ML17055B549

Change Notice 5 to Rev 2 to Procedure EAP 3.1, Verification of Nuclear Power Plant Designs.

ML17055B549
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	09/24/1984
From:	STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17055B512	List: ML17055B511 ML17055B513 ML17055B515 ML17055B517 ML17055B520 ML17055B522 ML17055B524 ML17055B525 ML17055B527 ML17055B528 ML17055B530 ML17055B532 ML17055B533 ML17055B534 ML17055B535 ML17055B537 ML17055B538 ML17055B539 ML17055B540 ML17055B541 ML17055B542 ML17055B543 ML17055B544 ML17055B546 ML17055B547 ML17055B549 ML18038A154
References
EAP-3.1, NUDOCS 8604280299
Download: ML17055B549 (28)

Text

Enclosure 827 EAP3.i IT4NE 4 WEbSTEk ENGINEERING COkPOkATI4N ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROCEDURE TITLE REVISION: .2.

VERIFICATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DESIGNS DATE: 9/w,/e, PAGE I OF 1 APPLI CAB ILITY SUPERSEDES SEE BASIC EAP CONCURRENCE APPROVAL CHIEF, ENG EER G ASSURANCE CHANGE NOTICE NO. 5 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This change is issued to reflect the transfer of the Operational Design Review (ODR) Group from Operations Services Division to Advisory Operations Division.

2.0 CHANGE 2.1 Remove and discard all pages of EAP 3.1, Rev. 2, Change Notice No. 4, presently contained in the EA Manual.

2.2 Insert the attached copy of EAP 3.1 into the EA Manual.

2.3" File this Change Notice in front of EAP 3.1.

8504280299 850415 pDR ADOCK 05000410 P PDR

r PV .1 l~ru C

Arrl 1 -w r rAQtl>> 7w rAg I

I r, -,~ %404hp ~ 4 3

\

lr %1%1 ~ %E ~~ a

~ r r Kr 'r ~

earl i' C

r. ~ P

~ '

~ 'r

STONE 4 WESSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROCEDURE TITLE REVISION:

VERIFICATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DESIGNS DATE'. Fe-aru~ 8~1977 PAGE I OF 7 APPLI CAB ILITY SUPERSEDES SEE PROJECT APPLICABILITY SHEET EAP 3.1, Rev. 1 ATTACHMENT 6.1 CONCURRENCE APPROVAL

/

g ~<fait' SR. ENGIN "MANAGER 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE To establish the requirements for verification of SWEC nuclear power plant designs.

1.2 The requirements of this EAP apply to all SNEC QA Category I designs.

2.0 GENERAL 2.1 Verification of nuclear power plant designs shall be accomplished by "independent objective review" of key design documents. The purpose of this review is to verify the adequacy of design by substantiating that the design inputs have been correctly selected, and that the design meets the specified inputs.

2.2 Definitions 2.2.1 Independent Objective Review (verification) - A review performed according to this EAP by individuals or groups having no direct or immediate supervisory responsibility for developing the design. This review is performed on "key design documents" in addition to the conformance review required for each document type by the applicable EAP.

2.2.2 Key Design Documents Those design documents that establish design criteria, describe the design approach or otherwise define the design to the detail necessary to allow preparation of final design output documents.

These documents are identified by type in Table I, paragraph 4.0 of this EAP.

EAP 3. l, Rev. 2 Page 2 Conformance Review - A review of design documents, required by the applicable EAPs, prior to the issue of a document. This review is performed by individuals, other than the preparer who are competent in the concerned discipline and normally includes the originator' supervisor and other'ndividuals responsible for preparation of the design. This review is a required portion of SWEC's design control program but does not constitute a means of meeting the requirements of this EAP for verification of nuclear power plant designs.

2.,3 Verification of a power plant design is performed in the

'ollowing general sequence:

a. Verification is initiated by independent objective review of the key design documents that first identify the design requirements that apply to the Project and the design approach developed to satisfy these requirements.

These first key design documents are normally the System Descriptions issued for a Project. When a Project schedule requires preparation of a PSAR before issue of Project System Descriptions, independent objective review of the PSAR is the first step in verification of the plant design.

b. -"'ucceeding lower level key design documents, issued as U

the design is developed, are subjected to independent

"'-'" '" " objective review to assure that:

. ~

Requirements established by the previously verified key documents have been met.

~ Design information added to further define the design is verified according to this EAP.

'=- c.. Independent objective review of the remaining key design documents issued by the Project is conducted as in b.

'--""'above. The chart included as Attachment 6.2 to this EAP

+-"'~,'~. shows typical relationships between key design documents.

"This chart i's for illustrative purposes only and does not represent mandatory prerequisities in the design process.

2.4 Independent objective review shall consist of addressing

'"-,'- "'-the questions listed in Attachment 6.3 as they apply to

-"."the key design document being reviewed.

EAP 3.1, Rev. 2,-.

Page 3 2.5 depth of an independent objective review may range from a review of all aspects of the design, including all

The supporting documentation, to a review limited to sucn items as the design approach and the adequacy of the results obtained. The depth of a review shall be determined by the responsible individual or group (as identified in Table I) based on:

~ Importance to safety.

~ Complexity of the design.

(

~ Degree of standardization and similarity to previously proven designs.

~ Degree of design completion shown by the document being reviewed.

3.0 PROCEDURE NOTE: This section of the EAP does not apply to gg.Z calculations (see EAP 5.3).

3.1 Each Project shall submit, the key design documents identified in paragraph 4.0 to the individuals or groups shown as responsible for independent objective review.

Upon request by the reviewer, the Project shall also provide a summary of governing and supporting documents used as input to the key design document, including when necessary, identification of data sources and bases for assumptions. Identification may be by reference, description, or inclusion of copies.

3.2 The individuals or groups identified in paragraph 4.0 as responsible for independent objective review shall conduct their review to ensure that all applicable questions listed in attachment 6.3 have been addressed.

Reviewers assigned to perform independent objective review shall be competent in the concerned. disciplines and shall have no direct or supervisory responsibility for the design being verified.

Zi 3.3 Independent objective review, based upon .the,.-factors identified in 2.5, may range from a review,performed the by, an individual, to a review meeting initiated by responsible individual or group to obtain the participation of other disciplines or groups.

EAP 3.1, Rev. 2, Page 4 cii c Desi n Documents 3.4 Standard Ke 3.4 ~ 1 Key design documents prepared as standards for. SWEC use shall be prequalified by an independent objective review by the individual or group indicated as responsible (by

~ ~ ~

document type) in Table I.

