ML20011D105

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: Byron-1/-2, Technical Evaluation Rept
ML20011D105
Person / Time
Site: Byron  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 09/30/1989
From: Udy A
EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20011D104 List:
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7250, GL-83-28, TAC-56277, TAC-63243, NUDOCS 8910310046
Download: ML20011D105 (16)
v • d • e


Text

a .

^

') ENCLOSURE 4 J

EGG NTA 7250 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83 28, ITEM 2.2.1 -

EQUIPMENT CLAS$1FICAT10N

  • SVRON-1/-tri FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY REL Docket Nos. E0 454/50-455 i

, Alan C. Udy '

Published September 1989 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l Washington, D.C. 20555 i

- Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN Nos. 06001/06002 1AC Nos. 56277/63243

@I 7 j

i

. l l

1 i

SUMARY This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Unit Nos. ) and 2 of the Byron Station for conformance to Generic Letter 83 28 Item 2.2.1. Item t.2.1 of Generic Letter 83 24 requires l licensees and applicants to submit a detailed description of their programs for safety related equipment classification for staff review. It also describes guidelines that the licensee's or applicant's programs should encompass.

The review concludes that the licensee complies with the requirements of this item.

1 I

)

l l

o FIN Nos. 06001/06002 B&R 20 19 10-11-3/20 19-40 41-3 Docket Nos. 50 454/50-455 TAC Nos. 56277/63243 11 i

. - - .=+a.:---

= - - - . . - - - - - - - . - . - , - . - , , , = . ,, .,..n,-

1 I

l I

PREFACE This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating l licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 33 23 ' 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 Systems Technology, by EG&G Idaho, Inc.,

Regulatory and Technical Assistance Unit. l

.\

l l

1 O

l tii

/

p e ,

1 CONTENTS

SUMMARY

............................................................... 11 PREFACE ............................................................... 111 1.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 2.

REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................ 2 3.

ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM ............................................. 3 3.1 3.2 Guideline ..................................................

Evaluation ......... 3 3.3 Conclusion .................................................

........................................ 3 3

4.

ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA ........................... 4 4.1 4.2 Guideline ..................................................

Evaluation ........ 4 4.3 Conclusion ........ ........................................

4 4

5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 INFORMATION MANDLING SYSTEM ........................ 5 5.1 5.2 Guideline ..................................................

Evaluation ......... 5 5.3 Conclusion ......... .......................................

....................................... 5 5

6, ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF THE EQUIPMENT CLAS$1FICAT!0N 6 LISTING .......

6.1 6.2 Guideline ..................................................

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

6 6

7. e ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ............................... 7 3

7.1 7.2 Guideline ..................................................

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

7 8

8.

ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT 9 ...............

8.1 8.2 Guideline ..................................................

Evaluation .......... 9 8.3 Conclusion .......... ......................................

9 9

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6
  • 1MPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS .................. 10 9.1 Guideline .................................................. 10 10.

CONCLUSION ....................................................... 11 11.

REFERENCES ....................................................... 12  !

i iv

4

. l LONFDAMahtf 70 truftft LITTER A1 18. ITEM f.2.1..

t0UIPMENT tl M ilF1f.AT10N FOR ALL DTWft RAFfTV RELAYtB taepowrwTit '

$YRfM U 2 1

1. INTiciGTION I I

1 On February fl.1983, both of the scree circuit breakers at Unit 1 of i the Salon Generating Statten failed to open upon an automatic reacter trip signal from the ructor protection system. This incident was terminated i

manually by the operator about M seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. The failure of the cirevit breakers was detemined I to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. prior to this incident, en February it,1943, at Unit 1 of the Sales Generating l

Sitation, an automatic trip signal was generated based on stone generator l

1 low low level during plant startup. In this case, tne reactor was tripped ,

m6nus11y by the operator ale.ost coincidentally with the automatic trip.

j j

Following these incidents, en February te, 1943, the NRC Executive

[

" DirectorforOpa,ations(ED0)directedtheNRCstafftoinvestigateand

)

)

report on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1.

The  !

results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Sales 1 incidents are reported in NUREG 1000, ' Generic Implications of the ATW$ l i

tvents at the salem Nuclear Power Plant.' As a result of this i investigation, the Comission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83 28 dated j 1

July 8,1983 ) that a11 licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an e ,

operating license, and holders of construction permits respond to the  !

generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.

(

i h This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by Commonwealth Edison, the Itcensee for the Byron Station, for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 8318. The documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are j i

listed in the References (section 11) at the end of this report.

E I

1 e

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

4 l

l *

\ .

t. REVitW CONTENT AND F0lpui '

Item t.2.1 of Generic Letter 83 28 requests the Iftensee to submit a description of their programs for safety related equipseat classification i for staff review. Detailed supporting information should aise be included in the description, as indicated in the guideline section for each ites f within this report. l l

As previously indicated, each of the six items of Ites 2.t.1 is j

evaluated in A separate section in which the guideline is presentedt an evaluation of the licensee's response is made and conclusions about the l programs of the licensee for safety related equipment classification are drawn.  !

