ML19325D090

Safety Evaluation Re Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1, Equipment Classification Program for All Safety- Related Components

ML19325D090
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	10/04/1989
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML19325D087	List: ML19325D085 ML19325D090
References
GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8910180353
Download: ML19325D090 (4)

Text

,, _

l

f N'

v s N M 't%'o,_

'r y

'e JJNITED STATES t

~

-8

():

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

. v.

d i[

WASHINGTON, D C,20555 -

7

^*

[

ENCLOSURE 1 SAFETY EVALUATION RANCH 0zSECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION = UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 312 7

GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.1 EQUIPMENT-CLASSIFICATION PROGRAMS FOR ALL SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS

-1.0-. INTRODUCTION

' Generic. Letter 83-28 was; issued by the NRC on July 8,1983 to indicate actions to be_ taken by licensees-and applicants based on the generic implications of Lthe Salem ATWS events.

Item 2.2.1 of that letter states that licensees and

' applicants shall describe in considerable detail their program for classifying i

all: safety-related components other than RTS components as safety-related on i

. plant documents'and-in information handling systnes that are used to control l

plant activities that may affect these. components.- Specifically, the licensee /

. applicant's submittal was required to _contain information describing:(1) the C

critieria used to identify these components as! safety-related;1(2) the Linformation-handling system which identifies the' components'as safety-related; (3) the maniser in'which station personnel use this information handling system tocontrolactivitiesaffectingthesecomponents;(4)managementcontrolsthat.

are used to verify that the information handling system is prepared, maintained, s

validated,.and.used in accordance with approved procedures; and (5) design i

verification and qualification testing requirements that are part of the -

l specifications for procurement of safety-related components.

The-licensee;for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I submitted responses to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1 in submittals dated November 4, p'

1983, May 23, 1985 and December-3, 1986. We have evaluated these responses and find that they are acceptable.

2.0 EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

-l In these sections the licensee's responses to the program and each of five sub-items are. individually evaluated against guidelines developed by the staff and conclusions are drawn regarding their individual and collective acceptability.

1.-

Identification Criteria Guideline: The licensee's response should describe the criteria used to ident1ry safety-related equipment and components.

(Item 2.2.1.1) ll 8910180353 891004

[

,gDR -ADOCK0500g02

.i,9 jT: l, e -l

.

~Y, I

2 - --

~ Evaluation:

The;11censee's submittal provides the classification criteria used to l

l determine whether equipment is safety-related.- The licensee has a.

c procedure that is used to initiate the identification of equipment as i

safety-related or r.orisafety-related if no previous classification exists.

==

Conclusion:==

)

The ;11censee's submittal for this item, meets staff requirements and is c

. acceptable.

L

-2.

Information Handling System Guideline:

The licensee's response should confirm that the equinient class 1T1 cation program includes ar. information handling system tist is used to. identify safety-related equipment and components.. Approved procedures which govern-its development, maintenance, and validation j

should exist. (Item 2.2.1.2)

Evaluation:

The licensee's submittal describes a computerized system for identifying,

?

' listing, tracking and retrieving maintenance information on safety-related equipment. The licensee also describes their administrative procedure

.which defines the. method for making changes.to the Maintenance Information.

Management System.

Conclusion:

We conclude that the licensee's submittal meets the staff requirements-for this item and is acceptable.

3.

Use of.Information Handling System:

Guidelines: The licensee response should confirm that their equipment

.t classification program includes criteria and procedures which govern the use of the information handling system to-determine that an activity is

. safety-related and that safety-related procedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement and other activities defined in the introduction to 10 CFR-50,) Appendix B, are applied to safety related components.

(Item 2.2.1.3 Evaluation:

'The licensee's submittal states that the Master Equipment List is to be used to determine equipment classification prior to working on any plant equipment. Administrative procedures require this use of the Master Equipnient List.

e

.......-...-.._,,.._.-........_....,.-.-...,,,..-....m.-

W j

s y

5 <

1 i

g Conclusion

• 4 We' conclude that the licensee's submittal meets the staff requirements

)

and is acceptable.-

i

-4.

Manag9 ment Controls Guideline: The licensee / applicant should confirm that management controls used to verify that-the' procedures for preparation, validation, and routine utilization of the information handling system have been and are being followed.

(Item 2.2.1.4)

Evaluation:

The' licensee's submittal states that there is a Management Safety Review

-Committee which audits their QA program. The results of QA audits and corrective actions are reported to' management.

==

Conclusion:==

We conclu'de that the licensee's submittal meets the staff requirements c.

L

for this item and ic acceptable.

5.