3. 4. 2 Proj ect documents prepared by adopting prequalified standard design documents, with no changes other than editorial changes, in accordance with the following EAP's will not require independent objective review.

Project specifications prepared from prequalified

't master specifications according to EAP 4.12. CH.3

~ ~

~

, .Project documents that duplicate prequalified standard design documents (e.g., System Descriptions prepared for a SWEC Reference Plant) according to EAP 2.8.

3.4.3 When changes, other than editorial changes, from a pre-qualified design document are required to meet the requirements of the Project, the Project document will require independent objective review.

3.5 Du lication of Ke Documents from Another Pro'ect 3."5. 1 Project key design documents prepared as duplicates of documents from another Project shall not require independent objective review provided that:

~ The document being duplicated has been subjected to independent objective review and:

~ The document is adopted by the new Project as an "exact duplicate" according to EAP 2.8.

3.5.2 When changes, other than editorial changes, from the document being duplicated are required to meet the requirements of the new Project, the new document shall require independent objective review.

3.6 Documentation 3.6.1 Satisfactory completion of independent objective review shall be documented by the responsible individual's signature or initials on the document as indicated "I" by Table I. The reviewer shall print the letter following his signature or initials, except that. the "I" is not 'required if the document title page or title block CH.1 provides a space identified as "independent reviewer" for the reviewer's signature or initials. Independent i

\ ~

EAF 3. 1, Rev. 2 Page 5 objective review of specifications shall be documented according to EAP 4.7, 4.12, or 4.13 as applicable.

The individual responsible for independent objective '-

review shall ensure that his comments have been resolved before approving the document. The individual's approval on the document, indicates fulfillment of his responsibility for independent objective review as assigned by this EAP.

Independent objective review by Boston office personnel of key design documents prepared by an Operations Center or SWEC-NY may be documented according to EAP 5.20.

When independent objective review includes a meeting initiated by the responsible individual to obtain participation by other disciplines or groups, the"results of the meeting shall be documented, distributed to the cognizant Division and Project personnel, and maintained on file by the individual responsible for the review..

V 4

~ '

i

~

~ . g% ~ >C +C I'

EAP "3.1, Rev. 2 Page 6 4.0 KEY DESIGN DOCUMENTS Table I identifies key documents by type, the EAPs that apply to preparation, the individuals or groups responsible for independent objective review and the methods of documenting approval to indicate satisfactory completion of independent objective review.

TASLE I RESPOHSISLE FOR HETHGO OF 9K)H)QILIXIE QKHHfJQJ)IJJH)

S'ystas Oescrlptlons I,

3e7 operational oeslgn Reviev IGGR)

Group, Advisory Operations Olv.

Sign tltl~ page+

\ J Techn)ca I Topics I 2 6 Revlwer designated by EAp 2 ' Approve "AppPOval Reports Slip" per EAP 2.64 I'rel I ~ Insry Safety 2.9, 2elO Ol'vision Licensing Represent Approve Revlw/Approve I Aha lysi 4 Report ~ t Ivo Slip per EAP 2.9, CH. 1&2 t Sac Rote) or Change Request Fcro per EAP 2.104, CH. 3

~ 4 appilcabi ~

Conceptua I Ovgs

~ Sl t4 PI4ll

5. 17 GDR Group, Advisory operations Inltl~ I dravlnga CH. 5 Olvl el on

~ Plot Plan 4 G4h Arpsngsoollts F lou Olagrass 5.9, 5.16 GOR Group. Advisory Operations Ihltl~ I dlsgras+

Olvl ~ lon L09lc OI49rass Se 10 OGR Group, Advisory operations Olvlslon Initial dlsgrasa One Line Olsgrass. Se1$ Reviwer designated by Chief Initial dlagras+

Engineer, Eleccrlcsl olvlslon Eleccrlcal Oesign Criteria

5. 21 Electrlcai Olvlslon Speci ~ list Sign tltl~ pages Scwcturai Oesign 5 I 19 R4v levers designated according Sign cltl~ pages CH.1 Crl teria co EAP 5,19 f t I on 4 Iia 4 Co r Spec I I ca 4+12 Revlewr designated according to EAP 4.12 Per EAP 4.12 CH. 3 ProJect Specifications 4.13 Revlever designated according Per EAP 4.)3 CH.3 Co EAP 4.)$

Oeslgn Specifications R4viever design ~ t44 accord In9 Per EAP C.T CH. 1 for Structure I Support to EAP 4 7 ~

~ nd HG Cooponencs Cslcu14tlohs 5.$ Revievep designated according Per EAP 5,$ CH.2 to EAP 5.$

~ The letter "I" shel I be pr inted fol loving the reviever' signature or initials, unless the tlti~

pago or block provides )44ntl flcsclon ss "Independent reviever" (refer to Paragraph 3,6.1). CH.1 the pSAR Is ~ "key design docusenc" only vnen It Is che first docusentatlon of the design inputs I toe Attachoent 6.2). In this case, the PSAR ress inc a "key design docussnt" only until CH.1 subsequent docusents sre Issue4 to record this infopsatlon.

EAP '3.1,- Rev - 2 Page 7 5.0 REVISIONS TO KEY DOCUMENTS <<

NOTE: 'This - section of the EAP does not apply to .

calculations.(see EAP- 5.3).

5.1 When a document sub j ected to independent ob j ecti ve revi ew "

is revised, the pr'oposed revision shall be -resubmitted for approval to the individual or group designated by Table I.

5.2 The individual, or representative of the group shall review the proposed change to determine its effect on the design as previously verified.

The depth of the independent objective review may range from a determination that the changes do'ot affect the design and that therefore, the previous verifzpatjon is still valid, to a detailed review of the cPangeg;"to, -the extent necessary to verify the change and its effect on the total design. Approval shall be -indicated'ccording to paragraph 3.6.

9>14(4 I' (I

~ )Qe

• 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 6.1 Project Applicability Sheet

,III<<XI (

i(.'

('

~

', Ir>>

.. r.r

+,>>I9,I I

t

~ L

'6.2 Flow Chart, (r Ik>> C>> v>>I 9 6.3 List of Review Questions rl I pl>>C <<I'f

" "(I I9 .

