ML20042F975

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Review & Response Re Possible Inadequate Classification of safety-related Equipment at Facility. Written Response Requested within 30 Days
ML20042F975
Person / Time
Site: Grand Gulf Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 05/08/1990
From: Brach E
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Kansal D
BECHTEL POWER CORP.
References
NUDOCS 9005100244
Download: ML20042F975 (3)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.

\\'

I po tio I UNITED STATES [ [ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g 5, WASHINGTON, D. C. 206$5 May 8. 1990 t i i 'Mr. D. C. Kansal q Manager of Quality Assurance Bechtel Power Corporation 3 Eastern Power Division 15740 Shady Grove Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-1454

Dear Mr. Kansal:

SUBJECT:

POS$1BLE INADEQUATE CLASSIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED. EQUIPMENT AT THE GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 Licensee Event Report (LER) No. 89-U18, Revision 1, dated February 28, 1990, (copy enclosed) has been submitted to the NRC to update nonconformances identified during a design basis review of instrumentation at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. This review identified several cases of inappropriate quality level designations in which devices classified as nonsafety-related were installed in Class 1E electrical circuits. The condition was reported to the NRCunder10CFR50.73(a)(2)(ii)(B)asaconditionoutsidetheplant'sdesign basis because the condition did not appear to meet the isolation requirements-established in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.75. The licensee's final evaluation confirmed that all devices were acceptable for continued service in their applications; however, two handswitcies which served an active safety function I were required to be replaced because they were not fully Class 1E qualified. The licensee's review identified that the Instrument Index, which Bechtel used in the tabulation of instrument data during original design, was not an l adequately controlled document. As a result, the licensee could not readily l-ascertain the _ validity and bases of quality classifications and questioned the assignment of nonsafety-related devices in applications that interfaced with Class 1E electrical circuits. The NRC is concerned regarding t'e potential for inadequate classification and l use of nonsafety-related equipr.e at and the possible generic application this p issue may represent with respect to other plants using this Bechtel service. Based upon these concerns, tie NRC requests that you review this matter and y respond to us regarding the potential for reportability pursuant to 10 CFR. 3 Part 21. Please submit your written response within 30 days of the date of this letter. lo L 9005100244 900508 h ADOCK0500g6 R DR

r Mr. S. A. h r = d 2 May 8, 1990-K.w.s sl 'If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Chris VanDenburgh on (301) 492 0959, or Mr. Robert Pettis on (301) 492-3214. Sincerely, E. William Brach, Chief Venoor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

LER 89 018 01 from Grand Gulf DISTRIBUTION PDR Central Files DRIS R/F VIB R/F BKGrimes EWBrach CAVanDenburgh RLPettis Glainas CBerlinger 0FC

VIB:DRIS:NRR
VIB:DRIS:NRR :VIB:DR cc 4RR :

NAME :RLPettis h :CAVanDenb

Spfa

.............j.i.............:..............:..............:............. g:5/\\/90 E/2/90 DATE :5/I /90 t OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: LTR TO 3CRNSEN b twr%5AL c

N Mr. D.C. Kansal 2 p If you have any questions concerning this matter..please feel free to contact Mr. Chris VanDenburgh on (301) 492-0959, or Mr. Robert Pettis on (301) 492 3214. Sincerely, E. William Brach, Chief Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor inspection and Safeguards-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

LER 89 018 01 from Grand Gulf i DISTRIBUTION PDR Central Files-DRIS R/F ci-VIB R/F. BKGrimes EWBrach-CAVenDenburgh' RLPettis .Glainas CBerlinger.

  • See previous -page for concurra'~.

,0FG-

VIB:DRIS:NRR
VIB:DRI5:NRR :VIB:DRls.aRR :

NAME tRLPettis:mkm -

CAVanDenburgh :EWBrach JDATE
5/08/90*
5/08/90*
5/08/90*

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: LTR TO KANSAL 7

..I y%y' t 'EnergysM:p*a.hs"....h..v*N.s,i, '1 \\+,..h...h.,h.4,c.-MTk.yf. ik D /? W ; h. T i ~* .S St*> qt:4 9 ~ ;

  • v'..,. x m

<f.4"n, ~ " ' ' * * * ' ' ' " ' ' ' / ~ .n.WM..%W' WW:n dib*. ;':n'...' to sm. 4 Y An. MWWW "? N- ~ "$ W &1 M'.b U.Y"Plh Y?Y D'O' .n N k...,& '.s v. '..//eg. :.p;f :%. 4:-. %.f; " f.k % ' ' Ji '/. wmiem T. cottie .t msV '. bf'.".. : i;. : o.:, Ys - 3 veareem -(;h 4 9. h.,tp*>, jr(..,.. '/e,' t t..(.':%; gM?

. h ;,;4 r.
'i, * &* ) ' HM f

.v. 3 :. v yv&'. : ".K;O 3. k: 'lC.'.':; +::{v. * %..a'e?n. lq. u m O.w,os T '.,4'.'; ;-//q wf'g?yM, ydli) '. ' y. ,,-l,' .s.,., y. v 'i 4.' .;,h.t., Q'. '.'.'.; February. 28, 1990), @ ' q:,. y,N t 5, c t,.,, ;..s.,o y, _.. )., i",.1,bl' U.S." Nuclear, Regulat.ory Comission. ' r.',i,', ?,:( c.i 'l Ma11 St ation P1-137.a.. -l. c.;j t ,y'. '..P.*-Washington, D.C.1 2 0 5 5 5 ~ ",'. *'*'.,

,'*R.

