ML19332B585

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28 Item 2.2.1--Equipment Classification for All Other Safety-Related Components:Hope Creek.
ML19332B585
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 09/30/1989
From: Udy A
EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML19332B586 List:
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7278, GL-83-28, TAC-61479, NUDOCS 8910060143
Download: ML19332B585 (18)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

g,

]

ENGLCSURE 2

?. l J

1 EGG-NTA-7278 September 1989 l= ,

Y TECHNIChL EVALUATION REPORT 1 Dr O-CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28

~N8 DON 8/ -ITEM 2.2.1--EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL fng/nger/ng OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: HOPE CREEK Laboratory M8" N Alan C. Udy ,

by the U.S.

Department .

of Energy - .

i V

I .,

Prepared forthe s' "

+4> M

  • U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

006 Cesenet ,

Nn DE AG1 MWRF \

1 0

)

,./ w -' ~ ~

_. .. -c . -

y , a,y ,

so- -gi <. i l

- .(

l

. j EGG NTA-7278 l

-?

1 '

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEN 2.2.1--  !

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL 0THER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

HOPE CREEK  ;

Docket No. 50-354 Alan C. Udy 1

'l b

Published September 1989  ;

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory  !

EG&G Idaho, Inc. i Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

-l

\

4 a

Prepared for the

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN No. 06001 TAC No. 61479 a

l;

l. 'l

,e , . ,

4 [. ,. 7'

]

6 -s 1 j': y )

=p, , 1

l >

I s

q 1

3 1,

.i;;;

y -

SUMMARY

i This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the. Hope. Creek Generation' Station for conformance to Generic Letter 83 28, Item 2.2.1. - ' Item 2.2,1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires licensees;and x

applicants to; submit a detailed description of their program for-safety-related equipment classification for staff review. It also describes-guidelines that.the programs should encompass. This review concludes that

~

the: licensee complies with the requirements of this ites..

s L

F FIN No. D6001 j B&R No. 20-19-10 11-3 Docket No. 50-354 TAC No. 61479 L. , jj

  • L:

y.

i

. _ ' - _ - _ _ _ L J _ T '_ L _ ___ _ ___ _ ____,._ - _. . _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , . - , - . ,

s. ,

n.; .

f >\:I. ' j'llI 3 '%

t: ,.,

l{ -

.f -

q ,

1

.; r .i ,

.- : y  :

/

?

t c

I r I i

n.

L

\ g 5

y g

.~ 'l t

PREFACE ,

g ' This report is supplied as-part o'f the program for evaluating l

-licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28,-" Required Actions-Based on Generic-Implications;of Sales ATWS Events.." This work is being-conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Systems Technology, by EG&G Idaho, Inc.,

Regulatory and Technical l Assistance Unit.

fI t

r C

a L  ;

'S-'

D l

L. , r u ,

L

-5 iii i e

l r"

l5-I._ . ,; , . .: . ,

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

. a . .. _ . . _ . . . . . - . - . . _ . - _ _ . . _ _ __ . . . _ . . . . . - , - . _ - _ . - . . . . . - . . - _ - . , - _ . ~ . . . . - . - . - - ,

w , .

ffW a r

t

?_,; -

L CONTENTS .

p . .

SUMMARY

............................................................... it i

1 PREFACE ............................................................... i ii

'l. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................ ~2
3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM ............................................. 3^

3.1 Guideline .................................................. 3 3.2 Evaluation................................................. 3 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. 3  ;

e

4. ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA ........................... 4 4.1 Guideline .................................................. 4 4.2 Evaluation ................................................. 4 4.3 Conclusion ................................................. 4
5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM ....................... 5 5.1 Guideline .................................................. 5 5.2- Evaluation ................................................. 5 5.3 Conclusion ................................................. 6
6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF THE EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING ....... 7 6.1 Guideline .................................................. 7 c 6.2 Evaluation ................................................. 7 6.3 Conclusion ................................................. 7 7 '. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ............................... 8

-7.1 Guideline .................................................. 8 -

7.2 Evaluation ................................................. 8 7.3 Conclusion ................................................. 8 8.- ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT ............... 9 8.1 Guideline .................................................. 9 8.2 Ev a l u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 8.3 Conclusion ................................................. 9 l

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 9.1 Guideline .................................................. 10 l
10. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 11
11. REFERENCES ....................................................... 12 iv o

=

,- + - -, -

-;. 1 g..