II(>>4 el,l,li(I 9'+'< I\~

Y r

J9(,>> <<C' Ct

" ~

994 19 (IT JI II 1C9 i IIr(lrf<<ll Q l<<lt 9<<y $ 89 J(4 r

4 a>>~I 1>>r C II

~, I 49 I

/'C

~ VCIc:

"',&f9

/Ca'C

~ I 9'<<C ~

~

>C eC,CP

~ Ir rC>> ~ 4 ~ I 4

( 0 I(i ~

Ir ~

=9 ~

'l

~ '

~ 19 ~

r94".4".i '<<9c(9(q4C

~ 'l>>C>>I ~

1

rr~ 4). g>>>>v$ Q,L

>'~a EAP 3.1, Rev. 2 Attachment 6.1 4 '1>>>>)>> l ~4 ~age 1 of 1 ~ APPLICABILITY SHEET f'ROJECT ". 5 l NUQLEAR PROJECTS COMMITTED TO 'REVISION 1 OR REVISION 2 TO-BGULATORY GUIDE 1.64 T Ag, initial issues of and subsequent revisions to key design loguments shall>> be subject to independent ,objective review aa8ording to the) requirements of this EAP. For calculations, the aglicable portions of 'this EAP and independent objective review to initial requirements contained'n EAP 5.3 shall be applied CH.4 is4ues and all subsequent revisions. a AL OTHER NUCLEAR PROJECTS EXCEPT SHOREHAM 1 J.O. No. 11600 Alg initial 5.ssues of key design documents issued after Fe ruary 8, 1977~ shall be subject to independent objective re iew. '( Subsequent revisions to all key design documents, other than calculations, wh'ich contain a change in design concept shall be CH.4. subject to independent o'fobjective review. This review Revisions shall be ~r lxgiited to that portion the design being changed. t% th'At do not invo'lve a change in design concept shall be reviewed, approved, and issued in accordance with applicable EAPs. w) l~ Sgv> calculations, the applicable portions of this EAP and ~ Ja j .independent objective review requirements contained in EAP 5.3

sh~kX>> 1 be applied to initial issues and all subsequent revisions.

is responsible for determining if a I,-,:>>~The < project ~ Engineer '~ .reviwion involves a change in design concept as, for example, wheri. a, flow diagram is revised to change a fluid system from ~ ~ a Cuo pump,system,to .a, three pump system, or when a logic 'A c diagram is revised; to change the pump control logic from automatic operatiop to'manual 'operation".' 2.; When indep4rklent 5obj,ective review of a revised key design document is"required)"- .the Project shall-'.notify the reviewer by clearlyg'-statiT>>g= .this. requiremention the routing slip or CH. l form used tg')tran'smi.'t Che document. ~ SHOREHAM 1 J.O: No. ~&2600 a) m m" 5 This EAP is not'applicable 9 / to Shoreham 1:" ~ - ~ C) ~ tP C,> ) r ~; C) ) j" i) ' C C' CA i>> 0) LJ AC) ~ JO ~ J L'I W'~ C.i i S: 4>> m NM CP CP Ã,>>A ENGINEERING AND DESIGN CONTROL NOTE I PSAR CH.1 SITE PLAN OTHER PLOT PLAN CONCEPTUAL 2 GEN. ARR. DRAWINGS SITE STUDIES fS OTHER STUDIES I SYSTEM FLOW PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS DIAGRAMS DRAWINGS 2' REQUIREMENTS I REGULATORY NOTE I wwmt CLIENT CODES 6 STDS. f STRUCTURAL PSAR SUPPORT LOOP S 6 W STDS. I DESIGN SPECS DIAGRAMS PRIOR EXPER. fi FEEDSACK ] STD. DESIGNS NOTE 2 STRUCTURAL LOGIC DESIGN DIAGRAMS PROJECT CR ITKRIA SPECS NOTE ¹I ACTUAL TIMING OF PSAII DEPENDS ON,, KLECTR ICAL DESIGN ONE LINE ELKMENTARY PROJECT SCHEDULE..IF 'PSAR IS FIRST DIAGRAMS DIAGRAMS CRITERIA DOCUMENTATION OF'DESIGN INPUTS, 'r IT IS A KEY DOCUMENT,}JNTILE'SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENTS RECORD Tg(S INFORMATION. NOTE ¹2 0 NOTE 2 (2't ~ ~ SPECIFICATION SEOltENCE'NOWS'INitICtITESr' MASTER NO PROJECT SPEC CHAIIGES EROM MASTER> SPECS SPEC. ~ <<) i 2 ~~ ('2 t I I; i.rar II (tt it rj ha il ~ 2 II (T tn S.i i ~> i, 'I CALO ) ~ r (t 0;t'r;li"i .METHODS t" 'n (S " t Tj ~ ~ t( Ti l't FU I>> (r' ~ S ~ et tr Ii >C,'() tn tq 2 tt 5 Itt n~ P>T t~ I(I DI lit y~ t: a. n:(-e tn t)" tn U t '(2 2) 0 fl I 2' t. - i t !TTTt t .f) KEY DESIGN tOOCUMENTS <<t tt' C". \ rg ~ (,I ~ TN" (t'., ~ V 0$ ~ REQUIRE INDEPEHP NT;" OP J TIVJt R'E(t '. t." N-I pEPENDENT AND NON- INDEPENDENT't REVIEW ~ ~ E tn (t t(t (n ~ ril '.t. ~. " pEgU(RE(p EC e "RKVIKW ONLY. tt oQ Ch NS ~ ¹ vs@ ~ 4 I bt ~ ' r J ~ ~ fi 4 ' vl '7 VIw ~ Q I "~ A P ~ ~ I I I << I '~ v  ;- ~LB III 4 ()f% ., yves ~ ~ V 4 ~ )~ ~,I I' ~ c> t~'f ~ ~ .'0 ~.'v.>QC 2 & ~ '>~{ P > I V el= Ch I & I~ r vt ~ p g IC v - v~ -

• rh p *

~ a ~ I, wI,  % ~ ' l ' ) l. EAP 3.1, Rev. 2 Attachment 6.3 Page 1 of 7 QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED AS APPLICABLE DURING INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE, REVIEW OF KEY DESIGN DOCUMENTS

1. Question: Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into the design?

SWEC Inter retation: Were the inputs (design requirements and design criteria) correctly selected and incorporated in. document being reviewed? thesign ~Exam le: Review of a S stem Descri Cion (for a fluid system) shall ensure . that-redundancy requirements are correct: Review of Flow Diagrams for this system shall ensure that the" redundancy requirements, as listed in. the System Description, have been incorporated into the Diagram.

2. Question: Are assumptions necessary to perform design activity -adequately 'he described and reasonable? Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent reveri-fications when the detailed design activities are completed?

SWEC Inter retation: Are assumptions necessary'o perform the design activity adequately described and reasonable'? Are the assumptions which need to be confirmed at a later date identified? ~Exam le: Review of Calculations shall ensure-- that assumptions on which the ." calculations were based were adequately described, propeily-'dentified, and reasonable.