. s... t...... .;.s... 1 4

3. Documen..t Con. trol' Desk [.. ', c....

',:. ! !.,.. !.h: i }'.;,q.. /....'.j/'- l htt entiont <'.e 'r ,~ .A s .n- , $, *.h ? c :i *.. . Q,,<:. c g. .. ~l ;,'.4 n;, ;,l'.y/.,t,b 3jj p e. f,...u...,s. n.. s'; 2.:(y.;' * -, i ',h.., ; l r.. .e O'. , )*k,'.., Gentlemen 1,:. > 'i . q.'., J ',, f /,g ; w...... . ;....n w' j '4.,> f M. ~ ' ' J. .. SUBJECT ' Grand culf Nuclear Station 's,p' . ;l, . Unit 1:, l

},( _.
cy

. ;j.. : 3,,c .,v.,., ;a.. Docket No. 50-416 i .a. 3: ;;

  • 1..,..

License No.- NPF-29 . gef,, .s p',;Ii',, - c' Update on Nonconformances - c.,... Revealed During I. I. .. f;; Instrumentation Design ' : ; 7 :.. ' Basis Review i-I k' LER 89-018+01

][ ~

'AECM-90/0043 L . ;.'f, .. Att6ched is Licensee.. Event Report (LER). 89-018.-01 which is a ?.q 'gl; ~ final report. . ;r 4 n v '.. C ' ' 3 Yours truly, q f .g. s: p y-- m' !W,. - .,1*r.c ; WTC:cg

U.'.,c< ' '

' Attachment i . a : t.'" q..', cc: Mr. D. C. Hintz (w/a). Mr. T. H. Cloninger (w/a) */ - ,h .f Mr. k. B. McGehee (w/a) s Mr. H. S. Reynolds (w/a), 'V ')l Mr. H. L. Thomas'(w/o) Mr. H. O. Christensen (w/a)' s. eg. l b Mr. Stewart D. Ebneter (w/a) ~ E 'f. ',I.1. : y' & ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory comission Regional Administrator jip' e . Wo ~ Region II A'f;'P 7 *.h"' ' $ "" 301 Marietta St., H.W., Suite '2900 ^ 9 Atlanta, Georgia.30323 . p..,k, , 'g, n a l*

  • egg Mr. L; L'. K!ntner, Project Manager (w/a)

'J,, Q( fico of Nuclear Reactor Regulation v C : ?g[m.'of U.Sr Nuclear Regulatory Comission I 1 Mail Stop 14B20-i c M M -Washington,.D.C.- 20555. , t,.

  • T

[ *b.V'g,:h!~. T:; jjQ (': LER18891/SCMPFLR ,1

&. lf.nXg C'

. Q.$., $&.J& 9 'Q, l,". ml. _. Ma-G&$. y '. i : J e.. i,.k )

w*O.h' U;o.Wi'Q M ey

.g ' S e.l W, n., r* V;.i.f.*.U*.'.*ril Y, k..: c ~ T !E.I'

  • 0 ~% %l. c..o!....

.Y.'

'h sj.

~+ s e '; " .e s wurisupp s '

[ !.A,.',.y@Np?Ji;'.f 7'h&iW'Thid' $N??[*hif'^h, ' '.. P + \\ c 2 p. y b g.**"fvs'l,/j.,l.i (, ',.', .. su.....v6.... c o..o= g .f b ov.a one.,o sie.eia. b' y,1. 1*3 UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)

, ~l
',..

..ciu n. n, 1 [p crand culf Nuclear Station - tf n i t 1 .=... .. is, na 'g,,4 0lSl0101014 il 6 1 lodO l 5 nis... 1 tf p d al e on Nonconformances Revealed During Instrumentation Design Basis Revie r $.. e 7, s, u...... . n.,, (p;.. .o.. .......c,g.......n., 'ug ;... -,.,n on, ....o....... om. u........ Jg!;l NA 01610:0f0 t i 1l2 1l5 8'9 8l9 0l1l8 E 0l 1 ol3 2 ~~ h. .n.. .g...........h 9 l 0 0,s10 ieio, ii i.. p. .....,........,,,......,n., i /,y, .e,..., y;, y ....ni = c. n. ., m.. n.. i10,0 n n., .. n., n., .,,g ;.,,.g m a=*""'-' o.. mm c, a ' *"'"a @. g-2 .=.non., a n.",*",..."a

== in n., .g .n .f h.g un n. .n......... n, y .u...n.. !.pi,7 Ronald Evrd / t.teenntne rneincer 6 10 11

t. i '317 t-12111812

....w. co................,.................no s p.,, e... c..... .;;;:e .;f::: p o v.. .;,::::p q p ,n i l l I 1 I I V it., wn. l t I t 1 iI <m' i i i i i i i 4.' "h i i i i i ii .m....,........n..... $y .".'.'1;.'!. ~},..,,,..- n,, n,,,., m,, su.c,,s em...... .,... -, n.. G i i i av , no, W [(y A design basis review of instrumentation revealed aeveral cases of apparently inappropriate quality level designations in which devices classified as M: non safety related were identified in Class 3E circuits. This condition did he:. not appear to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.75 for suitable Isolation from Class 1E power sources. j'/. devices were in compliance with RG 1.75 Class 1E criteria,The circuits containing the subjec e- ) c, e (J A team of engineers reviewed the specifies of each of the identified non-safety F related applications in Class 1E circuits and determined that in each case b reasonable assurance existed that the conditions would riot degrade the D interfacing safety related circuits or functions. Therefore, continued service L, in their respective circuits was acceptable pending completion of final p,' evaluations. Final evaluations confirmed that all devices were acceptable for continued h service in their applications. Only two devices that are not fully Class SE qualified have an active safety function requiring a safety related quality q.,, f, level designation. Although deemed acceptable for continued service, it was deemed prucent to replace the two devices with those of suitable qualification . 7,' P during RT04. Four other handswitches will be inspected during RF04 to { determine if they are class 1E qualified as required. t,y$ m y," y!. LER10091/SCMPpLR - 3 1.p. e ffQa,8,'** 8" j 3 3 .c--,.