.l  !

1 l  :

i i

l l l

i i i  !

)

i f

I l

6 t '

q I

i I

, - - - - - - - . , - - , - .,-,,n..-<_.----.n-- n. - , - ---, . - - - - - - ---. - --- _ ---- ---

3. ITDi 2.2.1 PA064AM 3.1 tuidelina Licensees should confire that an equipment classification program is in place that will provide assuruce that safety related components are designated as safety related en plant documentation. The program should provide assurance that the equipment classification information handling systes 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 enspenents 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.

3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the Byron Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 5, 19833 and February it,1984.3 The licensee j

submitted additional information en April !!,1989.4 These submittals i

describe the licensee's safety related equipment classification program. In

{ the review of the licensee's response to this ites, it was assumed that the information and documentation supporting this program is available for audit

\

upon request.

l 3.3 Conclusion We have reviewed the licensee's submittals and find that, in general, the licensee's responses are acceptable.

4 3

e

. ~

4. ITEM 2.2.1.1

. IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA t

4.1 tuidaljna I

' The licenses should confire that their program used for equipment l i

classification includes the criteria used for identifying components as safety related, i 4.2 iphitilan t

{

i The licensee states that the criteria used to classify structures.

systems, components, and parts as safety related are contained in the {

i Station Nuclear Engineering Department's quality procedure Q.lt, exhibits B l

and C, in station administrative procedures, and in engineering precedure manuals. {

j Procedures that are based on the requirements of the corporate i

i quality assurance manual control the classification of safety related system and components.

These procedures were not included in the response. (

i  !

4.3 Conclustan (

)

l The licensee's responses to this ites are complete and address the

' staff's concerns. We find the licensee's responses for this item acceptable,  !

\

i l i

l l

4

, 6

j

)

5. ITEM t.2.1.2 INFORETION NANDLING SYSTEM l l

5.1 tutdelina a

The Ilconsee should confirm that the progras for equipment  !

4 classification includes an information handling system that is used to j

identify safety related components. The response should confirm that this information handling systen includes a list of safety related equipment and {

' that procedures exist to govern its development and validation.

i 5.3 Evaluattaa i

I

The licensee states that the inforsation handling system consists of j

listings made using computer programs and techniques. It is identified as  !

the Safety Related Component List, and consists of the Q. List, valve list.

1 l instrument index list, mechanical equipment list, and as built piping and j instrument diagrams. The Itcensee states that vendor input is used extensively, and that detailed parts lists are being generated using the i i

same method. This list is maintained current by $ argent and Lundy in a

) program under the control of the PWR Systems Design Section of the Nuclear

(

i j Engineering Department, using quality assurance procedures Q.P. 3 3,

' Classification of Systems, Components, Parts, and Materials,' Q.P. 3 51 I

' Design Control for Operations Plant Modification,' Q.P. 4 51,

' Procurement Document Control for Operations Processing Purchase Documents,' and Engineering Procedure Q.12.4, ' Control and Maintenance of

{

i the Safety Related Component List ($RCL) for Byron and Braidwood Stations.'

l The licensee's Quality Assurance Manual is the basis for the procedures.

l I

5.3 conclusion  !

The licensee's responses describe a system that asets the  :

recomendations of this item. Therefore, we find the licensee's responses '

for this item acceptable.

e 5

i

c

.' ~ .

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 USE OF THE EQUIPMENT CLAS$IFICATION LISTING 6.1 Ruida11aa The licensee's description should confire that the program for equipment classificatten includes criteria and procedures that govern how station personnel use the equipment classification information handling system to determine that an activity is safety related. The description should aise include the procedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts i replacement, and other activities applicable to safety related components, as defined in the introduction to 10 CFR 50 Appendix 8.

t l

6.2 Evaluattan  !

I i

Administrative Procedure AP 1600 1, ' Initiating and Processing a NuclearWorkrequest(NWR),'requirestheoperatingengineertodetermine {

the safety related classification of components and activities. This }'

procedure also requires the verification of this classificatten by various

i i

personnel, including work analysts, Quality Control, Quality Assurance, and  !

In service inspection technical staff. AP 1600 1 is said to assure that j

safety related procedures, cautions, and constraints are utilised on activities that are designated safety relsted, l i

t Quality Procedure t 53, ' Quality Assurance Program for Operations  !

Classification of Structures, Systems and Components," gives directions and

  • i  !

instructions on the use of the Safety Related Component List and assigns the [

responsibility of determining the safety related classification of components and activities to the operating engineer. .

6.3 Conclusion

. . t 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. I

> i I  !

