ML17308A482
| ML17308A482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17223A345 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7440, GL-83-28, TAC-53718, TAC-53719, NUDOCS 8909150162 | |
| Download: ML17308A482 (11) | |
Text
EHCLOSL'RE 2
EGG-NTA-7440 May 1989 TECHNICALEVALUATIONREPORT Idaho National Engineering Laboratory CONFORNNCE TO GENERIC LETTER S3-28, ITE!1 2.2.1--
EQUIP.'LENT CLASSIFICATION fOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED Col1PONENTS:
ST.
LUC IE-1/-2 Maraged py t.oe U.~.
9=-paK~=r-;
gl 2 iafg/
Alan C.
Udy
.:Sg WartparibsasaC~:..'
DOE CrAIea'.>; ~
Na D&ACQT-~I%m:
"-'-."':.",.W-.;~
Prepared for the U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
EGG-NTA-7440 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1-"
EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATEO COMPONENTS:
ST. LUCIE-1/-2 Docket Nos.
50-335/50"389 R.
VanderBeek Alan C.
Udy Published May 1989 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EGEG Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, O.C.
20555
'nder OOE Contract No. OE-AC07-761001570 FIN No. 06001 TAC Nos.
53718/53719
~ ~
SUMMARY
This EG4G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals for St. Lucie, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2. 1.
Item 2.2. 1 of Generic Letter 83-28. requires licensees to submit a detailed description of their programs for safety-related equipment classi'fication for staff review.
It also describes guidelines that the licensee's programs should encompass.
This review concludes that the licensee complies with the requirements of this item.
FIN. No.
06001 B&R No. 20-19" 10 'ocket Nos.
50-335 and 50-389 TAC Nos.
53718 and 53719
PREFACE 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 was conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Oivision of Engineering and System Technology, by EG4G idaho, inc., Regulatory and Technical Assistance Unit.
~
~
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
PREFACE
~ ~
~....
INTROOUCTION
~
~
~
V
~
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT...
ITEM 2.2. 1 -
PROGRAM....
- 3. 1 Guideline 3.2 Evaluation 3.3 Conclusion...
ITEM 2.2. 1. 1 -
IOENTIFICATION CRITERIA
- 4. 1 Guideline 4.2 Evaluation 4.3 Conclusion
."'TEM 2.2.1.2 -
INFORMATION HANOLING SYSTEM.......
- 5. 1 Guideline 5.2 Evaluation 5.3 Conclusion ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF THE EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION 6.1 Guideline..............................
6.2 Evaluation 6.3 Conclusion ITEM 2.2. 1. 4 " MANAGEMENT CONTROLS....
- 7. 1 Guideline.....
7.2 Evaluation 7.3 Conclusion ITEM 2.2. 1. 5 " OESIGN VERIFICATION ANO PROCUREMENT
~
~
~
~
LISTING
. ~...
~.
3 3
3 4
4 5
5 5
6 6
6 7
7 7
8.1 8.2 8.3 Guideline Evaluation Conclusion 8
8 8
ITEM 2.2. 1.6 - "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS
- 9. 1 Guideline..
10.
CONCLUSION REFERENCES
\\
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
10 iv
~>f
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1-"
EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATEO COMPONENTS:
ST.
LUCIE"1/"
2'.
INTROOUCTION 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 February 22,
- 1983, an automatic trip signal was generated at Unit 1 due to a steam generator low-low level-trip during plant startup.'n 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 Oirector for Operations (EOO), dir ected the NRC staff to investigate and report on the generic 'implications of these occurrences at Unit 1.
The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem Unit 1 incidents were reported in NUREG-10PO, "Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant."
As a result of this investigation, the NRC requested (by Generic Letter 83-28, dated July 8, 1983
) that all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an 1
operating license; and holders of construction permits 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 Florida Power 4 Light (FPL) Company, the licensee for St. Lucie, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, for Etem 2.2. 1 of Gener ic Letter 83-28.
The documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the References (Section ll) at the end of this report.
3.