g

,-w ap

m $IDMN.'iN'DY N N.^ Y N 7 O ~! .ma ens s M,d 7., >. JU C. T UCENSit EVENT REPORT (LER) TEXT CONTINUAtt0N ! ' va ... m 4e m ' ' saamo ea ao on +iw g ,. g,,; .c ~. .pi. g.;.;

  • eas e n se o,

~ . eense s w a f?. h...y,.;,,< emm ^ t..... --ae:.;p !. ?nn

1 J.

J p

  • Crand Culf' Nuclear $tatton o is le le le'l411 l6 8l 9 0 l'5 l

0l !! 8 0 l1 0 l2 0F f.Q: .t.y$,- ven e==. r e an.w ns )

  • ,i
f N[b;2 a

J; .A.; Reportable Condition. .,e i 4 l ).,Mj ; Tl l As a result of"a design basis review of instrumentation being conducted f,k. by the System Energy Design Engineering organization, several cases of ?Qg apparently inappropriate quality level designations were identified. ".,;'a' ;..' Specifically, a population of devices classified as non-safety related ['.'g were identified in Class 1E circuits. This condition did not appear to t h, meet the isolation requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.75 and was E? ,y lif. therefore reported pursuant to 10CpR50.73(a)(2)(ii)(B) as a condition outside the design basis for the plant. This update report is submitted . S.,,'.L. to provide the results of the completed evaluation. ' b.' .B.. Initial Conditions '. ~, , ? ?. The condition was identified on December 15, 1989 while the unit was l' $. ;' ' operating at 100 percent power.

."
>q!

C.' Description of Occurrence

Zl 1

.{ System Energy has been performing reviews of the design basis for l

1 j, instrumentation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station as a part of the

, 's y Instrumentation and Setpoint Control program. One element of this i l; y - program consisted of reviewing the original quality level assignments of M instrumentation for the facility, determining the appropriate quality level assignment based on instrument function. and resolving any I y apparent differences. The population of instruments considered in the " j review was in excess of 23,000. .l$,l8 On December 15, 1909 System Energy Design Engineering identifled a subset of this population which was p'ocured and/or specified to be non-safety y; r W,;,. i related by the original design group, yet were located in Class 2E 'l, circuits. The items appeared to have been installed contrary to the l NU. requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.75, in that suitable isolation from

.J.f *j class 1E power sources had not been provided. Suitable analysis could not be found to justify the current cir-nit configurations by considering the non safety related loads as "assocle.ed circuits" per Regulatory Guide 1.75 Section C.4.

The total review identified 81 items of apparent nonconformance which required further evaluation to determine V. S..i acceptability in their application. O;N o, O

.]
L $

M.:4F ...i. .,.} '\\ e. '1l.~ - A.,; ([(,7 c: gr**= =" LER18091/SCMPFLR - 4 .

  • t.; 3 -

V.Q:d,k, y.,,. 'Q ' 'l G __m.

. p/p. * .u.s :...a w. N w

  • t -

~ .i ! ans. gw jI "yl an. m '? va mmue mwe== - c = - c.f, '. lC /.;N.. UCENSEE EVENT *EPORT OR) TEXT CONTINUATION / I.); r =m ew = siw+e. , f;.) '.) $amm aana m -.eeen we f., f..,. names ma,n s If ~ t,@<.. l'd }. u, m,,,,,, use,, T s i. t i, tit. ! =f,*,n py., Crand Culf' Nuclear Station-r B-

  1. 18101 t l t 1!.1116 819 Ol' h 0 l1 Ol3 of O l$

f !.i'c, 'L*1 e , A;g.D. - p, / Apparent cause ( p,,.,, '. n., i j g.l[l,f-gd Th's acceptability of theLdevice applications was brought into question during a comprehensive.rvevaluation of the bacis for instrument quality j. N* classifications.. One factor in-System Energy's decisich tti undertake this i " f,". LT. comprehensive reevaluation was concern over the level of control of the j Instrument Index used by the Architect Engineer, Bechtel, for tabulation ' 'l of instntment data during original design. Because the Instry. ment Index gj.3 was not considered a fully controlled document, the validity nnd bases of ~.

  1. p....

quality classifications could not be readily ascertained. p Thus, the assignment of non-safety related devices-in applications that interfaced c hf with class 1E circuits was questionable. f. I rs

  • As discussed in Section E and F below, no conditions adverse to plant s'/

safety were identified and most non-safety related quality dosignations W h.; were determined to be acceptable. Some devices were detet'mlied to require upgrading.to a safety-related quality designation based or their service y; function. The cause of the apparent quality level classification [;'.. discrepancies was a combination of the level of Instrument Index l t' controls that existed during original plant design and the lack of

  • y written documentation of evaluations required by Regulatory Guide 1.75.

'E. Corrective Actions v.: h The essence of the Instrumentation and Setpoint Control program F ovides f/, - 2' adequate assurance that the entire population of potential discrepancies of a similar nature have been identifled. The program guidelines were of 7 -sufficient scope to identify discrepancies between installed .4 - instrumentation and design requirements. Current program controls are l p',; adequate to. ensure that appropriate design requirements are maintained j p. for instrument applications. 9 h. A dedicated team of engineers was assigned to review the specifics of each n ).' of the identified non-safety related applications in class it circuits. j ?.' It we determined that in each case reasonable assurance existed that the '5l condition would not degrade the interfacing safety related circuits or j y functions. Therefore, continued service in their respective circuits was ] g acceptable pending completion of the final evaluations. h.) 7 g h The System Energy Design Engineering Group completed the evaluation of b V;J component application with the following results: L i I" [1. rourteen of the devices were determintd to be suitable for class IE o application and were upgraded to a safety related quality level ['. ' elacsification. p f t y! ( 4: f. dt' ' fV'*" " 1.ER18891/SCHPTI.R - 5 q %.1, ; - d\\ b .Dhtf[( .) \\. 3,

g,.,. i,

p. t..