! 6 i

. 1

7. ITEM t.1.1.4 MAMSDIDiT C0ffTit0L5 7.1 tuidalina The licensee should briony describe the management controls that are used to verify that the procedures for preparation, validatten, and the routine use of the informatten handling system have been, and are being, followed.

il 7.1 tvaluatian 4

The licensee describes the following procedures as providing the i

sanagement controls intended.

i Q.P. 3 3 ' Classification of Systems, Components, Parts and

Material' Q.P. 3 51 ' Design Control for Operations Plant Nodification' Q.P. 4 51 'Procurament Document Control for Operations -

Processing Purchase Documents' '

Q.lt.4 ' Control and Maintenance of the Safety Related Component List ($RCL) for Byron and Braidwood Stations.' ,

These procedures provide for audits and inspections whose results inform management of the status and performance of the equipment classification program.

PWR Engineering has the responsibility for the preparation and maintenance of the SRCL in accordance with procedure Q.lt.4 for changes involving the addition, deletion, non-identical replacement, or relocation of components. These components can be safety related or non safety related but associated with safety related systems.

7 9

l~ .

l i

' The licensee's architect engineer, Sargent end Lundy ($&L), is stated I

}

to have the delegated authority to control, issue, and maintain the SRCL in accordance with $&L Project Instruction PI 88 63. The PWR Engineering manager is responsible for forwarding any non S&L destened modifications to  !

$6L to assure that these changes are incorporated into the SRCL.

{

7.3 canelnian s

i We find that the management controls used by the Itcensee assure that the information handling system is maintained, is current, and is used as j intended. Therefore, we find the licensee's responses for this item acceptable, l i

i l

t t

i l

f i

i .

t I

8

- i I

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

8. ITEM t.t.1.5

. Dis!GN VfRIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT 8.1 tuideline The licensee's submittels should document that past usage demonstrates

{

that the appropriate design verification end qualification testing ere I specified for the procurement of safety related components and parts. The

{

specification should include qualification testing for expected safety I service conditions and provide support for the licensee's receipt of testing documentation to support the limits of life recommended by the supplier. 'If i

such documentation is not available, confirmation that the present progru meets these requirements should be provided. (

8.2 Evaluattan ,

The licensee states that the design criteria of the Station Nuclear '

Engineering Department assure that design verification and qualification 1

i testing is specified for the safety related equipment and components "

1 procured.

The licensee states th'at service conditions and the requirement .

(

to identify maintenance schedules to achieve the expected component or part life are specified.

1, 8.3 Conclusion _

t We conclude that the licensee has addressed the concerns of this ites.  :

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

i 1 -

l

." t g '

1 1 ,

I

i l

u

  • 9.

ITEM 2.2.1.4 . elMPORTANT TO SAF m ' COMPONENTS  !

i 9.1 Agiggling Generic Letter 83 28 states that the licensee's equipment classification progres should include (in eddition to the safety related {

components) a broader class of components designated as 'laportant to l

Safety.' Mewever, since the generic letter does not require the licensee to  !

furnish this information as part of their response, this ites will not be reviewed. {

l

) -

r 4 i t

r 1

i i l

t l

i l

l 10 i

i

. 10. C0llCLU$100i Based on eve review of the licensee's response to the specific t requirements of Iten t t.1, we find that the information provided by the n {

licensee to resolve t'ese concerns meets the requirements of Generic .

Letter 63 28 and is acceptable. j Itse 2.t.1.4 was not reviewed as noted in  !

Section 9.1.  :

t i

I l

i' i

i I

I I

. t a

. l I

t b

11

.,.e,-,-n---, . , , , , --,.------gn, , - - - ,n - , - - , - . - - - - - , . - - , - - - , - - - - - - , , , , , . . , - , , - , . . . - , - - - - - - - - - -

e. a.

O

11. REFERENCts
1. Letter, NRC D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reacters, I Applicants f r Operating Lic)e,nseIc

' Required Actions Based on Gener end Helders of Construct <en Peretts, on ATW$ Events Implications o (GenericLetter8328),' July 8,1983. l 2.

Letter, Comonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denten),

' Response to Generic Letter No. 83 28,' November 5, 1983. .

j

3. ,

Letter,

' ResponseComonwealth to Generic Letter No. Edison 83 28,' Fe(P. L. Barnes)bruary to NRC (N.

, 1984. R. Denten), 29  !

4 Letter, Commonwealth Edison l 1

' Generic Letter No. 83 28,' R. A. Chrzarowski) to NRC (d 4.2.4 *T. E. Nu) taas2.2(Parti),4.2.3an April 21,1989. ,

l l

] f i

1

, )

'l l

I f

i I

1 i

t 12 i

'l

. . - . _. ________.__-.m., _ - - , _ _ - . _ _ . - .

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20011D105&oldid=2472887"