Design Verification and Procurement L

. Guideline: The licensee / applicant's response should document that past

-usage demonstrates that appropriate design verification _and qualification testing are specified for the procurement of safety-related components and The specificat#ons should include qualification testing for

. parts.

expected safety service conditions and provide. support for licensee's receipt of testing documentation which supports'the limits of life recomunended by the supplier.

If such documentation is not available.

corfirmation that the present program meets these requirements should be provided.

(Item 2.2.1.5) s Evaluation:

The licensee's submittal stated that they had a Quality Control Instruction which defines the method whereby quality class equipment requirements are evaluated and documented.

==

Conclusion:==

We conclude that the licensee's submittal meets the staff requirements l

and is-acceptable.

6.

"Important To Safety" Comments j

Guideline: Generic Letter 83-28 states that licensee / applicant equipment class 1T1 cation programs should include (in addition to the safety-related components) a broader class of components designated as "Important to

1,,

Q

~

v ' ~ '.. Y c.,

y Safety." However, since the generic-letter does not require the licensee /

1 applicant to furnish this information as part of their response, staff review of-this sub-item will not be performed.

(1 tem 2.2.1.6)-

7.

Program

-Guideline: Licensees / applicants s buld confirm that an equipment classi-fication program exists which provides assurance that all safety-related components are designated as safety-related on plant documents such as.

drawings, procedures, system descriptions,. test and maintenance instruc-tions, operating procedures and information hadling systems so that personnel who perform activities that affect such safety-related components are aware that they are working on safety-related components and are guided by' safety-related procedures and constraints.

(Item 2.2.1)

~

Evaluation:

g The licensee's responses to these requirements were contained in the p

submittals dated November 4,1983, May 23,1985 and December 3,1986.

L These submittals describe the licensee's program for identifying and-K

-classifying safety-related equipment and components which meets the staff requirements as indicated in the preceding sub-item evaluations.

==

Conclusion:==

}

. We conclude that the licensee's program addresses the staff concerns regarding equipment and. component classification and is acceptable.

3.0 REFERENCES

I 1.

NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all licensees of Operating Reactors

?

Applicants for Oper6 ting license and Holders of Construction h

Permits, " Required Actions 8ased on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.

l

2. -

Sacramento Municipal Utility District letter, R. J. Rodriquez to D. C. Eisenhut, NRC, November 4,1983 3.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District letter, R. J. Rodriquez to H. L. Thompson, Jr., NRC, May 23, 1985 4.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District letter, J. A. Ward to F. J. Miraglia, Jr., NRC, December 3,1986 Principal Contributor :

R. Lasky Dated: October 4, 1989

-.-,,m----

.-,m

--._-,.--,--,.m

sw

-lt

n yj i

r

['

s

!.{

+

y 1

.(GG.NTA-7321 l.

l:

,.i.

l'

+l T[CHNICAL [ VALUATION R[ PORT' L

CONFORMANCE TO GtNERIC L(TTER 83-28. '! TEM 2.2.1-. -

EQUIPMINT CLASSiflCATION FOR ALL 0THER SAFETY-RELATED COMPON(NTS:

-RANCHO SECO-1 t.

-Docket No. 50-312 i

R. Vander8eek l.

b l-i-

i L

o Pubilshed Apr11 1987 1,

idaho National [ngineering Laboratory L

(G&G Idaho, Inc.

i.>

Idaho falls, Idaho 83415 o

Prepared for the

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C.

20555 Under 001 Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 l

FIN No. 06001

-v.y U l0 V " M 4 t (fogy -

e.a m mc e

a.-.

u -.

- ~.. -. - - - -. - ~..... -..........

zy n.;

i

. ::1-s*4

>: ; i.;. ; ;_

7, t

P 4

1

... I

-t

.as

i r,.

s 9 % '%

A85 TRACT LThis (G6G Idaho', inc. report provices-a-review of the submittals for

--the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating: Station Unit.No. ) for conformance to Generic Letter _83-28 Item 2.2.1.