3;,.3gj,pw,e.g' T ucansas. ev..awT naront nan)Taxt camMUATION '. ' -.e a e 4w... .mi

q

+ -m e .a .=m==m.5h'd .i ~ i f' m) DC'$. 9 .W.2 Y # D 2 7. 'e "; ~.: .... (- M E t* s "'9P; .c,y nt, t.. W....P,.. .. : n w.,

n m

v s.. . s. :.... i ' C ra n d Cu l'f 'Itu e l e s t Station' o le le lete $ ! !! 6 81 01118 01 1 Ol t. OF 015 Lyf Sunamm.m.e== . =.am am. m w,m, f r [ G. r* Vt";

N. y 1,

.r.- .?.^r X 'N @N 6?!:r. "; P oj, S;.;', s.;.t Sixty one of the devices did not meet all; criteria to be classified pp p' " 3..',as Class 1E but were dispositioned as acceptable based on ' l. kE w v j; i ; coop 11ance with' the criteria for associated circuits set forth in a , (.l.. '.z/ ] *..', Regulatory cuide 1.75.', 4 h o The qua ificatics of four installed 1.andswitchen which *are required [ f* P, '.' \\ . inability to perform inspections during plant operation. The 1 to meet Class it criteria is indeterminate at this time due to the E. p handswitches operate two feedwater system (E115 Codes FJ) inlet-I .a 1-J C*- l, shuto!! valves, B21-y065A and B21-T0658. Two of the handswitches a l .,. t ,'t..,' -initiate valve opening and closing while the other two are used to ,?: f/M;5 stop valve movement during the opening or closing cycle. These t* -l .handswitches are susp9ct tocause of a discrepancy between two fys General Electric doeurente. An Elementary Diagram Device List. vQ (EDDL) correctly specified Class 1E Cutler Hansner switches for l 'r this application while an Electrical Device 1.ist (EDL) incorrectly %.f specified non-class 1E Cutler Hansner switchea. Since t.he k* non-Class 1E Cutler Hansner switches are physically identical to 6 U the Class it switches, the original equipment supplier (GE) 3 j.,'.;' perforvied an evaluation based on operating history to allow continued service.' The four switches will be inspected during the Q'. './ fourth refueling outage (RT04) and replaced if found to be the gx non-Class 1E type.. u,,,. 3,. s (% 7 Two devices that are not fully Clas's '1E' qualified have an active e o safety function requiring a safety-related quality level. o .i. designation. The two devices are handswitches that operate the d' component cooling water (CCW) system (E118 Code KC) 'B' pump. h i '.,' / The handswitch contacta,must not inadvertently change state during or after a safe shutdown earthquake to ensure that the 'B' CCW @i pun, sheds from its power souce upon actuation of the load T(b>, ., shedding and sequencing system following a less of Coolant Accident (toCA) event. Because the handswitches provide an active

t safety function, the quality designation has been upgraded to a

? safety-related classification.. Although the installed .,l, handswitches were found to be acceptable for continued service, it . ~, . h(J was determined prudent to replace the two non-Class 1E handswitches with suitably qualified Class 1E handswitches during N RT04. X? L F L ] i n g .Wc y f.i,g .m. 1 4 :.g,ra= ** LER18891/SO(PFLR - 6 ..! N.. ' ib

  • b g,8=y men..

~. 'o*****""*"'""""*' ..e. .t.',-l ' ;

- UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) TEXT CONTINUATION

' ;a.r. f eeunm.- p :.:. - * * = * * * * *

  • i

+ enenm sie ansa se - t 6S6. m.,; ' seemet massa a we masce m ease e 6 o- .... w.1w s -me N,randcul'fNuclearStation e 18 le la le F. I 116 81 01 1 O! 5 0F OIS 01118 , y; on e.-.-e awampo,me.wim N. '...

6. /

N V i u,. F. Safety Assessment.. ' c? An engineer,ing a'ssessm'ent was performed for each device identified as ,3 ~ 4:', i non-ssiety related in a class 1E circuit to determine interim k'. V. ecceptability pending completion of final evaluations. The assessment Y,, - i ': included a review of maintenance history to determine if-failures related ' 't t to circuit integrity had been experienced; a detailed circuit review to C' e',:; .(' ~ assess the inpact of postulated credible component failure on the class at c'ircuit should iallure occurs.and a review of potential fallure sechanisms I ' for the co g onent found in the circuit. Based on the assessment, it was I'- 7-concluded that there is reasonable. assurance that the conditions m identified would not degrade safety circuits and functions. p The Plant u Safety Review Coesnittee reviewed and concurred with the assessment. f J. J jf The non Class 3E Cutler Haniner switches are physically identical to the ?: class 1E qualified s~ itches. The four switches are acunted in a control ( w 9 Room panel which is a mild environment. Because of physical similarities between the Class 1E and non-Class 1E switches, the switches are expected a j to perform *similarly -during a seismic event. The two non-Class 1E ~ handewitches for the 'B' CCW pump are also located in a Control Room panel a:

  1. s.

i (mild environment), are phys:ically similar to class 1E qualified switches, (; L and are expected to perform similarly during a seismic event. Therefore, the existing devices are acceptable for continued service in their 3 y respective circuits with no significant adverse igact to plant safety. ]1 R .. y ld hl ~ 9 h, c-1 e i l C l o l -i j@ ' y%. t ") a / s. I.';t f):= i h. A) n a i -d d. N0 h. c' i i /, 5 h: m . g"*" ""* LER10092/SCMPrLR ~1 p':l, !. g&l h-ll-Q f f ;:. ..p ,c ?x

I CDit%'k i f UNITED ST ATES ,g j t q' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION rn 3y W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20bb5 ,o' May 8, 1990 { d 3 I Mr. D. C. Kansal Manager of Quality Assurance Bechtel Power Corporation Eastern Power Division i 15740 Shady Grove Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-1454 i

Dear tir Kansal:

SUBJECT:

