ML20195E927

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1 - Equipment Classification for All Other Safety-Related Components: Washington Nuclear Plant-2

ML20195E927
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	04/30/1988
From:	Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML17285A095	List: ML20195E927
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7317, GL-83-28, TAC-53730, NUDOCS 8811170247
Download: ML20195E927 (16)

Text

. .

e EGG NTA-7317

- Ap 'l 1988 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

_,. A idaho Nat/onal CONFORMNCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83528 ITEM 2.2.1 -

E0V!FMENT CLAS$1FICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY En8/neor/n8 RELATED COMPONENTS: WNP 2 f.aboratory M3napad

.' ti the U S.

Ocpa rtment R. VanderDeek cf Erc'gy ,

0 Prepared for the 94 EGcG ~

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COAfMISSION

. "'"fiiLQ7l uco.vnwm

EGG-NTA-7317 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT .

CONF 0'vANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1--E0V!FMENT CLAS5IFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY RELATED C04.FCNENT5:

WNP-2 Docket No. 50-397 R. VaaderEtek Published A;ril 1953

• !cano Nattenal Er;ineering Lat: rat:ry EG&G Icaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Icabe $34:5 Prepared for the U.S. Nselear Regulatory Cee-ission Vasnirst:n, D.C. 20555 Ur.cer COE Contract No. OE A;07-761001570 FIN No. C6C01

t l

l A55 TRACT Ttts EG13 Idaho, Inc. report decu ents the review of the suteittals

. f:r the Washtr; ten Psblic Power Nuclear Project No. 2 for conformance te

. Ge eric Letter E3-28, Item 2.2.1.

F Decket No. 50-397 TAC No. 53730 I

i

h l

FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 "Required Actions fased en Generic Implications of Salem ATW5 Events." This work was coecucted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Re;ulation, Division of Engineering and system Technolegy, by

, EGLG Idaho, Inc., Electrical, Instr 9 entation and Centrol Systems Ev alwation L' nit.

The 0.5. Nwelear Regulatery Comission funded this work under the

, autrerizatice Et; 20-15-10 11-3, FIN No. 06001.

o  ?

Oceket No. 50-397 TA: No. 53730 itt a

CONTENTS AESTRA;T .............................................................. 11 F.....

.st..s 3 .............................................................. 111 1.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND F0; VAT .................................. ..... 2

3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRA.W. .......................................,..... 3 3.1 Guideline .................................................. 3 3.2 Evaluation ....................................... 3 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. .......... 3 4.

IT EM 2. 2.1.1 - ICE NT I FI C ATION C RIT ERI A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.

4.1 Gsideline .................. . ............................. 4 4.2 Evaluation .............. ..... ....................... 4 4.3 Cerclusion ..................... ...................... .... .... 4

5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 - INFORw.ATICN HjNOLIN3 SYSTEM ....................... 5 5.1 5.2 Guiceline .................................................. 5 .

E v 416 4 t i c n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.3 Cencision.................................................

u ..... 5

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF E0J:FMENT CLA551FICAT10N LISTIN3 . . . . . . . . . . . 6

. (.1 E.2 Guideline Evaluati:n 6

............................................. 6

(.3 C0cc1wsico ... . ............... ........ .................. 6

7. I T E M 2. 2.1. 4 - MAN AS EV E NT CONT ROL5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g. g. 7 7.1 7.2 G.icelire ...... ...........................................

Evaluation .. ........................ ........ ...........

7 7

7.3 ter:1wsten ................................................. 7 S. I'!v 2.2.1.5 - ti$:3N VER F!C AT!;N AND P40;VREw!NT . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4

!.1 Guicalire .................................................. 8 E.2 Evaluation . ............... ............................... E 6.3 Cettivsten ............................................ .... S

9. 1 TEM 2.2.1.6 "IMFORTANT TO SAFETY" C0w.FONENT5 .................. 9 9.1 Guideline .................................................. I

10. CCNLU5!CN ....................................................... 10

!!. .IE...N..E5 A. EM; . .............. ........................................ II iv

i

, CONr0RWANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.1--EOU1PMENT Class!FlcaT!CN FOR ALL OTHER $AFETY-RELATED Cov:CNENTS:

WNP 2

1. INTRODUCTION Cn February 25, 1933, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the $alem Nuclear Power Plant failed to apen upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protcetion system. This incident was terminated manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the auto'tatic trip signal. The failure of the circuit breakers was determined to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attacheent. Prior to this incident, on February 22, 1983, at Unit 1 of the $ ale Nuclear Po.or Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam geeerator ic=-1cw level during plant startup. In this case, the reactor was trip;ed ranua11y by the operator almost coincidentally with the as M atic trip.

~ Fo11 ewing these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive 01recter for Operatiens (E00), directed the NRC staff to investigate and report on the generic teplications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the

$alem Nuclear Pe=er Plant. The results of the staff's inquiry' into the ge*eric inclicattens of the Salem unit incicents are reportec in MA!3-1C00, "Generic leplications of the ATV5 Events at the $ ales Nuclear Po.er Plant." As a result of this investigation, the Comission (Nit) ret.ested (ty Gereric t.etter 83-28 dated July 8,19533 ) all licensees of caerating reactors, a:plicants for an operating license, anc hoicers cf construction permits to respcmd to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two AI'a'$ events.