3. Question: Are the appropri ate qua 1 ity and quality assurance specified? requirements'WEC Inter retation: Are the appropriate technical quality assurance and'equirements'-

specified? 10 0 ~0 '1 1 U0 ~ Ul ia EAP 3.1, Rev. 2 1 Attachment 6.3 Page 2 of 7 00 l f1 0s L' 01a'r'. , ~Exam le: ,Tech'.cal Requirements p' f e -,.,>>,.Review. oX',S ecification for a pumpshall .ensure that technical ~1 0 ~ ~ ~ requisrements such as: "The des'ign'emperature and pressure ."$&B.U < UU ' . '.. shy'il,, apply to all pressure ,*, U.coritaining parts of the pump," are incorporated. I' b...,Qua,li.ty Assurance Requirements I "~ f) SS0 ,Review, ofa.S ecification .for a .'fabrmicated-hank=shall- ensure -that 0 Uay i s ,mill..test reports are checked for 1 ~ " 1 a 'dherence to material - r)Uff @=r'- at i ~ 9 uestion,: ~ U0 ~ ~ ff. '0 ~ 1 0 0'l0 ~ 0 e' ~, e1 specifications. ff .,Are., the,. applicable codes, standards, anB regulatory requirements, including applic'ab3.e"issues and addenda properly C U"

s. ff' 0 identified',and are their requirements for S ~

v des'igrn'Umet? SWEC Inter retation: 're and the applicable codes, regulatory requirements, standards, including applicable" iss'ues 'of these documents properly ..identified, and correctly reaflectUedj.n the design document being ~ a r ~Exam le: Review 'of a E stem Descri tion for an electrical system shall ensure that applicable codes, standards, and regulatory requirements are listed in .the ..System Description. Review of ...'~ .,',Zzeliminar One-'line-'ia rams for this ...sy'stt .m. ', shall ensure that codes, s,tandards", and regu atory ".. '... reguizem'ends, ,listed in the ystem De'scription which call for redundancy, etc, are,~ correctly .reflected in the , ~neaten,: UU ':.'.. '.., '.HUt)Ue.. appJ.icable .construction and .operating i experience been considered. '"SWEC Inte retati:on':* 'Same le: Review 'Exam of a General Arran ement D~rawin shall ensure that applicable operating experience has been considered. For example, ,from ~ ~ ~ ir 5 i 2'+ EAP 3. l, Rev. 2 ~ Attachment 6.3 ~ La ~ r Page 3 of 7 experience in the field, -";found'-necessary to design it ="pRktform a.~ has been '" '", " " '--""fact'Xiitate (at -,an optimum height) ".cont'ai~nment building. access '"""-"'ersonnel in the periodic in-service of Thi s in the i s to maintenance im'qpection (ISI) of the steam gene'rator tubes, in order to reduce radi'ation exposure to personnel.

6. guestion,. .. , Have the design interface requirements

~ been'satisfied? fQ .SWEC =Inoter retation H'as the design provided for required "=--interface with other systems, t) "'components, or structures? r ~Exam le: '"Review of a S stem Descri tion for a fluid system shall ensure that ""-interface'8esign condition&=.wi&~othek f ~ 'I ",f'luid"'systems, such as flow rate, "".jmger'ature rise, etc, are specified whetn'hefat"transfer is involved. ~uestion: appropriate design method used'? - 7,. '"" SWEC Inter retatZon:~ 'amh; Was an Examnle: ",, '" Rey3:ew 'or of" a structural Calculation, si~ng structural =members, shall ensure-'-; that an appropriate calculational method was used.

8. Questioni Is the, output reasonable compared to inputs?"

s ~ Inter retati'oni: '1s the. 'output (design document being SWEC '0 reviewed)-'-reasonabl'e compared to input ~ """'(design requirements and desi'gn cri'teTi'a)? This requires an overview af, 'le ss a a ~ ~ f "as happ'o$ eti 1C to detail checking. Renew 'of Flow"Dig rams shall ensure '~Exam - that e.<.-,'" the size o'f piping in 'the Diagram . for .a given flow ,rate CefnperatWe, .etc,. of the mVchHYm being 'carried',""Ms reasonable, based on the . reviewer's.sP experienc'e. f <luipment, and'- yrocesses 'suitable for the J

-"-"-'regular)ed application?

SAIC 'Enter retati.on'. 'Same,", "'. ".".~Exam le:-' ' " Reviev""of Flow Dia rams shall include '""';""uzi- ov'erview to 'erisure'hat the types ".of'.'alves specified are ade'quate, e':g."', 'globe versus gate. 10.-'Question: '""-.~~A Are the .,speci'fied materials compatible with each,'.other and the . designr ..~"'-'etnvi~nmenta'1 conditions to'-which'- the"" mater'i'al" wxi.'K be exposed? SWEG -Inter retation '-"'Are~ the sph'cified materials compatible with . each - other.. and will they adequately 'ithstand:-. -the '-"'" .". environment>a1 - design conditions to which the '== material=wi11 be exposed'? ~Exam le: Review '.'of-'S ecifications shall en'sure that specified materials are compatibles'" with each other 4'~th respect" "'to='inimizing galvanic -.. -'- ""-'" ." + corrosi'on",<='tc, and will adequately ',. withstand . environmental conditions much-.'as-'w'ectu".st'earn 'in piping. ) 11'?. Qliestion: ." " ": -" Ifave 'adequa>te maintenance features and'" 'equiwemh'nt."s been specified? h V )

12. guestion: Are accessibility and other design

-3'f"c'>,",)eoi:m0 A, 'SPEC'"Interpretatj on '='>:of"-11'and.'12:"- ...-" ~', =i". - ';, '"'a.-,. provi sions adequate for per formance o f needed maintenance 1 1~>9 "Have='~"' '.'= ") and repair? 'dequate maintenance ""fwatur'es beeri'"spe'ci'fied? " b. ) - -'HaVe-- "provisions,.been made to ensure'hat'ecessary -mainteriance. ea-.- and r'epair cari be performed:~-'-.:1 'f ~ 4) lt )->a>> -,.'Example we -Q.= ari6 -~= '. "12: ' ': """. ""'. ':a>>C ., (ahcuue')-"'eVieW a ~Extern items . within the system that requir'e, proyi:signs .. ~='- -'.for maintenance have been identified, e.g., pumps, valves. EAP 3.1, Rev. 2 Attachment 6.3 Page 5 of 7 h

bs, -

..(above), Review of a-: .~Sstem

D~t.