i 4

L

.t

!,6 i

.i

.4 L

t

.i

~i Docket No. 50-312 TAC No. 53709 11

i

~ ~ ~ -

~ ^ ~ ~

~~~

~

r

).I ' ;

-a.,.,

1(:$hh (.,

9 l

i i

1 FOREWORD

~.

1<

l This report ts. supplied as part of the program for. evaluating 1

itcensee/ applicant ~ conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 ' Required Actions Based on Generic-Impitcations of Salem ATWS Events." This work is being-L conductedsfor the'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss' ton, Office of Nuclear Reactor' Regulation, Olvision of PWR Licensing-A, by EG4G Idaho, 'inc..

l The U.S.~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the

. i authorization B&Rl20-19 10-11-3, f!N No. 06001.

i p

s Docket No. 50-312 TAC No. 53709 itt

-,.s.

So 1-i

..f

?~

,.s=

+.

q s

.- j CONTENTS ~

R c

-1 ABSTRACI..............................................................,

11-

'FOR[ WORD..............................................................

til

.1 1.

lNTR00UCT10N'...........

2.

R(VI(W CONTENT AND F0RMAT.........................................

2 i

!! TEM 2.2.1 - PR0 GRAM'..-...........................................-

3' j

f 3.

3 ~.1 Guldeline..................................................

3 l

re m

3.2:

Ivaluation.................................................

3

+

K 3.3 Conclusion..................................................

3 NT I F I C Ai! ON CRI T[ RI A...........................

4 h

4.

~ 1 TIM'2.2.1.1 - 10(

4.1 -

Guideline..................................................

4' I

s 4.2 Evaluation..................................................

4.

4.3 Conclusion.................................................

4 5.

liiM 2.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM...............,........

5 i:

.5.1' Guideline..................................................

5

= 5 '. 2 fvaluation..-...............................................

5 L

5.3 ' Conclusion.................................................

5 6.

IT[M 2.2.1.3 - USE OF EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISilNG...........

6 L

61 Guideline..................................................

6 o

6.2 (valuation.................................................

6 6.3 Conclusion..................................................

6 7.

ITIM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS...............................

7 7.1 Guideline..................'................................

7 7.2 (valuation.................................................

7 7.3 Conclusion.................................................

7 iv 1.

1

. n m..

m m

.c

$ ; li o a

,j

+

)e"/

13 p 7. ; E I.g.i

1. E f.

s

\\

p s

i

~ 8.

ITEM 2.2.1.5'- 0(S!GNLV!RiflCAT10N AND PROCUR(M(NT..i.............

8 l

8.1. ' ' Guideline......................................,,,.

8 8.2 Evaluation....................................................

8 8.3 Conclusion................................................-

-8 9.

IT[M 2.2.1.6. "lMPORIAhi 70 SAfliY" COMP 0N(NTS..................

9' 9.1-Guidelini..................................................

9 G

10.. CONCLUSION............................................:...........

10 11.

REFERENCES........................................................

11 l

k

.P i

b l

l 4

!. i 1

I l

Y l

.,g--

7 _. -- __

,1

, w

,3 q

]

4 7

Ak

~

CONFORMANCE TO GINf RIC Lf TTf R 83 28. IT!M 2,2.1..

' f oulPMf NTL CL AS$1FICAfl0N FOR ALL OTHf R SAf f fY.Rf L Aff D COMPONENTS:

RANCHO SfC0.I' i

1.

INTR 000Cil0N

,0n f ebruary 25, 1983 both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of 1

the Salem Nuclear ~ Power' Plant f ailed to open upon an automatic reactor trip.

l Signal. f rom the reactur 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 circult~ breakers was determined to be related:to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. Pr ior to this incident. on february 22, 1983. et Unit 1 of the Sales Nuclear Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam generator low low level during plant startup.

In this case, the' reactor-2 was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.

following these incidents, on fabruary 28. 1983, the NRC Esecutive 01 rector for: Operations (!00), directed the staf f to investigate and report l

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 isolicattons of the Sales untt incidents ere reported in NURtG-1000

-

• Generic Implications.of the ATWS (vents at the $41em Nuclear Power Plant.' As a result-of this-investigation, the Commission (NRC) requested (by' Generic Letter $3 28 dated July 8.1983') all licensees of operating reactors, applicants-for an operating Ilconse, and' holders of construction

[

permits to respond to generic issues rolled by the analyses of these two f

ATWS events.

This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District for Rancho seco Nuclear Generating Station. Unit No. 1 for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83 28.

The actual documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.

1

._.1.___,

.g

^

.'s_',

~

?

.4

q

.,.4 :,.

d c.. s 1

2..

AlVl(W CONTENT AND FORMAT h

7

)

Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83 28 requests the licensee /appilcent to_

j submit, for sLeff review,'e'defcrlptton of thelt-progress _for classification of their safety.related equipment includes supporting I

information..in. considerable Petell,les indicated'in the guidelines--

- preceding 4he evolvation of each sub.ites.

As previously stated, each of the.sta sub-Items of item ?,2'.1.15 l

. evelveted in a separate section in which the guicellne is presented; an=

- evaluellon of the licensee's/epplicant's response is made; and conclusions eDout Its acceptability are drawn.

t L

i L

i c

l; l-

.t l

l

~

... -..... ~ _..,.. _....... -....

,n

)

4 y

~

p.'

[

.."9 y

.1 i

')

3.

I I[M ' 2. 2.. ). PROGRAM

')

3.1 Guideline i

licensee and applicants shoul. con 11rm that an equipment j

Cidssification program is in piece which will provide assurance that all

.sef ety-related components dre designated es safety.related on plant

{

dog mentation such 45 procedures, system descriptions, test and maintenance instructions and in thf ormation hdadling systems So-that per sonnel l

perf orming ac tivities that af f ec t such $4f ety.related components are dware that they dre. working on saf ety.related components and are guided by safety related procedures and constraints. L icensee and applicant-responses which Address, the features of this program are evaluated-in the

' remainder of this report.

I L

3.2 Evaluation I

l' The-licensee for Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. I provided d response to Generic Letter $3 28 on November 4 1982.

May 23.1 1985 and December 3,1986.

These submit tels included inf ormation that describes their safety.related equipment tidstification program.

In the. review of the licensee's response.to this item, it was d$sumed that the information and documenteLion supporting this program 15

'available~for Audit upon request.

3.3 Concluston l

.The staf f concludes that all the basic requirements of the equipment cidssification program are in place and address the concerns of the items of Item 2.2.I of Generic Letter 83 28.

t

[

lL i

3 i

p

[ ;;

..'d i

4.

IT(M 2.2.1.). jDINilf! Call 0N CRif[RIA 4.1 Guldeline

.The criterie for identifying componernts 45 54fety.reldted thould be Pfelented. 1 hit thould include A Hicription of mednt for handling

.lub. components or pertl al well 45 procedures for initiating the identification of components et safety.related or non ldf ety related if no previous cldlliittetton esisted..

4.2 lvaluditon The 11cenlee'l lubmittel provides the Clelllfication criter te used to cetermine whether a structure, System or component 15 lafety relatec.

This il conlittent with the definition gleen in item 2.2.1.

The 11rente' identified the procedure used to inittete the identification of component's 45 lafety.related or nontefety.reldted if no previous cidstification epilled.

4.3 Contlution The licensee's responte to this item 15 complete and il acceptable.

l 4

)

4

.. '. o '.

If!M ?.?.1.2 - lhf 0RMA110N HANDLING SY$1(M

$.1 Guideline the licensee or appilcant theeld confirm that the program f or eculpment classiftcation incluce an information hand 11ng system that is used to identify safety related componentl.

The response thould conf trm that this inf ormation handling syltem includet a Illt of Saf ety relatea eculpment and that procedurel eAllt which govern 1tl development and validation.

$.? fvaluation The licenlee delcribel the information handling lyttem U%ed f or identif ying lafety related components al a computer 12ed method of listing, trarking, and rett leving maintenance inf ormation or. plant equipment.

This System 15 known at the Maintenance Inf ormation Manar,ement System (MIMS).

The MIMS contilti of the Master toutpment List (M(L). the Drawing Indes.

[_

the Spare Parts Syltem, the Work Request System, the Austitary Tablet System, and the Vendor Litt Sylten. Admintltrative procedure AP.4? defines the MIMS content, the responsibt))ty and authority f or adding, changing, or deleting Inf ormation and the method of making changes.

$.3 ConClvilon The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete ano 15 atteptable.

0 s

6.

]T(M ?.?.l.3. US! Of (QUIPMINT CL ASSIFICAll0N LISI!NG b.)

Guideline lhe licenlee's description should show how station personnel use the equipment classification informat tsi handl'ng lystem to determine:

(4) when an activity is saf ety.related, and (b) what procedures are to be used f or maintenance work, routine surveillance testing, accomplishment of design changel, and performance of special tests or Studies.

We thould be able to gain confidence f rom our review that there will be no conf usion about when activity 15 safety related.

)

6.2 Ivaluatiqn The licensee's response states that section 2.1 of Quality Assurance Procedure QAP3, " Quality AS$urance C141stitcation*, establishes a procedure j

for clentif ying systems, structures, Suballemblies, components and design character tititt to 45 to establish the degree of quellty 455urance activity related to their manuf acture, erec tion, installation, maintenance, or in. service inspection.