POSSIBLE INADEQUATE CLAS$1FICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT AT THE_ GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 Licensee Event Report (LER) No. 89-018 Revision 1, dated February 28, 1990, - i (copy enclosed) has been submitted to the NRC to update nonconformances identified during a design basis review of instrumentation at the Grand Gulf ( i Nuclear Station. This review identified several cases of inappropriate quality l-level designations in which devices classified as nonsafety-related were installed in Class 1E electrical circuits. The' condition was reported to the NRC under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(ii)(B) as a condition outside the plant's design l l basis because the condition did not appear to meet the isolation requirements established in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.75. The licensee's final evaluation !l' ' confirmed that all devices were acce) table for continued service in their applications; however, two handswitcies which served an active safety function were required to be replaced because they were not fully Class'1E qualified. The licensee's review identified that the Instrument Index, which Bechtel used in the tabulation of ir.strument data during original design, was not an adequately controlled document. As a result, the licensee could not readily ascertain the validity and bases of quality classifications and questioned the assignment of nonsafety-related devices in applications that interfaced with Class 1E electrical circuits. The'NRC is concerned regarding the potential for inadequate classification and use of nonsafety-related equipment and the possible generic application this i issue may represent with res)ect to other plants using this Bechtel service. Based upon these concerns, t1e NRC requests that you review this matter and respond to us regarding the potential for reportability pursuant to 10 CFR Part 21. Please submit your written response within 30 days of the date of this letter, i = -,e y y --m---g-,-ww-- y3mm-- ---ng--

== - w-

P[s .c. N, ;i' -Mi'. S. A. t ;;7. .l x.w. =l4 -2 May 8, 1990 k If-you have any. questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact .Mr. Chris _VanDenburgh on (301) 492 0959,.'or Mr. Robert Pettis on (301) 492 3214. g,;, Sincerely, s E. William Brach, Chief Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspection aniSafeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu it1N i

Enclosure:

a LER 89 018 01 from Grand Gulf } DISTRIBUTION PDR j Central Files 'l DRIS R/F lVIB R/F- ? .BKGrimes EWBrach CAVanDenburgh RLPettis Glainas

CBerlinger' 1

i ) .0FC.

VIB:DRIS:NRR
VIB:DRIS:NRR :VIb:DR RR-l 4......:...............:............. :.....

llAME :RLPettism h h :CAVanDenb

Jfac
.....'.
........(,&g:5/)/90

.............j.i.............:..............:............................ DATE

5/ \\ /90 4

5/9/90 .0FFICIAL RECORD COPY . Document Name: LTR TO OE=CF'\\. b ratASA qr j i ? I

Qg_ m n$ k ii t ,- ;_.. e - = Mr. D.C. Kansal .2 May 8, 1990 3 ^ If you have' any questions concerning this matter, please feel' free to contact Mr.. Chris VanDenburgh on (301) 492-0959, or hr. Robert Pettis on (301) 492 3214'. Sincerely, 4 E. William Brech, Chief Vendor Inspection Branch i Division of' Reactor Inspection and Safeguards 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

LER 89 018-01 from Grand Gulf j l D STRIBUTION i %rma Central-Files DRIS R/F -VIB R/F a L BKGrimes EWBrach-CAVanDenburgh RLPettis Glainas CBerlinger. j. .1 i ~

  • See previous'page for concurrence.

,0FC .:VIB:DRIS:HRR

VlB:DRIS:NRR :VIB:DRIS:NRR :
i t

NAME: :RLPettis:mkm

CAVanDenburgh :EWBrach y

y DATE

5/08/90*'
5/08/90*
5/08/90*

j 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i Document Name: LTR TO KANSAL t i e I-4 1 Ic i u 4

S i k h', .N[.Ih d . syn.m # e w,' W g% 3 %*Nd*'t b] b e g ? @3%(N bli FcM '+a@M @ a 1' b L ' ' ""G " "58 b 'i '/ f Dh m.4 P "":

0. p,O.xp().N..,.)lD.$ie,,5 M'[y w.m7: p#f.E*by fn,: e; M

?.

  • 'J. p ;;;y. I II lM##.

l{ !:.',, + L wlmem T, cott16-y N. 1 i.4 ' ~.. V'c, Pvt.seWt - , I

,q.,f;[j7.y.;;pg.O?'g'7h,?Q'.yBM.9i%y;ji:[.

V %@f,.a/M *, 3 g

n. ;;
i

~ *** ..y 7.M6:hl h'fW 0 ' R. [ ,,' \\ i. - 28,:.1990),)0..Q'lQ:g af:.s] Y. M Q.. K t"(.'i h,'" : %.Q*.**.* '.e Q/ c.*1.'; February;.

  • l'.

,. 4 ' y.. A. y:.e ' ' ; >,. w . :.,, ' 6.;..., e-. * / ". / f.. '.. e - . f'.h :,'.9;2,,,6U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Comissio.' ' ". 4 ~ ..u p i: s n n " f,'.yi,', /G M. ' c Mail Station ' P1-137 f...'l:,-ll/ f',*s*Oy9if.S. Washington,D.C.120555'lV','^*3., t (.fs. 7..,,:l.).<' -l. Att ent ion: p...cumen..t..C,q,,%.%. 'e s 6. .. o.. 'y l l.b'. i 4 ..Do. .. C 'N ? ontt;ol,; D .,.4 . 6;, -Q qq.,... :...,;q.;.s. :. We , s i +. s ),;{t.: <,;w.,.v:13.... " c

9

.;g g:g,..y.;, ; ;~. ;. n y ?.:- =,,O' ;.D.[0,.1 centlemen::. ' K'4 M:,. z, : n.;,..t p?pjy b.; 7 '; y .,v s ' J g Q./, p'. ?.,l , P, My ' dljfg ': 7 i . ~. i.. Grand Gulf Nuclear Station =? . ' ' :.. W s.N 47 Y

SUBJECT:

t

g+
,. 7

[ 1 s

.' ]T
s..,.-

g; j'$. c'/ "':@,?*. l

  • nit 1".