- adequate provisions have been made.for necessary.. maintenance 'and repair of- the"-'-eqaipmext.

o Such,.factors as accessibj.lips of asb

. *,",, . ',~ c-.,..+e,,o equipment, valving-'-toE 'aid '.'..removal of the equipmnent in the case .of .pumps, redundancy . for maintenance purposes, etc, '-should 13. Question .. '.: r,, Ha~ . adecjuate provided. to., perform'he in-service accessibility, been . inspects.on expected to be required . = d~rinsgmghe.plant. Life SWEC Inter retation: .. Have, adeguate accessibility require-ment;s .. been ., specified so that, in-sepvice. . inspection expected to be required during the plant life can be p>zXormqd? ..-  : 9,,'.".lE"-Z ,r: .i..~Exam le: .< Revj.ew of a S stem Descri tion. shall h I P ~ ensure that adequate accessibility ..(space.) .: requirements ~~

c. have b'een

.-.~ppecXfied:.for in-service inspection of ,,"> . the .equipment, etc. 14,, Question: .. e.... ...gqs.z,the presign properly .considered-m t ~:.., radiation .eXposure to the pub11iC "and plant personn'el? SWEC Inter retation: . iSame ~Exam le: ,Review of a General Arran ement . D~rawin shall ensure tha.t adeem.ate consjderatiop . has 'eemn- ~g'ivpn,-. to -.;:.z- -o, ~- me% ~ v 'from 1 '" c s ~ ~ -shielding Ia teal 1'p,-etc public .Md..pl&t'-:perso5hel radiation by use of concrete r

15. Question:... '

.o:~,;.-. the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient to allow veri':atop@.ghat x s -.,, ~ ,.-;~:; depigq. ~ requirements have '..'~been ...sratigfactorily accoNp1TShSF.....= --::- g C .SWEC. Intex zetation: Qame.. - . ggcaa I'0 w ~~ I EAP 3.1, Rev. 2 Attachment 6.3 s ~ i'n j g ~ ~ .e'- Ag Page 6 of 7 ~ra 1 "'"e' C K m equipment .shall "ensur'e that sufficien't accept'ance "'ari te'r'i.a -'-'iw-.-.contin'ed,.lin the .jpecificatio'n 'so that compliance '-" =""="-'i,"-'-zilch~"esi~gn'requir'ements '"artie ..-ensu/eB such~. as performarice data (flow "~ rath]'et'c): x'na the case of pumps. 16;;:gu'est%oh: " ';.' .. Haue e adsEuat'e preoperationral ".subsegesHt periodic test requirements " been "appropiVately and specified? Inte 'r'etation: SWEC ~Exam 1 e:'eview Same. of a-S stem.Descri tion shall 'ensure that p'exiodic tests required of the system have been specified so that the p'rovisions, e.g., pressure taps, etc, for per foxming the testing are provided 'in the design.

17. Question: Are adequate handling, stoxage, cleani.ng, and shipping requirements specified?

SWEC- Inter retation: Same ~Exam l.e: Review -of a "-S ecification shall ensure that the Standard Technical Requirement" 'selected for cleaning'f a fabricated 'assembly is suitable for the application, e. g., will not result in entrapment of corrosive residues.

18. Question: Ar'e adequate identification requirements specified?

SWEC Inte r'eta.ti'on: Are "adeqqate "requirements specified for identification of 'materi.als, components, -and equipment? ~Exam le: Review of-a.S eci.ficati.on shall ensure that -the . marking requirements ( inc ludi.'ng the mar'ki;ng "method) tspecifzed for -the item are adequate to provide ~ identificati.on 'and permit traceability to :required records '(e.'g., 'adequate information on equipment nameplate, marking of comporient'serial number). EAP 3.1, Rev. 2 Attachment 6.3 eJ =~ Page 7 of 7

19. guestion: .Are requirements for record preparation, review, approval, retentiojx, .etc.>adequately specified?

J ..SNEC fnte retation..';Same~ >".. :. , e~<<+m le: =.-". - -.,:- " EeJJaew.'oX'a.:S ecification shall ensure --I.pcj.usion;..> of requirements for ,~'ppepar'atio~,,and retention of records nec'essary': - to provide objective aVigenCe t4at .the item jpS.! open or tes'ted.+y ~e=" ce z,'. - .'pn)Fepsed, in'spected, ,. i~,-sui,ie'r',,in accordance with speci'.di'ca%'@on requirements. . eA'QS L cJilv' J ~ L C ~ .:C'J'4'r!

JJQC b

'.. f !'~QLJJ "eJJ~ nl r 5U 8 -': "" 'e J" z 3~7<c J J \. C ~ 4 r. JJ ~ J C C -C JJ C' '-ca 'J J "ttl&n ~i" ~J JJ* C "X6F:

C. -'Jt:. ' 'C' iso.'J+

,~pi;.av ~ex.-,".r.'.~b'= ,

,9aJn~ ie- <-a< V 'tr! l C Ce  : P.=" IJ ULCC J a'elled a ~ J,'l-.~il JJ'Q:I 0~0 '* / 8 0 'T8 ',v,>l. or, 4>.O J J'Lksr, Cc., Ef~7~gr:4 ~I~', ~ SSl>!ioaairk~'a~<Ovq' j, 4 y ft i Q.':XVOK~ ".: >. bg ~ ". 9f'L 'UH4 L.:.,i f."3 "u~( ".X=-8 M 2G.!'Sl'Z >P'" ~~'r,!r9i-: .IR'i~'> i k8l ~ '(~'.: OL .,)f4~;YJgigg 2 '~O )~J,<<:1J,"'. "';,,'.egyqV, Z&y .s'>r'p"..'.'."rWy!. C~ q1gg(r eaifqgS, P <iLOu, r:.S'" - r;i c LM g'sg >('r'e' saknS"'lama o'<, 'Xarust ta aegzqc'> e(, '"* r' a~t ',irl (. t PQ "-90n 'r r.~C +< 4 983 "g 'nr BL6XVQ QM r- '~-'.; ',',9" ' > r'> lOqngdg .AL+~n >drr. "QGDB rr "1 PD)~~gGjXAV) jISJW10d, NGr r>>qC(r.~ "8(l 45V J. 'r x: 'fSflugSi ~ 'NE 4 > ~ Is.'O'"' 4* ~ ~ Jgl('llr&". ~ soesY ~ >1 .q!'>d sL(~ fry'o"sH ssi3 +c t '.> f 9 r Of.')2."~'".' >(r". ~ l! ""g2,.",+"~s5 19,'(>( >J ) ".c i'-- "("~.>am ',";.rJ. >rfj g>f+O 1 I(j Q ', ",=.s0~";.s: vo'i", rrf 83 ling en'! { .IC. b.J """ C '4 r 'a '"SI L ~