It allo estabillhes that Nuclear (ngineering determines the cid55)fication of systems and components.

The MIL 11 used f or this. -In addition admin 15trative procedure AP.3 requires 1) that a work request be submitted for documentation of maintenance, modifications, and other work item %, and 2) the QA clell of the item be f t' corded on the work requelt.

The co",ntrant engineer determines what procedures are required f or the work beled on the QA clals specified on the work request.

-The licensee States that all procedures are reviewed by the Plant Review Commit tee (PRC).

6.3 Conclusion s

Ine 1)censee's response to this item is complete and 15 attectable.

i 6

... t

- - - ~ ' ~

' ^ ^ ^ ^

' ^^

i

+

l

{

o sr.

7 II(M ?.2.1.4. MANAG[M[Ni CONTROL S 7.1 Guidelimel i

Manager tal controll that wl1I.e used by the licenlee to ver if y that the information hand))ng $ystem for equipment clallification has been

I 4

i prepared according to the approved procedures, it'at its contents have been validated, that it is being maintained current, and that it 15 being used l

to determine eQulpmen, cidstification el intended shall be described, the description of these controls shall be in sufficient detall for the staff to determine that they are in place and are workable.

(

7.2 (valuation the licensee's response States that the Rancho Seco fechnical Specifications, Jtem 6.$ 2.8.d require that the Management $4fety Review l

Comittee audit the QA program. Que11ty contr'on Instruction CCl.2 l

descr1 bel the OA audtt erogram.

The purpose of this orogram is to provide for systematic, planned audits of nuclear $4fety related alpects of operat ion, maintenance, inspec tion, letting, modif icatic 1, adminis tration I

and the nuclear operations, testing, modification, administration and the j

' nuclear operations quality alturance program to verify that they are in accordance with their respective license reestrements.

The result of

. audits and corrective action are reported to management, the Nuclear (secutive Otrector determines the ef fectiveness of the QA program based on this information.

7.3 Conclullon i

We find the licensee'$ response to this item complete and is acceptable.

h 7

. _..., _,...,..., - ~ - - - - - -

- - - ^ ' - ~ ^ - - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~'

t t

l o

r i

?

8.

17tM 2.2.1.$ D[$1GN VtRlflCAfl0N AND PROCURIM[Ni I

t f

8.1 Guide l l.ie The appittant's or licensee's es bmittel should document that past

[

usage demonstrates that appropriate destCn verification and qualification i

testing 15 specified f or the procurement of safety-related components and parts. The specifications should include qualtftcation testing for espected safety service conditions and provide support for the applicant's/11tenste's receipt of testing documentation to suppori the Ilmits of Ilfe recoasmended by the supplier.

If such documentation is not avaliable, confirmation that the present program meets these requirements f

should be provided.

8.2 (valuation i

The Itcensee included within his response Quality Control Instruction OCl-4 which detines the method whereby quality class requirement $ are evaluated and documented.

The procedure appites to 0A Class I parts and materials.

l 8.3 Conclusion i

The licensee's response f or this item is considered to be complete and is acreptable.

I L

8 l

-. - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - -

f 4

l 9.

lilM 2.2.1.6

"!MPORTANT TO SAf fiY" COMPONENTS t

1 9.1 Guldeline l

i Generic 'etter 83 28 states that the licensee's or appitcant's

'l equ1pment classifIcetion prog.am should include (in add 1 tion to the safety.related components) a broader class of components designated as j

t

'Important to Safety." However, $1nce the generic. letter does not recutre

'the Itcensee or appilcant to furnish this information as part of their response, review of this item will not 'De performed.

i i

I a

i i

i

-i i

i 1

9

- ~ - -

1 b.

()

e.-

i i

10. CONCLUSION

)

?

Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific j

requirements of Item 2.2.1. we find that the information provided Dy.the l

Itcensee to resolve the concerns of item 2.?.1 meet the requirements of i

)

Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.

Item 2.2.1.6 was not reviewed 45 noted in Section 9 of this report.

i 3

f

-1 t

t i

I n

(.

l P

I i

i i

h a

t 1

10

~

I l

[

i

~

11.

R[F(R[NCl$

1.

NRC Letter, D. G. [isenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Appilcants for Operating Lteense, and Holders of Construction Permits.

' Required Actions Based on Generic Implication of Salem ATWS [ vents (Generic Letter 83-28),' July P.

1983.

4 2.

Sacramento Municipal Utility 01strtet letter, R. J. Rodriquer to l

0. G. fisenhut, NRC, November 4, 1983, RJR 83-725.

3.

Sacramento Municipal utility Otstrict letter. R. J. Rodriquer to H. L. Thompson, J'., NRC, May 23, 1985. RJR 85-269.

4.

Sacramento Municipal Utility Olstrict letter, J. A. Ward to F. J. Miraglia, Jr., NRC, December. 3,1986. JEW 86-901.

i 4

b h

i a

h I

11

_ - _. _.. -. _,. _.. _... _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _... _. _ _ _ _..