ML17279A393

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.2-Vendor Interface Programs for All Other Safety-Related Components: Washington Nuclear Plant-2, Informal Rept

ML17279A393
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	06/30/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML17279A391	List: ML17279A389 ML17279A393
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7674, GL-83-28, TAC-53730, NUDOCS 8707170154
Download: ML17279A393 (15)

Text

EGG"NTA-7674 pg ~~>>4 870625/,,

ADOcg, ()g()()()p~~

PDRg TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2 VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

MNP"2 Docket Nos. 50-397 Alan C. Udy Published June 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EGM Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6001

ABSTRACT This EGEG Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Washington Public Power Supply System regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item'.2.2, for WNP-2.

Docket No. 50-397 TAC Ho. 53730

FOREMORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating licensee/applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, "Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering and System Technology, by EGEG Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&E Support Branch.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the authorization 88R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. D6001.

Docket No. 50-397 TAC No. 53730

CONTENTS ABSTRACT ll FOREWORD 111

1. INTRODUCTION ~ ~ ~ ~ 1

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT 2

3. ITEM 2.2.2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

3. 1 Guideline .. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 3 3.2 Evaluation 3 3.3 Conclusion 4

4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED 4.1 Guideline

4. 2 Evaluation ~

4.3 Conclusion ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 5 RESPONSIB1LITIES OF LICENSEE/APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE

'ERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT .

5. 1 Gui de 1 i ne 7 5.2 Evaluation . 7 5' Conclusion 7

6. CONCLUSION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8

7. REFERENCES

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

WNP-2

1. INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. This incident, was terminated manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. The failure of the circuit breakers was determined to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. Prior to this incident, on'ebruary 22, 1983, at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam generator low-low level during plant startup. In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.

Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO), directed the NRC staff to investigate and report on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant. The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, "Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant." As a result of this investigation, the Commission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 1983 ) all licensees of 1

operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to the generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.

This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Washington Public Power Supply System, the licensee for Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2), for Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee or applicant to submit, for the staff review, a description of their programs for interfacing with the vendors of all safety-related components including supporting information, in considerable detail, as indicated in the guideline section for each case within this report.

These guidelines treat cases where direct vendor contact programs are pursued, treat cases where such contact cannot practically be established, and establish responsibilities of licensees/applicants and vendors that provide service on safety-related components or equipment.

As previously indicated, the cases of Item 2.2.2 are evaluated in a separate section in which the guideline is presented; an evaluation of the licensee's/applicant's response is made; and conclusions about the programs of .the licensee or applicant for their vendor interface program for safety-related components and equipment are drawn.

3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

3. 1 Guideline The licensee or applicant response should describe their program for establishing and maintaining interfaces with vendors of safety-related components which ensures that vendors are contacted on a periodic basis and that receipt of vendo'r equipment technical information (ETI) is acknowledged or otherwise verified.

This program description should establish that such interfaces are established with their NSSS vendor, as well as with the vendors of key safety-related components such as diesel generators,,electrical switchgear, auxiliary feedpumps, emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pumps, batteries, battery chargers, and valve operators, to facilitate the exchange of current technical information. The description should verify that controlled procedures exist for handling this vendor technical information which ensure that it is kept current and complete and that it is incorporated into plant operating, maintenance and tes procedures as is appropriate.

3.2 Evaluation The licensee for WNP-2 responded to these requirements with submittals 2 3 dated November 18, 1983 and May 17, 1985. These submittals include information that describe their vendor interface program, which includes the Contract/Vendor Information File System. In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it was assumed that the information and documentation supporting this program is available for audit upon request. We have reviewed the information submitted and note the following.

The licensee's response states that they actively participate in the Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. The Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC. VETIP includes interaction with the NSSS vendor and with other electric utilities. Contact

e ~ ~ ~

with the NSSS vendor (General Electric ) is in the form of service information letter s. The licensee also states that their vendor interface program meets or exceeds the recommendations of the NUTAC/VETIP program.

The licensee states that contact with the vendors of safety-related equipment is maintained for equipment qualification inquiries and data collection, for spare parts requi rements and with corrective maintenance contacts. As a result, the licensee states that the latest updated equipment technical information is available for "virtually= all" safety-related equipment. This vendor contact appears to be on an as needed basis. One of the VETIP implementation responsibilities is to seek assi stance and equipment technical information from the vendors of safety-related equipme'nt (other

, than the NSSS vendor) when the licensee's evaluation of an equipment problem or an equipment technical information problem concludes that such interaction is necessary or would be beneficial. The licensee states that they comply with this NUTAC implementation requirement. However, Section 2.2.2 of the generic letter states that formal vendor interfaces should be established with vendors besides the NSSS vendor. The licensee has not indicated that any formal interface program has been established with vendors other than the NSSS vendor.

The licensee reports that controls and procedures require the review of safety-related equipment technical information to verify that current information is referenced by and incorporated into plant procedures and instructions have been established.

3.3 Conclusion We conclude that, with the exception of interaction with the vendors of other safety-related equipment, the licensee's response regarding program description is complete and, therefore, acceptable. The licensee should establish a program to periodically contact vendors of key components (such as auxiliary feedwater pumps, safety-related batteries, ECCS pumps and safety-related valve operators) to facilitate the exchange of current technical information. In the case of the diesel generator and safety-related electrical switchgear vendors, the licensee should establish a formal interface similar to that with the NSSS vendor, if practicable.

