ML20028B843
| ML20028B843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19268D388 | List: |
| References | |
| LSO5-82-11-085, LSO5-82-11-85, NUDOCS 8212070097 | |
| Download: ML20028B843 (3) | |
Text
..
I G
0 November 30, 1982 S
Docket No. 50-219 i
LS05-82-ll-085 i
I a
ifr. P. B. Fiedler Vice President & Director Oyster Creek liuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
Dear Mr. Fiedler:
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPi!EllT Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station This letter transnits the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) regarding the environmental qualification review for the safety-related electrical equipment in accordance.with the 00R Guidelines and fiUREG-0583 as stipulated by the Commission !!emorandum and Order (CLI-80-21) of f4ay 23, 1980.
i Enclosed is a copy of the Franklin Research Center (FRC) Technical i
Evaluation Report (TER) dated July 9, 1982 which provides the basis for the SER.
The staff issued Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) on environmental qualifi-cation of safety-related equipment to licensees of all operating plants in-nid-1981, These SERs directed licensees to "either provide documentation of the missing qualification information which demonstrates that safety-related electrical equipment meets the D0R Guidelines or f40 REG-0588 require-l ments or commit to a corrective action (re-qualification, replacement'etc.)."
Licensees were required to respond to the staff within 90-days of receipt l
of the SER. The Oyster Creek SER was issued on June 10, 1981.
l The licensecs, GPU lluclear Corporation and Jersey Central Power and Light Company, provideda response to the June 10, 1981 SER and additional qualification information in its submittals dated October 23,1981 and l
June 16, 1982 to ilRC for Oyster Creek, h f goec) % :
fhkt Gol Akn1?*f W m J.t*04 8212070097 821130 pyg DR ADOCK 05000 dSI W6 o.,m,
suanAue >
i' DATE)
NAC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM ONO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam i,.
m..so
y 3 4
?
Mr. P. B. Fiedler November 30, 1982 At the utilities option, the staff will be available to discuss the findings in the SER. Furthemore, as indicated in the conclusion section of the SER, it is requested that the licensee reaffirm the justification for continued operation and within thirty (30) days of receipt of this 3ER, submit infomation for items in NRC categories 18, 2A and 28 for which justification for continued operation was not previously submitted to NRC or FRC. It is suggested that the clarifi-cation set forth in item 8 of Generic Letter No. 82-09, " Clarification Questions and Answers on Environmental Qualification Requirements,"
should be considered in the licensee's justification for continued operation.
The TER contains certain identified infomation which you have previously clained to be proprietary. We request that you infom us as indicated in the proprietary section of the Safety Evaluation keport whether any portions of the identified pages still require proprietary protection.
He d ll withhold the TER from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CER 2.790(b) until we hear from you.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than te.n respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing afe Evaluation Report hBWION(enclosure 1only) 2.
FRC Technical Evaluation DCrutchfield Report - Proprietary Infomation OELD (Withheld from Public Disclosure)
ELJordan cc w/ enclosure 1:
{)
See next page SEPB ORB Reading DISTRIBUTION yM Docket (w/both enclosures) a L ~ I,a >(& o.w/both enclosures)
Licensee The following will receive a non-proprietary version of enclosure 2:
Licensee Local PDR NTIS NRC Region gcQ NRC PDR NSIC Resident Inspector DL: OR #5 DL: ORB DL omce) suReuus>..HSpi cc JLomb DC chfielc 71X'n.....!!.
JL1 Din.
am>
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 024o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uso-a ien-u m a
.... _.s s. _... Z._
Mr. P. 3. Fiedler November 30, 1982 CC G. F. Trewbridge, Esquire Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge c/o U. S. NRC 1800 M Street, N. W.
Post Office Box 445 Washington, D. C.
20036 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
~~
J. 8. Lieberman, Esquire Commissioner -
Berlack, Israels & Lieberman New Jersey Department of Energy 26 Broadway 101 Commerce Street New York, New York 10004 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
~
J. Knubel BWR Licensing Manager GPU Muclear 100 Interplace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Depg, Attorney General State of New Jersey Depart en: cf Lcw and Public Safety 36 West 5 tate Street - CN 112 Trerten, New Jersey 08625
.,n,
,75i:
4
- Il _ ; ;
Iaia c u ec.
.-er, New Jersev 08731 e
- 5. :-
- rt:' 7 tection A;ency P.eg'on :: Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Pla:a "ew York. New York 10007 '
Licensing Superviser Oyster Creek ?!uclear Generating Station Post Office Box 398 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 N
S
2
'o, UNITED STATES
[ g*p,i g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,5 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
. :-,g SAFETY EVALVATI0fl BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION GPU fiUCLEAR CORP 0 RATIO!! Afl0 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AtlD LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK fiUCLEAR GENERATIIG STATION DOCKET f:0. 50-219 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT INTRODUCTION General Design Criteria 1 and 4 specify that safety-related electrical equipment in nuclear facilities must be capable of performing its safety-related function under environmental conditions associated with all normal, abnormal, and accident plant operation.
In order to ensure complicance with the criteria, the NRC staff required all licensees of operating reactors to submit a re-evaluation of the qualification of safety-related electrical equipment which may be exposed to a harsh we> -
'e n v i ronm e n t.
- GROT.D of t en ir nmentV qualificatinn of ol -" ial eqtnpan t
~cn!'
r 1:
he Systcmatic Er'uation Progen (SEP), ir.cluding the i - t n,- r.-
' or Mar r:n mratino station, ns addressed under Topic
!!I-12 cf the prograd.
In December 1977, the NRC issued a generic letter to all licensees of SEP plants requesting that they initiate revie..s to determine the adequacy of existing equipment documentation.