ITEM 2.2. 1 -
PROGRAM
- 3. 1 Guideline Licensees should confirm that an equipment classification program is in place that will provide assurance that safety"related components're designated as safety-related on plant documentation.
The program should provide assurance that the equipment classification information handling system is used so that activities that may affect safety-related components are designated safety-related.
By using the information handling
- system, personnel are made aware that they are working on safety-related components and are directed to, and guided by, safety-related procedures and constraints.
Licensee responses that address the features of this program are evaluated in the remainder of this report.
3.2 Evaluation The licensee for St. Lucie, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 8,
- 1983, May 26,
- 1987, 2
and July 29, 1988.
These submittals describe the licensee's safety-related equipment classification program.
In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it was assumed that the information and documentation supporting this program are available for audit upon request.
The licensee's response states that safety-related components are identified as safety-related on documents and in information handling systems that are used in the plant.
These documents and information handling systems assur e that work requests and procedures contain requirements commensurate with the safety-classification of the system or components.
3.3 Conclusion We have reviewed the licensee's information and find that, in general, the licensee's responses are acceptable.
5.
ITEM 2.2.1.2 " INFORMATION HANOLING SYSTEM
-,- 5. 1 Guideline The licensee should confirm that the program for equipment classification includes an information handling system= that is used to identify safety-related components.
The response should confirm that this information handling system includes a list of safety-related equipment and that procedures exist to govern its development and validation.
5.2 Evaluation The licensee's response states that a computerized equipment list is not presently maintained.
Safety-related components are identified in the Updated Final Safety Ana'lysis Report (UFSAR) and in controlled plant
- drawings, such as PKI diagrams, valve lists, instrument lists, and control wiring diagrams.
These lists and drawings were developed during plant design and construction and are now maintained as contro'll'ed documents and are used in any review to determine the safety classification of components, The licensee states that these lists and drawings correctly identify the safety-related status of all safety-related components and that they are maintained and distributed to users as an official, complete source of classification information for all safety-related components.
We note that the licensee is establishing a computerized "total equipment database" (TEDB), which is to be developed and maintained by the engineering department in accordance with approved quality instructions.
This future TEOB is not reviewed in this report.
5.3 Conclusion The licensee's responses describe a system that meets the recommendations of this item.
Therefore,
~e find the licensee' respons
's for this item a'cceptable.
7, ITEM 2.2. 1,4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
- 7. 1 Guideline The licensee, should briefly describe the management controls that are used to ver'ify that the procedures for preparation, validation, and routine use of the information handling system have been, and are being, followed.
7.2 Evaluation The licensee states that routine guality Assurance audits are used to verify that safety-related identification documents,
- drawings, and equipment lists have been, and are being, prepared and validated in accordance with approved procedures.
The licensee also states that guality Assurance audits verify that the information handling system has
- been, and is being, used in accordance with approved procedures.
7.3 Conclusion We find, that the management controls used by the licensee assure that the information handling system is maintained, is current, and is used as intended.
Therefore, we find the licensee's response for this item acceptable.
~
~
9.
ITEM 2.2, 1,6 - "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS
- 9. 1 Guideline Generic Letter 83-28 states that the licensee's equipment classification program should include (in addition to the safety"related components) a broader class of components designated as "Important to Safety."
- However, since the generic letter does not require the licensee to furnish this information as part of their response, this item will not be reviewed.
11.
REFERENCES 1.
- Letter, NRC (0.
G. Eisenhut) to All Licensees of Operating
- Reactors, Applicants for Operating
- License, and Holders of Construction Permits, "Required Actions Based on Generic Impl.ications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.
2.
Letter,'lorida Power
& Light Company (J.
W. Williams, Jr.) to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC (0.
G. Eisenhut),
"Generic Letter 83-28," November 8,
- 1983, L-83-554.
3.
Letter, Florida Power & Light Company (C.
O. Woody) to NRC, May 26,
- 1987, L-87"178.
4.
Letter, Florida Power
& Light Company (W. F.
Conway) to NRC, "Item 2.2. 1,2 of Generic Letter 83-28 Information Handling System,"
July 29, 1988, L-88"319.
11