U r.s., a ..,.c ', G: p?,.". '> U - Docket No. 50-416 i 4l !l 3 L> r .r 9 .i c?.- l,y -."..,.. .+.'s s m %.. ,.n.L. g'<.c. '; y . License No..NPF-29 I' 7 L .n Update on Nonconformances

(

'w. - _ qlJ,;. 3. 7 L j '.., 'y'l Instrumentation Design. Revealed During / 'J. s ,pg :l. Basis Review. f _ l 6.3. 3 ' .LER 89-018-01 l I.= ?" d. /.. AECM-90/0043 6 s n. .. ;.2 = SE,!.hkI Attached is' Licensee Ev'ent Report (LER). 89;018-01 'which is a L "i

s... ' '

final report.. + g ;\\ ) ;.1d, M = e.., '..,ours truly, .s <Y c 4.,c.:. s".. u s. _q y y--* N. - _g. ._ l

!t j

3.J ' F W., WTC:cg u <.M. ! ' ' ' Attachment 4 1 _ :.,( M. ~ 4 l g i t.' h,.. cc: Mr. D. C. Hintz (w/a)... ',t 'l Mr. T. H. Cloninger (w/a)

j

, 'J" X [ 'Mr..k. B. McGehee (w/a). i k ' Mr, H. S. Reynolds (w/a). $j g Mr. H. Li Thomas'(w/o)

  • Mr. H. O. Christensen (w/a) 9 i_

y . k, b Mr. Stewart D. Ebneter'(w/a) E '_ Regional-Administrator 7 k f[fif.,;. .j! ", M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission fF d ht : -' " i Nv0 ' Reglon II. l N' N " 101. Marietta St.,' N.W., Suito '2900 ~ fj $c +,,'[.',s ; j b Atlanta, Georgia L30323

$o,s S

a j ' k l' 1 [. 4, Mr. L; L'. Kintner, Project Manager (w/a) b.k,w o , offico of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4

  • . y n

h, g/. U.S.' Huclear Regulatory Comission i i. Mail Stop 14B20 6 fQ 'd.Y lM Washington,.D.C.- 20555. j q;. V

g. A af tER18891/ScarrtR 2,.

4

.&
2i,.h,in.&., ;M./'M.,Q. $jfh,: y[(/ $.e!!S 6's s.d.g h<

q

.w.:.,x

' ;,. et w w - a /f . '.. M yf

h.,k.s g4
r. p 'h 1

n.a. w,.c %% %My....V y.a :' *. tc.,';;;y. 6.s..~m su*w.:.. e.g. c. H '.a. ; '- r. y. a ~ t + L 4.r,. ..p. g <... .o -.i. 3gg y w y --s-w a.

v [fD,'rIM".YU"'@$tN,$.h NN h M l,h*G*'p*"iw*l.L'?l A cy.. 3,. ,. Q...... *..: ",. v t.uco...sov6.to n co,

  • o=

3% g, . ' c. W, n.. n . m.ovio o.e o ne... fp f y /,- LICENSEE EVENT REPORT ll.ER) c " Na'8 "'" + .;),1. ..c.un. ni

  • ' $' Crand'culf Nuclear' Station oocu

.v .m Unit 1-aa St.. viiss. 0181010 0 j4 l1 16, i lodo 1 5 g.y.t Updale'on Nonconformances i Revealed During Instrumentation Design Basis Revie i .g. ; e vs., o.ve. l s 6...... ..,o., o. n,. o,....cio,is..voivio. qw. .o... ,n. , ae :;;.a

y:

.o.,. . umn.. n pooi s v i.in M i @hh NA 01&fol010l t l .t N.d,.. t l 2 II5 8'9 8l9 0l1l8 0l 1 ol* 2h 9 l0 ~ ~ ~ kg 0 1 5 to 1 0 1 0 iI I i co...,,,,. v ...on..v .nio v..v..,to ...ov.....n o,....,,c ..~.. ,nu ).g 1 = =.. n..., am g/;;gg n.,m.. g m .in.. n... =...uu .,n.im. n., i, o,o n .m., n,u.i =... . n...,

. mMm, g,g; g,;.,.g 7,,,,,

+ p g,, -

==.""i " '* "*" ~"*' ~ ^' mu 3 u n.imi., u n. m u n.. { 3 ". M 01.Ifitt 1 M P34.H3Het te f 3s.HJH.I , ; {'. Llciassi f Coser.CT... TM'S st. n#1 .g.. =.we , 4.f ' g u o.-ou v.. .... coo ' 'jg ', E2p a 1 d.. B v r d / LieensinR Eneineer [ ?,., 6 10 11 4 13171-12111812 Comptatt osui tuse,0. e.Ces Com O.is.1 p.ety.g og ec.seg3 ens inst.epo ? H3e C.V98 systtw Cotapo.f.?

  • * ' If To e's C.usg gvgTgv Cow.oeit.f 8{

C. p o.v h' te-pa v . h-1 I I I i 1 I b z .t i. I f I f f I f '+._,._.)_l g g gj j j g W; [hh g g g g g g g purett fief.t.3s0 18 s,setto ste woe,= o., .g.a l:[.. '.'=""u] vn tee s Svo well'o8e m.-. turerra sve.,ss,on ea rre i' .cv,t ., m....,.~, . ]. n.. .o . (/ :. ty* ' A design basis review of instr.imentation revealed several cases of apparently E,3 Anappropriate quality level dealgnations in which devices classified as ',r. p non-safety related were identified in Class IE circuits. j'q not' appear to meet. the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.15 for suitable This condition did C.C isolation from Class IE power sources. R devices were in compliance with RG 1.75 Class 1E criteria.The circuits containing the. subje W (g i *. i,' A team of engineers reviewed the specifics of each of the identifled non-safety related applications in Class IE circuits and deterinined that in each case ,p -b reasonable assurance existed that the conditions would not degrade the h interfacing safety related circuits or functions. Therefore, continued service

C; in their respective circuits was acceptable pending completion of final evaluations.