On Febru'ary 8, 1979, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) issued to all licensees of operating plants (except those included in the systematic evaluation program (SEP)) IE Bulletin (IEB) 79-01, " Environ-mental Qualification of Class IE Equipment." This Bulletin, together De
. ~ -. - -
e
,m
e with IE Circular 78-08 (issued on May 31,1978), required the licensees to perform reviews to assess the adequacy of their environmental qualifi-cation programs.
C1 January 14, 1980, NRC issued IE Bulletin 79-01B which included the DDR guidelines and NUREG-0588 as attachments 4 and 5, respectively.
On February 21, 1980, the NRC and representatives of the SEP owners group held an open meeting at NRC headquarters to discuss an 1
accelerated review program in accordance with the D0R guidelines.
Subsequently, on May 23, 1980, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21 was issued and stated the 00R guidelines and portions or NUREG-0588 form the requirements that licensees must meet regarding environmental
- qualification of safety-related electrical equipment in order to satisfy i
.h3Se 35pects of 10 CFR 50, Appandix A General Design Criterion (GDC) 4.
Supplements to IEB 79-01B were issued for further clarification and fi i ti m of
- ntJf's neecs.
These s >;plements were issued on-m - - -, 79 rc~,w 30, m d October 24, 1900.
c.
In addition, the staff issued orders dated August 29, 1980 (acended in September 1980) and October 24, 1980 to all licensees.
The Au' gust order required that the licensees provide a report, by November 1, 1980, docu-mentirg the qualification of safety-related electrical equipment.
The October order required the establishment of a central file location for the maintenance of all equipment qualification records.
The central file wa's mandated to be established by December 1, 1980.
The staff subsequently issued Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) on enviromental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment to licensees of i
-,e--
e
.w
- - - - ~ - - - - -
,,,-e m
r
all operating plants in mid-1981.
These SERs directed licensees to "either provide cocumentation of the missing qualification information which demonstrates that safety-related equipment meets the 00R Guide-lines or NUREG-0588 requirements or commit to a corrective action (re qualification, replacement (etc.))."
Licensees were required to respond to NRC within 90 days of receipt of the SER.
In response to the staff SER issued June 10, 1981, the licensee submitted additional, information regarding the qualification of safety-related electrical equipment.
EVALUATION The acceptability of the licensee's equipment environmental qualification
=e>
program was reviewed for the Division of Engineering by the Franklin Research Center (FRC) as part of the NRR Technical Assistance Program
, n suoport of NRC operating reactor licensing actions.
The consultant's i
.ew i: cocu ented in the report " Review cf Licensees" Resciution's cf
~
Sutstancing Issues from NRC Equipment Environmental Qualification Safety I...maa.;n 7eports," which is attached.
We have reviewed the evaluation performed by.our censultant contained in t".e enclosed Technical Evaluation Report (TER) and concur with its bases sac findings.
Our review has also revealed certain discrepancies in the TER which are being corrected by this SER as follows:
o Delete the third paragraph on page 1-9 of the TER.
o Delete the second paragraph on page 1-10 of the TER.
0
_4_
The staff has also reviewed the licensee's justification for continued 4
operation regarding each item of safety-related electrical equipment identified by the licensee as not being capable of meeting environmental qualification requirements for the service conditions intended.
j CONCLUSIONS Based on the staff's re*iew of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report and the licensee's jestification for continued operation, the following conclusions are made regardir.g the qualification of safety-related elec-trical equipment.
1.
Continued operation until completion of the licensee'3 environmental qualification program will not present undue risk to the public health' and safety.
Furthermore, the staff is continuing to review the licensee's environmental qualification program.
If any cdditional qualification deficiencies are icentified during the course of this review, the
censee will be acuired to reverify the justificat on for continued i
operation.
The staff will review this information to ensure tnat
~
catinued cperstion until ccmpletion of the licensee's environmental
~
qualification program will not present undue risk to the public health and safety.
In this regard, it is reouested that the licensee do the fellowing:
o Resolve any deficiencies identified in Appendix 0 of the FRC j
j TER regarding justification for continued operation.
If as a result of resolving these deficiencies, the previous j_ustifi-cation for continued operation is changed, provide within thirty i
(30) days of receipt cf this SER the new justification for 4
' continued operation regarding each affected item.
1 i
1 The major qualification deficiencies that have been identified in the er. closed FRC TER (Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 anc 4-4) must be resolved by the licensee.
Items requiring special attention by the licensee are summarized below:
o Submission of information within thirty (30) days for items in NRC categories 1B, 2A and 2B for which justification for continued operation was not previously submitted to NRC or FRC, o Verification that the containment spray system is not subjected to a disabling single component failure (Section 4.3.3.2 of the FRC TER).
The licensee must provide the plans for qualification or replacement of
- The unqualified equipment and the schedule for accomplishing its proposed correction action.
--. RIETARY RE'!!EW
'r:0 4 n the ;2.: Te:rnics'. Evaluatien C. aport (TEs; are certain ident -
~
fied pages on which the information is claimed to be proprietary.
During the oreparatic'n of the enclosed TER, FRC usea test reports and other documents supplied by the licensee that' included material claimed to be proprietary by their owners and originators.
NRC is now preparing to publicly release the FRC TER and it is incumbent on the agency to 1
seek review of all claimed proprietary material.
As such, the licensee 1'
is requested to review the enclosed TER with their owner or originator and notify NRR within seven (7) days of receipt of this SER whether any portions of the identified pages still require proprietary protection.
nr
, - - _, ~ -
, If so, the licensee must clearly identify this information and the
- ccific rationale and justification for the protection from public disclosure, detailed in a written response within twenty (20) days of receipt of this SER.
The level of specificity necessary for such continued protection should be consistent with the criteria enumerated in 10 CFR 2.790(b) of the Commission's regulations.
a e
m O
e 4
-