4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED

4. 1 Guide 1 ine The licensee/applicant response should describe their program for compensating for the lack of a formal vendor interface where such an interface cannot be practicably established. This program may reference the NUTAC/VETIP program, as described in INPO 84-010, issued in March 1984. If the NUTAC/VETIP program is referenced, the response should describe how procedures were revised to properly control and implement this program and to incorporate the program enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP report. The use of the NUTAC/VETIP program, instead of either a formal interface with each vendor of safety-related equipment or a program to periodically contact each vendor of safety-related equipment, will not relieve the licensee/applicant of his responsibility to obtain appropriate vendor instructions and information where necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or component will perform satisfactorily in service and to ensure adequate quality assurance in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.

4.2 Evaluation The licensee provided a brief description of the vendor interface program. Their descri'ption references the NUTAC/VETIP program. The licensee states that plant instructions and procedures are being used to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled and implemented. They also state that for manufacturers unable or unwilling to support their safety-related equipment with updated technical information, the licensee has a program to identify equivalent qualified components, to contact other utilities for replacement or maintenance information, to appraise maintenance personel of these special conditions and to implement changes that result from this program via their design change process.

VETIP is comprise i '

of two basic elements related to vendor equipment problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Oata System (NPRDS) and the Significant Event Evaluation and Information Network (SEE-IN) programs.

VETIP is designed to ensure that vendor equipment problems are recognized, evaluated and corrective action taken.

Through participation in the NPRDS program, the licensee submits engineering information, failure reports and operating histories for review under the SEE-IN program. Through the SEE-IN program, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations ( INPO) reviews nuclear plant events that have been reported through NPROS programs, through Nuclear Network and by NRC reports. Based on the significance of the event,'s determined by the screening review, INPO issues a report to all utilities outlining the cause of the event and related problems. This report also provides recommendations for practical corrective actions. These reports are issued in Significant Event Reports, in Significant Operating Experience Reports and as Operations and Maintenance Reminders. Upon receipt of these documents, the licensee, as part of their implementation of the NUTAC/VETIP program, evaluates the information to determine applicability to the facility. This evaluation is then documented and corrective actions taken as determined necessary. The licensee's Contractor/Vendor Information (CVI) file contains all updated equipment technical information gathered from any source.

The licensee's response states that procedures exist to review and evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures.

4.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's response to this concern is adequate and=

acceptable. This finding is based on the understanding that the licensee's commitment to implement the VETIP program includes the implementation of the enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP program to the extent that the licensee can control or influence the implementation of these recommendations.

~ 0

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE/APPLICANT AND VENDOR THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT 5.1 Guideline The licensee/applicant response should verify that the responsibilities of the licensee or applicant and vendors that provide service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of applicable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment are provided.

5.2 Evaluation The licensee's response commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program.

inadequately They further state that thei r present and revised programs and procedures implement this program. The VETIP guidelines include implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services.

5.3 Conclusion Me find the licensee's commitment to implement the VETIP recommendations acceptable, with the understanding that the licensee's commitment includes the objective for "Internal Handling of Vendor Services" described on page 23 of the March 1984 NUTAC report.

~ ~

6. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for WNP-2, we find that the licensee's interface program with its NSSS supplier (but not for vendors of other safety-related equipment), its internal handling of vendor-supplied services, along with the licensee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program, is acceptable. This is based on the understanding that the licensee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program includes the objective for "Internal Handling of Vendor Services" described on Page 23 of the March 1984 report and includes the enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the report to the extent that the licensee can control or influence such enhancements.

The licensee should establish a program to periodically contact vendors of key components (such as auxiliary feedwater pumps, safety-related batteries, ECCS pumps and safety-related valve operators) to facilitate the exchange of current technical information. In the case of the diesel generator and safety-related switchgear vendors, a formal interface, such as that established with the NSSS vendor, should be established, if practicable.

0

7. REFERENCES

1. Letter, NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits, "Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.

2. Letter, Washington Public Power Supply System (G. CD Sorensen) to NRC (A. Schwencer), "Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 18, 1983, G02-83-1076.

3. Letter, Washington Public Power Supply System (G. C. Sorensen) to NRC (W. R. Butler), "Generic Letter 83-28, Additional Information,"

May 17, 1985, G02-85-257.

4. Vendor E ui ment Technical Information Pro ram, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, INPO 84-010.

~

f

NRC FORM SS5 V.L NUCLEAR REGVLATORY COMMISSION I. REPORT NUMBER IAttrlttdOP PIOC. tdd VOI rtO., Mtttl 12.8oI NRCM 1102.

2 20 I, 2202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7674 SFE INSTRUCTIONS ON THF. REVERSE 2 TITLE ANO SUBTITLE 2 LEAVE BLANK CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2,2--

YENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-O, GATE REPORT COMPLETED RELATED COMPONENTS: WNP-2 MONTH YEAR 5, AV THOR IS I June 1987 Alan C. Udy 5. GATE REPORT ISSUED MONTH YEAR June 1987 T. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONNAME ANO MAILINGAOORESS llttrodt Zdr Codtl 8. PROJECT/TASK/WORK UNI'T NVMBER EG8G Idaho, Inc.

9. FIN OR GRANT NVMBER P. 0. Box 1625 e Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001

10. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME. ANO MAILINGAOORESS Ilotludt Zot Codtl 11 ~, TYPE OF REPORT Division of Engineering and System Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation O. PERIOO COVER EO (lotroow dtrtrl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 12 SUPPLFMEN'FARY NOTES

12. ABSTRACT 1200 wonft or rtrtl This EG8G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Washington Public Power Supply System regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for WNP-2.

IO OOCUMENT ANALYSIS ~ KEYWOROSIOESCRIPTORS I 5 AV AIL A BI LIT Y STATEMENT Unlimited Distribution 15 SECVRITYCLASSIFICATION I Toit ptttl O. IOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENOEO TERMS Unclassified I PAN rtoorrl Unclassified

11. NUMBER OF PAGES IB. PRICE