• " " JG~'" E >If~~>&>XI 0 " <'Ol> ~ ... '(',ua)&

sbk ( ~ '"r 3 '~~(r,~ ~~1"'&4'S. <<." VO...x... "..( i c.'l98~:~.'.I'.'Cl" ,(.QOc ~ c '>'.,;pj~ygul, rrrr'q "'DV4'Q 0 nut~,: w'a ~ 9: 0 '. .':vQ ph>>))f >rr I '[ p>> )~>'p ><'y rn >1 y<('~ ~ ~" SV,~ 0 ~ .". Jg'>'j 'JC+g "q(t'l O(rl+ 'XI~1';uÃl.r:": v'i8 n~""r-n ~ p g'9(i" .>V ~ JgG ',pyr <<Qj'5Q( 9" E 'r' ~G VC i'~>>4 ~ ( r'>n~ f0~" +JRJ '" ~ 9 ~ c ~,S.". >9 'p ".~ &4 .:. 0 1('f(8'I 9:> I'81 2.'!9~'SC > 0)'J,r'. '~ 'Jrr <<P CQN 1 "0"..0 p ae-SO"..u '" "&V ~'X< Vl('."';.":C .:,=O'aV.,;S."P O'.=-'j.": ... r,.S= r:1 7<<l 'r '(' 1'4, j,kf; -,s:. 'r '" ~ Q> ~ s " '4 h)'> 'rg .'t,l,>'> 5 4. '.~.Rip:- l $ r ~,g,. 8 '0 ~ I. il t i ~" 'r-; r1 'S r>~..c .pk 5>> -'$ f'> 8 ~ " g-, I ~ ~ 1 >r ~ '8>' A~>~ c kr~ (=.lf Enclosure 828 The following 1s a telecopy from INPO to NMPC describiag the status on the NPRDS and SEE-IN program enhancements: NUTAC GENERIC LETTER 83-28 SECTION 3.2.1 Pg. 17s 3. 2.1 ENHANCEMENTS TO NPRDS ~

o. The present definition of component in NPRDS (extracted from IEEE 603-1980) 1's 'ore applicable to 'lectrical componeats.- The definition should'e improved to describe mechcanical components better.

., 0 STATUS The Component Boundary Working Group of the NPRDS Users Group has developed comp'onent boundary definitions.'heir guidance.,will appear in Revisions 2 and 3 of the'Reportable Scope Manual. . The present failure reporting guidance needs improvement in the following areas: is to provide better information for analyzing Guidance the needed role of piece p'arts failures. 's a.: factor.. in -.causing, component The guidance should be revised to indicate that utilities should supply 1nformat1on when inadequate vendor information is identified as a causal or contributing factor in a fa11ure. The guidance should provide users of the data base .the ability to retrieve readily those failures invoke,ving inadequate vendor informat1on (example, key work sorting, coding). Present failure reports are often sketchy in providing details of the failure analysis conducted by utilities. The guidance should emphasize the importance of providing more complete results of fa11ure analys'is when one is conducted. Although detailed failure analyses are not always conducted, for every failure, when they are conducted they,. should be pro'vided in NPRDS failure reports. In this; way, the SEE-ZN Program and other utilities can derive more" benefit. from. the .work of each utility'. 'TATUS The Reporting Procedures Manual has been revised to contain guidance . on'dentifying inadequate vendor iaformation. An audit process has been implemented wher'ein each -incoming ..failure report is reviewed befog', insertion -iato the- data base. ,This review includes the adequicy'f 'he aarratives in identifying inadequate vendor information and 'providing details .of the failure analysis conducted. This information is readily retrievable by ,test searches of the narratives. C 'I / ~8 'L>r>Cs~+ 'mc'?!f'i"'~SQ .s&) vh<")I)'k .)< '<d'vs'<5 "Li>'4t i'~& .~si "5U <t>> &&QB > +MCPW 'i.t<." '" )s&: I) >br+: f..i

~<'I ~ >s vc."M~',!)~i"Cc)-: -'$4Cr ' O'I I. r k g{g, ~><*> J~,f)gl ~g ga~g g ~cts4 < <>'g g C jg )tt)<A <) 4, kfL<. rv ~44.& ' &t~>5 &> <.",;>O<wgg p)r'0 s~ ~g (vrOfjg &g~ 3 <<q~<f'))'Vv>"p '85 'i)X& -pc >,.gE<,~, 4) -4 v >'iw.s~>C.II()it -'tt;I:s5 i S.k ~f ".".2" Qf 3g:)'3" ): ~'.~"'Ci)1 A >0 >--O. &I .6 9~ "W>r "Q )'.>> "- ',4i>>')S ". ~ &L'dkF+Y.C,> &C . 91'~~ <<'t &VX)t~'F.'l))6<t 1C ('>w,r .&sf FJ wW = '45 4 &5), 5 t& >1 w> l 54~>> ACswv '. w -+> > Skl SC .) 4>>+ J(f<O>O ~ ~ -Cr s >SftÃ4>> DLLE>> I & )44Lf 14 w~)f 4 JE Z2 es >>GrtZ +i tw 1 <<vlv>>Vs)R &re)tM &f<s<'s- I~)C> a r) >'~ ' fs.lS <<%136~3 aC4.~ &Dfr- .,4+Cv&& ~rr "..<<f."~4NS I&'tr~whr <<95.CAI <

+' 9&r< w' )tits,'"~' ii)>> qb .","C " < I'N a II,.'esa Sa & Se t':.'" >.&I;c &Of:

~ZOi! &'5 2~ ~ 'F &'<<.3 t i M).", b 2';M;. ' .4 .4".f'& E SL W 7 Of)9 I LQCSBB < & W l. W t F> IO+2E~~QI C)t +J '; <re P& ,v'&j.I.~~&'4 ~ <s:I&/ ~E w~ ~ "Zg ~* >Op I)< I Dtffe (. v >w,; ,f)&y& 'efff M )<', ".i' C Zi . ~SL~i Ct fq &4 2&O)>'<. llo i. ~ )~v v r gg ~4&jAp"f50 '.tg5( I "Of &i" '~t)x SXOII&5 95" C."8" g."i')-0 )I) s Iffy t <<8-'>>'" P ff 'f2)G v~} CC & &;r>>. &Efr -~i fV 5 k .7&~C L)5s.C>J>fi, i I) >))O QA> il ) 5' @if>2 dk)> 4&dM~ ft Df' <Gq a M Jes * ~ r'*&sos~-FW X., ~ 4"~0 <<'I&I Vtt Q4t. CS 1S '&& ';i r sJL'I>U)