C,:k - 1 Final evaluations confirmed that all devices were acceptable for continued t 3 service in their applications. on~1y two devices that are not fully Class IE f qualified have an active safety function requiring a safety-related quality /' level designation. Althcugh deemed acceptable for continued service, it was deemed prudent to replace the two devices with those of suitable qualification j,F during RF04. Four other handswitchen will be inspected during RF04 to p determine if they are Class 1E qualified as required. ,u.a M. - U 4 -,ij HHc LERIBB91/SCMpFLR - 3 y,l D h,a,cg-.= >, ~ U

f;m,h.NhI.iNON$'M' kb'N' ?f

    • ".Q,'y..

d'.T UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) TEXT CONTINUATION :, ~ .. me me.o me.. j ;. y. P r, ~..

44. n.<.

~ ,e sne- ? .;; easui mese n. ei t.. w. .. i. et. %j hy.. S. . i g,p,.. l. g.,n %, :y s m e.c..,. v..,. c.. $7,? u'Crand'Culf, Nuclear; Station elIjelalol4ftl6 81 9 0l !l 8 0 11 0 l2 0F 0l5 9/m.R vone a ,mio m nn.,, & J.. /y.T s. Lj ,r 4 ,t

i. A.

. Reportable Condition - M,3; Ai, - ,o ,f ..e Y"~ M?fi As a result of'a design basis review of instrumentation being conducted d.%;g' .3 by the System Energy Design Engineering organisation, several cases of /g..i .4 .apparently inappropriate quality level designations were identified. 3;fy Specifically, a population of devices classified as non-safety related T. JE),i were identified in Claas 1E circuits. This condition did not appear to ' meet the isolation requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.75 and was lp;[*I'y,,, therefore reported pursuant.to 100FR50.73(a)(2)(11)(B) as a condition ,g,.. outside the design basis for the plant. This update report is submitted 64,% to provide the results of the completed evaluation. .. v.u.: QN B.. Initial Condition.s .b: _.- Y; '((M[J The condition was identified on December 15, 198? while the unit was operating at 100 percent power. N:lic. .,ti C.' < Description of Occurrence NQ,3 - l. s k: + < + N% : e m o

  • .,.b 1

J, f;!' *f.gf /

  1. l ' g'7 I=.m$,'b w. W : 'UCENSEE EVENTMEPORT (LERI TEXT CON 4

a mura.. to:en, -{i l %. ,- m o m o=eao va.*'a w, i eemu ne asse m 3 escan wisee n, - , f) 0+ 'l ( b.., D Y, k,, % 8 .$ l,, Cl 5 um se.

    • ee is m=

l- " ht,l' '.* ' \\ ":2.?: k . ~,, v P;, 'Crand,Cul f: Nuclea r' S t a t ton ~ g von e.====. me== .m==. nac a-ammm 0le1010lel411l6 8l9 Ol'18 0 11 0l3 0F O l5 'i k,G;' ',! b FC s 1 T. V 3 D '.U.',.h',. : ' Apparent Cause -l /cL f-,y ", ' =

c t

The acceptability of the,' device applications was brought into question ]( j p, <f j during a comprehensive. reevaluation of the basis'for instrument quality . h,,,,,, J, g classifications (,;one factor in System Energy's decision to undertake this il ~ q.c comprehensive reevaluation was concern over the level of control of the [F.,'hJ Instrument.Index used by the Architect Engineer, Bechtel, for tabulation. i of instrument data daring original design. Because the Instrument Index O ff.j was not considered a fully controlled document, the validity end bases of ~ quality classifications could not be readily ascertained. .I p.; 4

f0 Thus, the assignment of n,on-safety related devices in applications that interfaced pf-with Class 1E circuits was questionable.

l W i lh;.a' As discussed in section E and F below, no condit' ions adverse to plant ~ (< p R,7 safety were identified and most non-safety related quality designations h'p;l, were determined to be acceptable. Some devices were determined to require upgrading to a safety-related quality designation based on their service O function.. The cause of the apparent quality level.c.lassification ' if,. discrepancies was a combination of the level of Instrument Index r t controls that existed during original plant dasign and the lack of Q written documentation of evaluations required by Regulatory Guide 1.75. h@. E. Yp ' Corrective Actions -h The essence of the Instrumentation and Setpoint Control Program F.ovides 1 [ y* adequate assurance that the entire population of potential discrepancies ' ' L.E of a similar nature have been identifled. U-The program guidelines were of E sufficient scope to identify discrepancies between installed i ' [@'? instrumentation and design requirements. Current program controls are adequate to ensure that appropriate design requirements are maintained gk for instrument applications. s S ?' A dedicated team of engineers was assigned to review the specifics of each of the identified non-safety related applications in Class lE circuits, p i' It was determined that in each case reasonable assurance existed that the 'A!L cendition would not degrade the interfacing safety related circuits or ~ J' functions. Therefore, continued service in their respective circuits was

hL acceptable pending completion of the final evaluations.