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.2.1--

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

. . tELCM

1. INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the seram circuit breakers at Unit 1.of 1 the Salem. Generating Station failed to cpsn 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, at Unit 1 of the Salem Generating i Station,'an automatic trip' signal was generated based on steam generator low-low level during plant start-up. 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 l Sales Generating Station. The results of the staff's inquiry into the L generic implications of the Salem-1 incidents are reported in NUREG-1000,

" Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at' the Sales Generating' Station."

l. As a result of this investigation..the-Commission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28, dated July 8,1983 1

) that all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an 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 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) for the Hope Creek Generating Station for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents reviewed as a L part of this evaluation are listed in the References (Section 11) at the end of this report.

l l

l 1 a

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

- . _. -. . .- = . _ - - . ..

.= , ;'

y

-2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT

.1 Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee to submit'a description of their programs for safety-related equipment classification  ;

for staff review. Detailed supporting information should also be included I

'in.the description -as indicated in the guideline section for each item within this report.

As previously indicated, each of the six items of-Item 2.2.1 is _,

evaluated in a separate section in which the guideline is presented; an .

I evaluation of the licensee's response is made; and conclusions about the programs of the licensee for safety related equipment classification are drawn..

l

~

V- i j

r .

3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM  !

3.1 Guideline i

Licensees should confirm that an equipment ~ classification program is in place that will provide assurance that safety-related components are 1 designated as safety-related on plant documentation. The program should provide assurance that the equipment classification 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 are guided by, safety-related procedures and constraints.

Licensee responses that address the features of this program are evaluated in the remainder of this report. L 3.2 Evaluation

.The licensee for the Hope Creek Generating Station responded to Generic Letter 83-28 with submittals dated March 30, 1984,2 December 17, 1984,3 and May 21, 1985.4 A submittal dated September 5, 1989.5 provided additional, updated information. 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 is-available for audit upon request.

l l

l 3.3 Conclusion We have reviewed the licensee's submittals and find that the licensee's program is acceptable, as indicated in the following sections.

i l

i 4

a _ _ _ , _ _ . . . . , . _ , , . , , . . ._ __.___,,_...#

- . -., -.p.

b L-

  • . . f L .
4. ITEM'2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA 4.1 Guideline The licensee should confirm that their program used for equipment
  • classification includes the criteria used for identifying components as  ;

safety-related.

4.2 Evaluation The licensee response (Reference 2) states that a component is designated safety-related if it is relied upon to remain functional during and following a design basis event to ensure a) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, b) the capability to shutdown the reactor and to maintain the reactor in a safe shutdown condition, and c) the capcbility to prevent or to mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite exposures. This definition encompasses the criteria given in the footnote to Section 2.2.1 of the generic letter.

4.3 Conclusion The licensee's response to this item is complete and addresses the staff's concern. Therefore, we find the licensee's response for this item acceptable, ,

l l

1 ci 4

,,w.y e- wg -+g 3 , y *- ~ , . -

~

, .- ]

+ 1 l

5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM

$.1 Guideline 1 The: licensee should confirm that the program for equipment .

classification includes an information handling rystem that is used to j

. 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 states that their original f nformation handling system for identifying safety-related components was a computerized listing known as the master equipment list (MEL). This MEL was developed by their architect engineer, Bechtel, in accordance with controlled engineering I

procedures. The MEL was verified by,a ten percent sample, and was considered a design and' source document. The MEL was updated in accordance with procedures'as part of all Design Change Package closecuts.

In June 1987, the MEL was transferred to the licensee's Managed Mair.tenance Information System (MMIS) computer database. The MMIS contains several interconnected modules. The Resource Data Module supports station planning and maintenance in the preparation of work orders and preventive maintenance. It draws upon the database to designate the safety-related status of the components involved.

The P911S Database Management Group (a part of the Engineering and Plant

[ . Betterment Department), in accordance with controlled, approved procedures, l is responsible for database changes. Security password access , allows only personnel from this group to make the changes. Verification of component classification is a ongoing process, with the classification of components verified by Engineering Department personnel for every work order.

5 6

- - - - .,--e-s >wn. ,en - ------------k--------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - -

JJi t, . .

w . .

, 4 5.3 Conclusion The licensee's responses describe a system that meets the recommendations 'of this item. Therefore, we find .the licensee's responses for this item acceptable. -

va l

1 k

1' .

?

5 l

O b

4 6

9

.. e < ~ , - ~ -

t

g. ;M *

,y i .,; .

5

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF THE EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING .

6.1 Guideline i

LThe licensee's description should confirm that the program for equipment classification includes criteria and procedures that govern how '

-station personnel use the equipment classification information handling j system to determine that an activity is safety-related. The description should also include the' procedures for maintenar.ce, surveillance, parts ,

replacement, and other activities defined in the introduction to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.' -'

i 6.2 Evaluation .  !

The Maintenance Planning Module of the MMIS generates work orders. The work order.contains the component classification, which the computer draws from the Resource Data Modules database. The safety-classification is verified by Engineering Department personnel prior to the work being done.

Station; administrative procedures are used to control, direct, and , 7 accomplish the task assigned by the work order. The-licensee states that Nuclear Department personnel are required to adhere to department approved procedures.

l-l 6.3 Conclusion l

We find that the licensee's description of plant administrative .

I controls and procedures meets the requirements of this item. Therefore, we find the' licensee's responses for this item acceptable.

7

--r.--, y -y y -ep-,.,. , , . . -

9 s g i

7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 7.1 Guideline I

The licensee should briefly describe the management controls that are used to verify that the procedures for the preparation, validation, and i' routine utilization of the information handling system have been, and are-being, followed.-

l 7.2 Evaluation The licensee uses management reports from the MMIS Database Management Group and the Quality Assurance Department as the management controls -

required by the generic letter. The MMIS Database Management Group audits ten percent of all=MMIS database changes and reports the:e audits to management. The Quality Assurance Department periodically audits the entire MMIS system and program, and reports these audits to management. These audit reports go to the Vice-President of Engineering, assuring that upper management is appraised that the procedures for the preparation, validat' ion,

~

and routine utilization of the MMIS have been, and are being, followed.

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 responses for this item

  • ecceptable.

L e

a; 8

l j' .

- -~

n.
  • t
8. . ITEM 2.2.1.5'- DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCURCMENT

-i 8.1 Guideline-The licensee's submittals should' document that past usage demonstrates that appropriate' design verification and qualification testing are specified  ;

for the= procurement of safety-related components and parts. The- i specification should include qualification testing' for the expected safety service conditions and provide support for the licensee's receipt of testing .

5 documentation to-support the limits of life recommended by the supplier. If such documentation is not available, confirmation that the present program meets these requirements should be provided. ,

8.2 Evaluation The licensee's Nuclear Department procedures control the procurer.ent of components, along with the design specifications and qualification testing.

The licensee. states that procedures assure that the ordered parts have the ,

required certifications and test results.

L 8.3 Conclusion 1

l

~

We conclude that the licensee has addres' sed the concerns of this item. ,

Therefore, we find the licensee's responses for this item, acceptable.

l L

1 I

9 ..

sc--- - - - , , , - - , . +,-4 yw,. ,- ,, ---

d ,

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "!MPORTANT 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. -

.i 4

9 e

k 9

6 4

1 i

i 1

10 a 4 - . . . , . . , e- , . , , -- -,,-a- . . ., -, , , , , ,,m,,.-, , ,m.

%y M-

. p.

e,,

.t

,.. l .? I 'e

.ie,;,.

t av. 10. . CONCLUSION 1

'a ~

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

~

W

, . . ,  ; requirements of Item 2.2.1, we find that:the-information provided by-the e

licensee to resolve'these concerns meets the. requirements of Generic I: .; Letter 83-28~and is acceptable. Item 2.2.1.6, as noted-in Section' 9, was

. not reviewed.~.

p -

-) .t . ';

J 1

'l I

i l' ,

1 1.;

i.

l 1'

i l

11 4

(: l L

1^

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

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

  • ~

, . l'y

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 Implications of Salem ATWS Events-(Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8,1983,

2. Letter, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (R.- L. Mittl) to NRC, ,

(A. Schwencer), " Response to NRC Generic Letter 83 28," March'30, 1984.

3. Letter, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (R. L. Mitti) to NRC, (A. Schwencer), " Response to NRC Generic Letter 83-28," December 17,

. 1984. (

4. Letter, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (R. L. Mitti) to NRC, (W. Butler),'"NRC' Generic letter 83 28 Request for Additional' Information," May 21, 1985. ,
5. Letter, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (S.E. Miltenberger) to NRC, " Additional Information Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1,"

September 5, 1989, NLR-N89181.

L e

t 12

)

_ . . , , , , , - , . .., , , - v--,,-~.,,..r,.,,,,.~ch

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19332B585&oldid=2484128"