ML17342A754
| ML17342A754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342A752 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7664, GL-83-28, TAC-53726, TAC-53727, NUDOCS 8707170177 | |
| Download: ML17342A754 (18) | |
Text
EGG-NTA-7664 June 1987
/NFORIWALREPORT
/daho Nationa/
Engineering Laboratory CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
TURKEY POINT-3 AND -4 Managed by the U.S.
Department ofEnergy Alan C.
Udy
@~ EGzG(d.ho n
Work performed under DDE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 Prepared for the U,S, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g707170177 8
0~50 pop ADOCK 0500pDR
DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily consutute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
EGG-NTA-7664 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2. 2 VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RElATED COMPONENTS:
TURKEY POINT-3 AND -4 Docket Nos.
50-250/50-251 Alan C.
Udy Published June 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G 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 EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Florida Power 8 Light Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
Docket Nos.
50-250/50-251 TAC Nos.
53726/53727
FOREWORD 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 ATMS Events."
This work is being conducted for the U.ST Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering and System Technology, by EG&G Idaho, Inc.,
NRR and I&E Support Branch.
-The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the authorization B&R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No.
D6001.
Docket Nos.
50-250/50-251 TAC Nos.
53726/53727
CONTENTS ABSTRACT FOREWORD l.
INTRODUCTION 2.
REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT 3.
ITEM 2.2. 2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
- 3. 1 Guideline 3.2 Evaluation 3.3 Conclusion 4.
PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED 4.1 Guideline
- 4. 2 Evaluati on 4.3
'Conclusion 5.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE/APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT
- 5. 1 Guideline 5.2 Evaluation 5.3 Conclusion
'6.
CONCLUSION 7.
REFERENCES
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ I
~
~
7
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
7
CONFORMANCE T ENERIC LETTER 83 "28 ITEM 2.2.
YENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
TURKEY POINT-3 AND -4 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 ihe sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment.
Prior to this incident, on February 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 plan. startup.
In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with he 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 Florida Power
& Light Company, the licensee for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, for Item 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.
REVIE'A 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 i'nformation, in considerable detail, as indicated in the guideline section for each case within this report.
These guidelines treat cases where di rect 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 OESCRIPTION
- 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 vendor 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 test procedures as is appropriate.
3.2 Evaluation The licensee for Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 8,
- 1983, March 1,
- 1984, 2
3 October 19, 1984 and June 14, 1985.
These submittals include 5
information that describes their vendor interface programs.
In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it was assumed that the information and documentation supporting these programs 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.
- However,
the licensee has not described their vendor interface program with the NSSS
- vendor, nor with vendors of other safety-related equipment.
They do state, however, that a program of NSSS vendor contact exists.
The licensee also states that Administrative Procedure 0103.38, "Control and Use of Vendor Technical Manuals," provides controls over equipment technical information.
The licensee also states that they have fully implemented the NUTAC/VETIP program.
One of the VETIP implementation responsibilities is to seek assistance and equipment technical information from the vendors of safety-related equipment (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, the guidelines for 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 any vendor.
The licensee reports that controls and procedures which require the review of safety-related equipment technical information to verify that it is referenced by and incorporated into plant procedures and instructions have been established.
3.3 Conclusion Me conclude that the licensee's response regarding program description is not complete.
The'icensee should describe the vendor contacts that are established on a regular basis with the NSSS vendor.
The licensee should establish a program to periodically contact vendors of key components (such as auxiliary feedwater
- pumps, safety-related batteries,'CCS 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'hould establish a
formal interface similar to that with the NSSS vendor, if practicable.
4.
PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED 4.1 Guideline 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 Par.
50.
4.2 Evaluation The licensee provided a brief description of the vendor interface program.
Their description 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.
VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data 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 pariicipation in the NPRDS program, he licensee submits engineering information, failure reports and operating hi stories 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 the NPRDS programs, Nuclear Network, and NRC reports.
Based on the significance of the event, as determined by the screening
- review, INPO issues a report to all utilities outlining the cause of the
- event, related problems and recommends 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 response states that Administrative Procedure 0103.38, "Control and Use of Vendor Technical Manuals,"
causes the review and evaluation of incoming equipment technical information.
4.3 Conclusion Me 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.
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.
They further state that their present and revised programs and procedures adequately implement this program.
The VETIP guidelines include implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services.
5.3 Conclusion We 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 Parch 1984 NUTAC report.
6.
CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for Turkey Point-3 and -4, we find that the licensee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program is acceptable.
This is based on the under standing 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.
- However, the licensee should establish a program to periodically contact the NSSS vendor and 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.
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, Florida Power & Light Company (J.
W. Williams, Jr.) to NRC
{D. G. Eisenhut),
November 8,
- 1983, L-83-555.
3.
Letter, Florida Power 5 Light Company (J.
W. Williams, Jr.) to NRC (D.
G. Eisenhut),
"Generic Letter 83-28 Section 2.2.2," March 1,
- 1984, L"84"50.
4.
Letter, Florida Power 8 Light Company (J.
W. Williams, Jr.) to NRC (D.
G. Eisenhut),
"Generic Letter 83-28 Section 2.2.2,"
October 19,
- 1984, L-84-290.
5.
Letter, Florida Power 6 Light Company (J.
W. Williams, Jr.) to NRC (H.
R. Thompson),
"Generic Letter No. 83-28, Section 2.2.2,"
June 14,
- 1985, L-85-233.
6.
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.
'2 Stl NRCM 1102, 3201. 2202 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMAIISSION BIBLIOGRAPHIC OATA SHEET I REPORT NVMSER l4urpotdpt TIOC.tdd Vor. Ho.,ittotl EGG-NTA-7664 SEE INSTRVC'TIONS ON THE REVERSE 2 TITLE AND SUSTITLE CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
TURKEY POINT-3 AND -4 J LEAVE SLANK
- 4. DATE REPORT COMPLF1'FO
- 5. AUTHORISI Alan C.
Udy MONTH June Sr DATE REPORT ISSUED YEAR 1987 2, PERFORMING ORGANIZAl'IONNAMF AND MAILINGADDRESS ltotrodt Zrp Codtl EG8G Idaho, Inc.
P.
0.
Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 MONTH June
- 5. PROJECTITASKIWORK UNIT NVMSER
~
- 10. SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONNAME ANO MAILINGADDRESS llrrtttdtZrp COdtl Division of Engineering and Systems Technology Office of Nucl ear Reactor Regul ati on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 11 ~. TYPE OF REPORT O. PERIOD COVER EO llntlotirodo roti 12 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12, ABSTRACT l200wordt otlnrl This EGSG Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Florida Power and Light Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Turkey Point.
I~ DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
~ KEYWORDSIOESCR<PTORS 15 AVAILASILITY STATEMENT Unlimited Distribution 15 SECURITY CLASS IF ICATION 0 IDENT'IFIERSIOPEN ENDED TERMS ltoo ptptl Unclassified ltpd rtportl Unclassified
- 12. NUMBER OF PAGES 15, PRICE