be isolation devices within the context of this document.)"

Basis: Logical extension of the standard's provisions. The standard defines "isolation device" in terms of preventing malfunctions in one section of a circuit from causing un acceptable influences in other sections of the circuit or other circuits. Under the postu lated conditions of a loss-of-coolant accident,.

loss of offsite power, and a cable tray fire, the proximity of circuits energized from re dundant Class 1E power sources could lead to concurrent high fault currents (e.g., short to ground) which, in turn, threaten the re dundant main circuit breakers.

Also, the susceptibility of non-Class-IE loads ener gized from redundant Class 1E power sources to design basis events (e.g., seismic events)

could similarly threaten the redundant main circuit breakers. Tripping of the main circuit breakers would cause the. loss of emergency power to redundant "divisions" of equipment.

It is recognized that proper breaker or fuse coordination would preclude such an event.

However, because the main breakers are in series with the fault and could experience momentary currents above their setpoints, it is prudent to preclude the use of inter rupting devices actuated only by fault cur rent as acceptable devices for isolating non Class-IE circuits from Class 1E or associated circuits.

Breakers that trip on receipt of a signal other than one derived from the fault current or its effects (e.g., an accident signal) are acceptable since the downstream circuits would. already be isolated from their respec tive power sources under accident conditions and could pose no threat to these sources.

1.75-2 KYý

2. Section 3,

"Raceway". Interlocked armor

"enclosing cable should not be construed as a

"raceway".

Basis: There is no precedent or other known R

reason for considering such cable to be a "raceway". This regulatory position is con sistent with current industry practice, including the provisions of the National Elec tric Code.

3. Section 4.3 should be supplemented as.

follows: "In general, locating redundant cir cuits and equipment in separate safety class structures affords a greater degree of assur ance that a single event will not affect redun dant systems.

This method of separation should be used whenever practicable and where its use does not conflict with other safety objectives."

4. Associated circuits installed in accordance with Section 4.5(1) should be subject to all re quirementa placed on Class lE circuits such as cable derating, environmental qualification, flame retardance, splicing restrictions, and raceway fill unless it can be demonstrated that the absence of such requirements could not significantly reduce the availability of the Class IE circuits.

Basis: This is a logical extension of the stanaard's provisions. The specified minimum acceptable separation distances for raceways carrying Class 1E circuits are predicated on assumptions related to flame retardance, cable derating, etc. The placement of cables of lesser qualification in these raceways would nullify these assumptions.

5. The "Note" following Section 4.5 should be supplemented as follows: "This exemption is limited and does not extend to other require ments such as those of General Design Criter ion 17."

6. Analyses performed in accordance with Sections 4.5(3), 4.6.2, and 5.1.1.2 should be submitted as part of the Safety Analysis Report and should identify those circuits installed in accordance with these sections.

Basis: Extension of Regulatory Guide 1.70,

'Sfhdard Format and Content of Safety Ana lysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,"

to provide the information needed in order for the staff to independently verify conformance to the standard.

7. Non-Class-lE instrumentation and control circuits should not be exempted from the pro visions of Section 4.6.2.

Basis: There is no firm technical basis for an unrestricted exemption of these circuits.

Exemptions should be justified by analysis.

8. Section 5.1.1.1 should not be construed to imply that adequate separation of redundant circuits can be achieved within a confined space such as a cable tunnel that Is effectively unventilated.

9. Section 5.1.1.3 should be supplemented as follows: "(4) Cable splices in raceways should be prohibited."

Basis: Splices have been identified as the n--iUting cause of several fires in raceway$.

Even where the separation distance is adequate to prevent a fire in the raceways of one division from affecting cables in a

redundant division, all practicable means should be used to prevent the occurrence of a fire. This position against splices in race ways is therefore prudent. Splices are not, by themselves, unacceptable. If they exist, the resulting design should be justified by analyses. The analyses should be submitted as part of the Safety Analysis Report.

10. Section 5.1.2, the phrase "at a sufficient number of points" should be understood to mean at intervals not to exceed 5 ft throughout the entire cable length.

Also, the preferred method of marking cable is color coding.

Basis: This is a logical extension of the nsn-ard's provisions.

A

5-ft maximum marking distance is considered necessary to facilitate visual verification that the cable installation is in conformance with separation criteria.

11. Section 5.1.2 should be supplemented as follows: "The method of identification used should be simple and should preclude the need to consult any reference material to distinguish between Class 1E and Non-Class-lE circuits, between Non-Class-lE circuits associated with different redundant Class 1E systems, and between redundant Class lE systems."

12. Pending issuance of other acceptable criteria, those portions of Section 5.1.3 (ex clusive of the Note following the second para graph) that permit the routing of power cables through the cable spreading area(s) and, by implication, the control room, should not be construed as acceptable.

Also, 'Section 5.1.3 should be supplemented as follows: "Where feasible, redundant cable spreading areas should be utilized."

Basis: This is a prudent specific interpreta

-n--of the standard's provisions in the ab sence of specific guidance. The staff recog nizes that subsequent investigation may prove that this approach is too conservative;

however, in the absence of supporting evidence to the contrary, this conservative approach is desirable.

1.75-3

The use of redundant cable spreading areas Is aloic" extension of the standard's provi sions re. Section 5.1.1.1).

13. No significance should be attached to the different tray widths Illustrated in Figure 2.

14. Section 5.2.1 should be supplemented as follows:

"And should have independent air supplies,

15. Where ventilation is required, the sepa rate safety. class structures required by Sec tion 5.3.1 should be served by independent.

ventilation systems.

16. The first paragraph of Section 5.7 should be augmented as follows, "The separation re UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20551 O*FI*IAL

MJSI NESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. 3300

quirements of 5.6 apply to instrumentation cabinets."

D.

IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose o this section is to provide in formation to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide. This guide reflects current NRC staff practice. Therefore, except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative method for complying with specified portions of the Commission's regulations, this guide will he used by the NRC staff in evaluat ing all construction permit applications for which the issue date of the Safety Evaluation Report is February 1, 1974, or after.

POSTAGI AN: PIECE PAID

U.S. NUCLIAN UEDULATO1"

COMU15gS6ON

1.75-4