O

'I'X .oq .4 ( ~ > r s . 45 k.fi > r )p Os>)>> ,>ffrt)f t) ~ i'< If 'qOQ ' j< pw C. Lvl )Iitr IJ.&LB ~ ~' 5F'B,v> Q. V1 )r, t,Jf) 0&.:l8 r t> ~ &f.',.'3 "5 ~ ~ Frsr" ' J,~' ri )k 4 ".W. 't L'I L4<L ~ r)8&)>" I ~~& J'tfr 289& f'&v> I) La'o)IP at 5 &A>5 Jgg f)fi6 td t 'Jf".y>> Srt>fa ~ i aLk~k i> X 4 "~ ~ >SI r w385>J ft ~ "&C&ri I <<fw< 8>>O 0"= ~$ ~ 8 t>"~,28$ f 5>5 g(tg I ~c., ) 8 ) &>&~pc,.) &.t&IN 4 Qff&tg Og v&ft&<tf) 1 lr.)>f)& << r< < s t t It .r.")VIIL=O"a: J.:C);.::t& 5"&"ft& O.) &Ig& a'"Z I"4d ) 51)>>v'st Ls Bfs trit>> I F ' I V >I> s NUTAC GENERIC LETTER 83-28'ECTION '2.2.2 Pgo 19, 3. 2. 2 ENHANCEMENTS TO SEE-IN UPDATE 0 "Reports should be generated for potential failures caused by faulty or missing vendor-supplied information or other ETI. The VETIP recognizes that .the,-utility will uncover errors in ETI (e.g., during review of the information, wxiting of,instructions, testing,', etc.) before anyone else.- It .is,.xecommended that test equipment technical information faults be .reported over NUCLEAR NETWORK for rev3.ew by INPO under the SEE-IN program". STATUS HH There 'we'e -over 200 .operating-, experience messa'ges 'ntered 'nto NUCLEAR NETWORK by the utQ.ities in 3,984. Many of these involVed early notification to .the industXy, of .,problems involving 'component failures, equipment testing and,.maintenance problems. Also, INPO accesses the NRC computer in Bethesda each working day to determine plant status information including scrams and 50.72 reports, 'nd relays the highlights of this information to .the industry via NUCLEAR NETWORK'hese reports, along with the other SEE-IN reports and NPRDS,. generally keep the utiligies up-to&ate on current,information regarding testing, maintenance and design problems with components, often well in advance of information supplied to utilities by the affected vendors. o "The SEE-IN Program should be broadened by INPO to improve the ability to trend NPRDS data. Present methods of trending ar'e largely qualitative and subjective'n nature. They depend largely ohe ability of analysts to;recognize,.the- need to look, for "'degrading or unacceptable system and component reliability....lNPO should 'develop methods to use NPRDS in a more quantitative fashion to 'detect trend problems. This enhancement is presently under development by INPO." STA1US Upon receipt by .INPO, .each NPRDS .failure report is prescreened by computer. The computer prescreening is based on selected fields that are coded by the utility, (one of these is failures reported to manufacturer). to indicate, the effect of the failure on the system in which it occurred and on the entire plant. Those failure reports selected by -this prescxeening are assigned for review according to the plant that originated the report. r In addi'tion to the above screening of individual failure reports, a quarterly screening is performed on all failure reports after they have been sorted according to the components involved. Each INPO reviewer is assigned a selected set of components and, at the end of each quarter, screens all the failure reports for each type of assigned component. The purpose of this screening is to identify significant trends in a particular type of component failure. i~ TFg'-;,vv- 4 C--S .S '<< '-Ze: 448+IVY, 4 I<<It<<<<F ' <~,(i'<'N~~;Wq,,',, >> I',

"-~'dJ.",t (~;,gE'

aOLSea'.-

4 l I(- P 4 ' 3, ~ nlQQg] P 9I 4 LV .T~ 4 4, ~<<'PQg ', ',F 'I<<. gq) P, Py -F ' mal )654+ + gQ cr 4 (c )fP+cR ~ ( frsc, /', s I s g. 4]I j Q9$ T~,qg g <<4=, C~ 4 ) ( ') fiji& (494.) "~ I IL 4 ~ VJ ! j '~>l C) F' II F "G I V( C W <<( ( c, "..<<a 4 F i4l X'.'FP LVP a' <<,I 4'~ ~n <<, bl. 0 'hl',DaOcf'K a(>>F r tf"4 4 Q,V~.<<j>> 5 ~QG t'~P>.<<9~ ~'=cs".. k..<< ', '4. h j'.(4 BF',,';('Jr()gpss Fg .'F'4 .'Ill 4 ~'P~ ')h 0 SG y&9l >'JQ~P X ~ C )~ tC. ><< r(t'sd ~4% l 3 (4$ &X <<Usa <<a s 04tis " 4 Ft ) 2 'lr EA fd('ll* M4tM 5( ~II 94'0'AJkefdM) C J4 I I .'bl()XCCjg 4 4 ~I ~A 44. '>> ~Pt.CKF , Ga'.! f.'GR AXE'4IVO',tC:u'>> "L, "'- V 'lh LLJ'0 "~' Q'~4~(>~5 gL) ) 4 ".Il. I, ~ G NUTS GENERIC 'LETTER 83-'28,SECTION 3.2.1 (Cont'd) o Utilities should deve1op internal:methods to ensure that their NPRDS reports are clear and complete and that che program guidance is followed appropriately. STATUS A The XNPO audit Identifies failure reports'hat are no .clear and complete, Discrepancies are resolved via telephone with the reporter " before the report can be accepted into Che data base. o .Fog some failures it .may not be possible for utilities to provide a complete failure description within the time frames for reporting to NPRDS. Utilities should still submit preliminary failure reports within the established time frame. Utilities should revise these 'eports when the necessary information is available However, the present system does not provide methods for utilities to indicate that reports will be revised later NPRDS should be modified to permit each utility to readily identify which of their reports still requires follo~p information. Utilities should report a failure event promptly and include an initial analysis Detailed and complete information should be provided in a timely manner once final analysis has been completed. STATUS During'he audit process, an incoming failure report may be accepted with a statement in the narrative that the failure analysis is incomplete and will be updated later. The utility has the capability to retrieve that failure report at a later date and revise the narrative. This may be done several times, if desired. The present scope of NPRDS reporting may not meet all the needs of individual utilities for monitoring the reliability of their own safety-related components. Each utility that decides that additional systems and components should be added to their basic scope of NPRDS systems and components should request that INPO 'accept these systems. INPO will consider these requests, identify the additional resource requirements needed to handle these requests, and notify utilities when it is abl'e to accept additional information. STATUS e L INPO has developed a procedure for receiving, evaluating, and responding to such requests. '- .--."- <<OL~3',..~i, S~.- 4 ..v""'5,'tr.r '-...'<.q" b., f ~ f< f r <<~~) '>>' q~P< $ ~>> TQe ~ <)r P)ff>> f 3 e g <f,qC .L'<'<. -'~8<.. ~ 'ZSX.< '.::. ~ ~ L LB j1::jo'., >> ~ 'IO. ~ i l.. <, ~. w rr?g -.:<. " ' ~ ~ ~.'0,. ~ g'J7<C., ~ q < ' X < L<O,>>,. 8,< < C, ' <<<r rgnf<lj, tgqrt,r. < i ' PP~Jj<< ~ -'li~x IS <<'..V)rQL! r. LQ'< =:. '~j: ~ ""i<,'j<>>gati". L";E'It@')Ã.: r QQ~'5E . - < <<,If'<" "iSI!idiot XO QII15I'":<" >> ~ 9'( t<JSSX <<".Ql <<<<S i'< ~ I r WS t<<% <L> KL'>> 3 . <tbtpC ':., S '.r8$ 5 '.;f.r b I<l:hr'trj<QQSX ' <<,. " ', '..'<<<f>>>$ .>>, ' i<'>>gS QQ;. J f ff n PU>>.f<<IP g "~ << 1 ".Xll'i. t:~XS aS . ~SqaazeO. SnnS "Xsy,.-. NCX:to~pa tI '~ V~VC S".S~ .. bh~"iu"'" eaSII',:. <f 'yasi>: ~;l'- A"i" a3.,~, "arZ t.,',Xu ~ >" <:Eai i~:-')IP...; m<3~. '"" r<l <