M The System Energy Design Engineering Group completed the evaluation of %s.f component application with the following results-I 1 (V:. c Fourteen of the devices were determined to be suitable for Class 1E o Q-h application and were upgraded to a safety-reinted quality level j' classification. (.. 1 .e. r yf, 4 s. { : $ ' G**""'. LER10091/scHPrLR - 5 p 1w "l Eg V gh. R y, ,IW .e t 3

b =*="a,., men 4 M'

(,

iOl%g$ 3%e.Td.;.f.UCENSEE ENNT REPORT NARI TEXT CINTWSEN '. P' T f4'kV ..... n ammuna seemen, enammmi 8 m eemeane'ao'a. L y t 1.. g . s ,emm we m .A c 'D W;d Cul'f ' Mue1e a.k[:,, ;y,.y%; e"is { e le le $ 1 Il 6 8 1 - 0 l1 l 8 01 1 014 08' emy, num m, '? ; .,g. sensi manen a 'Q%.fi yM, ;,..,,if,,,;(4 t' Q,. n. 3,, a : g : :,r_ ' ,... s .nw . m: u. m in 3 2.y(Ya q a

j ;

m.. w ..p .j g 1 Cran vene sm.arn 5tation' r 015 '.M ,.h.,..,," I' '.* ' b.' I J. N@',' 4ud' b U 1[' M - S g .s 1-M;?c f/js &as class 1E but were dispositioned 'as acceptable ). ., p;? .t c. .g .,l'! M coepliance with' the criteria for. associated circuits set-forth in k. '.P . ^/;', ' Regulatory cuide 1.75.', ,0 . " g. v :" c.

  • ~
?
ific *C,-.*.'o,.-( The qualification' of. four installed handswitches which 'are requ O'
, g y

2 ? w{KM .QJ ' ?. to meet class 11E criteria is indeterminate'at this time due.to the . inability to perform inspections during plant operation.,The (u handswitches operate two feedwater system (EIIS Code: SJ) inlet ~ .%@,, '. j. b X ',- shutof f valves, B21-F065A and B21-F065B. Two of the handswitchen ' 0' - + . Mdt -initiate valve opening and closing while the other two are used to' . $h- '.. stop valve sovement' during the opening or closing cycle. These I,4 handswitches are suspect because of a discrepancy between two p.: General Electric documents. An Elementary Diagram Device List. - k.; M.;., this application while an Electrical Device List (EDL) incorrectly s (EDDL) correctly specified Class 1E Cutler Hanner switches for $@N l. specified non-class 1E Cutler Hamer switches. Since the b; ja ! ()' non-Class lE Cutler Hanuoer switches are physically identical to s. -the class 1E switches, the original equipment supplier (CE) i n 7.!'C performed an evaluation based on operating history to allow i' j J, continued service.' The four switches will be inspected during the J .Ny fourth refueling outage (Rro4) and replaced if found to be the @, [ 'U' non-Class 1R, type., .g 73 t i s [$.i- [Two devices that are not ' fully Clas's lE' valified have an active J o safety function requiring a safety-related quality level (Q,; designation. The two devices are handswitches that operate the component cooling watsr (CCW) system (EIIS Codet KG). 'B' punp. gy, The handswitch contacts,must not inadvertently change state during h or af ter a safe shutdown earthquake to ensure that the 'B' CCW L ' }', ' ' ' pump sheds from its power souce upon, actuation of the load 'l 4 . [j- . shedding and sequencing system following a less of Coolant i a] Accident (thCA) event. Because the handswitches provide an active h 'd..' safety function, t.he quality designation has been upgraded to a safety-related classification.. Although the installed handswitches were found to be acceptable for continued service, it j Y* 5)( was determined prudent to replace the two non-Class lE 4 3 d[0 handswitches with suitably qualified Class lE handswitches during 4 Rr04. ) j j N, 'm _ o. '. i. . %lL. (' . c..' s f. ~ k .. i<y' o f, ~.g 6 x p'- 4> y I'"= *a LER18891/SCMPFLR - 6

w.,.

?.n...,h.'<..,. 7, ~..'.. f, W

'i \\' ; & g eop nam.. i n ** * * * ****** 'i ~ 0,. N. <., '.. \\;.UCENStt EVENT REPORT (LER) TEXT CONTINUATION j. y 6 - meummeS+m j,. wees eve easam anse =. sN'H; i.+ t b: ue m e as m seemet massa a l. ). JQ*j '.. s. ,,,, 9' egp p,. - ee- ~' 7 ps.. , i. 'brsEd Cuff N .a fg'i van e m.. a .u c l e a r ' S t a t f o n.4 {s {e te lt 5 l ll 6 45 01118 01 1 015 0F Oi5 mm ag m.,anewim

  • f,;

I [ L - f.'.3 g,j; T. Safety Assessment.. h W'

  • f.M'An engineer;ing 'ssesslnent was performed for each device identified as

?.S a .l,h',E d non-safety related in a Class 1E circuit to determine interim 1-j' ) acceptability pending completion of final evaluations. The assessment d'{ included a review of maintenance history to detemine if f ailures related 't #: f. to circuit integrity had been experienced; a detailed circuit review to 3, essess'the impact of postulated credible component failure on the Class 1E l b c'ircuit should iallure occur; and a review of potential f allure mechanisms I ke: i for the component'found in the circuit. Based on the assessment, it was L '.[7.'< concluded that there is reasonable. assurance ~ that the conditions t i Identified would not degrade safety circuits and functions. 3 t.. Safety Review Comittee reviewed 'and concurred with the assesThe Plant J p sment. e y'.; the non-Class 1E Cutler Hamer switches are physically identical to the j Class 1E qualified switches. r The four switches are mounted in a Control y Room panel which is a mild environment. Because of physical similarities between the Class 1E and non-Class 1E switches, the switches are expected -i to perform *eimilarly during a seismic event. The two non-Class 1E 1 M handswitches for the 'B' CCW pwnp are also located in a Control Room panel 1 j i (mild environment), are physically similar to Class 1E qualified switches, g and are expected to perform similarly during a seismic event. 1 Therefore, in the existing devices are acceptable for continued service in their l. respective circuits with no significant adverse impact to plant safety. ~ 'd l.; s 4 3 h .t / .e i a .c J i '.,'? y 'f v3

1. ?

I, ik h, y g. s 7

,Y

~ 4% t p 3 kl. y hg f c g: g %m j, gy== a - LER)BM1/SCMPF1.R = 1 g h...b., h .s s g 10 .}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20042F975&oldid=4540417"