,.'Baxvtprt.". Qt' v <r<v'~'jar!<<Li<<xg x o "gXktrt<~ s;f ~ ~N,< Ags I,, j<'r.~.)<re" ".;, x r.o L.il.,;o;I ~. 'irI"..h.'<w<~=, s'.<I I'e'.;dr~,'r. "Ur~ <~, ir~, '. "<!.seer z<., ~,:,-.a~x!I.x.':

,<g, r'~ S '4< L> ',,< Jt< )) (<f>>'< "'>~'rgg 'gg>>~P +J f:.@.' g~j ', ~ <gl <<<<.'~f. f< I! ) 'g $% j" . l.'y v,'<'8')I' "<<.3 OI< QV "O'L'JP~O<"~X- .-~ i '.-j'<".":64 'p;>>.-<f'~<j>>'f r ',, i <'<-r &I ... W 'an;,I!i'~, ~ .< t~q.'< q.' >>Sl. g f. S6- 'V~r.r't OJ,. .'..=.".'<r~ i,. <<.Sfj j<,80j<<:.3) ,Sx;a.. . xa-.'";.'."-. < .~'.-': <;,.O4" xaW -t" "r;.;".;",a..s. O'L'L'i<'tfX % <':."- .'< ~ ~ L '" .SL.LCD<'0 50 "rSr '"~: f",; if . ." .."-.""':,- ~ Sjr <<lt J~C. dosed,. ~ S<j:> ~ j <. W'.'<r <, ~ 'I<'j)'Y&<SO I-'. S".. Ltr. 5 '. <,--M<< vx 2: r pLr<.". .<sf'as'.< f xo .'c'"";"x4=c, "-"'< -~~to -.- rn;;~Sir-'~f'. t" -"+< '.<Onsx ]or'ry' '. '~ '<~jn (Cp < < ge"><'R$ S+ <<fq<'<<>>f'>><w/<f< =; v-.<... =;,o q.'ra ssarr qo <<>><gp~ ~q i gag f' L'fj j <<< y \<< i K ~ ,'a~r X P..< '(o 'L', ><L I".< 6 .;~It<..'~ was"..~ e! ".xcr<sx sx~ f S<'."'t<<.< OS' '. f <x B:.-;~it.,"',sss QCj~l"5'>> r8:.X< 3 i<<Sdli,sf<<<.' ., - g Xdf>>lr.fQO '~. OO'; WS ' '" l'>' L'SI<'.S ... e e 2 S! ". aS<-.';,!-, . ' 'l.'eV: ~,Sc <<j r: ~ f S.".'= '=JSna...'; .~I;" XSr.; S;" 't< f SXIJ t. '>>".t<: .<<II .' pD12S&X>> S>>. &'<'v'~.f &i.". ,QO~N +Zj<<~( t CI <p;.'= x~.." aw oas; sxs. s- Ia cs-'"="="vsL a2; ~:.'c~,: sa g'"e".xr'"; '";'I." g'r< f i f . '1~.' j<Si<':~:: 85."'GO<~<lLr ~;X <".X pr'.;!-f9'8-: ', 'X'rs SL<C 9'"&'L < "O @<i -",',; P< y' >" ." j . '", Z'< ..(<!lt'. <'., 'r j J9P j.;*L ..' <. <'JSS '<.. l.. a '~. " 'r.,g "".c:<E,s'~&i V'9". rto~>>'V>>.LI Xrr < ~ Q "3 '6 2<X<j( G I L" ('.".'r.<< 'Ii. ". "t <Qtt' NUTAC GENERIC LETTER 83-28 SECTION 2.2.2 We axe also developing an automated screening program for application to NPRDS 'omponent failure identification fields. 'hese include combinations of NPRDS component, engineering, manufacturer, system, .application ..and unit fields. The NPRDS screening programwill be used to idhntify significant component fail'ure trends. Significant failure rates'dentified by the" computer screenin'g *'will be investigated and analyzed further by INPO personnel. Resuits'w'ill be disseminated tq 'the industry by INPO for generic component performance problems and to specific uti'lities regarding individual plant perfoimance concerns. .f I (gt E L I'Ql ~lt a V~."'i~ ) 5 I.t/C.<$ '~ ')g E~h'. It~ 'I ( (t 1 pl 7 'l/ I g'I t I l J tt I ~ (md. - Xt,.lt E.! ( ,If't t I Oh t= N'I .0"' Jk 4.. (>> fjf I II+ L" 3 tl '> 8 '> C3 Vht if<J ~ V'tt) j'Q j( I I,+5 1 I ( N ( 1 I ,' ) J I 'f q tl it t.. Il J( 3'