This raccrt is an evaluation of the responses sub.sitted by Washir.gton Public Power Supply System for Washington Public Power Nuclear Project No. 2 (Ap-2) for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83 28. The actual docvw nts revie.ed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.

1 a

t

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND F00%T 1 Ites 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee / applicant to i submit, for staff review, a description of their programs for l

, safety-related equipment classification including supporting information, l

in considerabic detail, as indicated in the guidel.no section for each item ,

within this report.

As previously stated, each of the sin items of Item 2.2.1 is evaluated  ;

in a separate section in which the guideline is presented; an evaluation of l

the licensee's/ applicant's response is made; and conclusions about the licensee's or applicant's program for safety-relased equipment classification are drawn. "

. j O e P

• 4 I

l

?

l e

e t

, 3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROG MM i

3.1 Guideline Licensees and applicants should confirm that an equipment classification program entsts that provides assurance tFat all I safety related coepenents are designated as safety related on plan.t dccumentation and in the information handling system that ccatrols  !

safety-related activities. The purpose of this program is to ensure that i personnel perfertiing activities that affect safety-related co ponents are f

amata that they see 'norking on safety related components and are guided by l safety related procedures and constraints, Features of this program are i

, evaluated in the retainder of this report.

3.2 Evaluation ,

l Tre litersee for kN: 2 previded responses to Generic Letter $3 2! cm 2

N:st-:e !!, 1953 and May 17,1985 3. These submittals included l

1rfcematten that describes their safety-related equipment classificatien l

p'c; as. In Pe review of the licensee's ress:nse to this item, it was L asswee: that the infermatten and d::wientation supporting this program is -

f availa:1e for audit veen re: west, i Ine lice *see's response states that the plant persCnnel n.tili e tre Vaste* E:wigrant List (MEL) when initiating raintenance work re: vests,' i cedarir; ra'ts, perfe ming surveilla'ce and takirg design charges. All i

1 art a

tivitics invcivim; Cwality Class 1 cet crents are re f:ree: in a::: car:e m'th . itten ;rc:e:wees anc 10 CFR 50, A;;endia S re: ire ents.  !

3.3 Cerciusten k'e have reviewed the licenste's information and find that, in gertral, the licensee's respense is adequate.

3

4. IIEM 2.2.1.1

• 10!NTIFICATION CRITERIA 4.1 ositeiine j Tre a;piteent or Itcensee should confirm that the program used for l e3Wi;teit Clallif tCatten inC16 del Criteria Wled for identifying CC?;Cnents al Safety-related.

(

I 4.2 ivaivation l l

i The Itcensee's respense states that the criteria for identifying 4 systets as safety related are found in Section 3.2.2 of the WNP 2 F5AR.

These criteria were reviewed and found to be sta11ar to the Criteria within  !

Se:tice 2.2 of Ge eric Letter 83 23.

f 4.3 Ce*C'usten The literlee'$ respCele to this itet il CCalidered 10 be CCt;ltte a9d is a::e: table.

e 4

4 I

4

. 5. 11E;i 2.2.1.2 - INF0tr.ATION HANDLIN3 $Y5 TEM 5.1 Guideline The licensee er 4;;11 cant should confirm that the program for e;.'p ent classification includes an inferr.ation handling system that is used to identify ssfety-related co penents. The response should confirm that this inferratice hamdling system includes a list of safety related equip er.t ard that precedures exist which govern its develeprent and salication.

5,2 Evaluation The licensee's res:c'se states that the inforeation hamtlin; systet c:tsists cf a c: ;wterized etwi;rcet list known as the hNF-2 Paster I;.'; ent List (V!'.). ine FIL is a pass.:rd protected data base that re: sires a cesign c*atge er.;ineerie; awtherizatien to r:dify the sa'ety-relate: :eticas of tre listing. The plant Proce: ares Famval and Te:rtc1c;y Direct:'aie Frote: ares establish the administrative cor.trels for

, tre v!L.

5.3 C e r.:19s i om '

T*,e 11:t see's te:::ase tc tSis ite* is c:nsidered te te c: ;1ete sec 4

is acce:ts:Te. **

i 1

i l

1

r

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF EQUfPMENT CLAS$1FICAT10N LISTING 6.1 Guideline The licensee's or applicant's description should confirm that the program for equipment classification includes criteria and procedures that govern how station personnel use the equipment classification information h.ndling system to determine that an activity is safety-related. The description should also include the proceduros for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement, and other activities defined in the introduction to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, that apply to safety-related components.

6.2 Evaluation e

The licensce's response states that the plant persor.ael utilize the MEL when initiating Maintenance Work Requests, ordering parts, performing surveillance and itaking design changes. In addition, all plant activities

, it.volving Quality Class I co ponents are performed in accordance with .

w-itten precedures and per 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8 requirements.

6.3 Conclusion .

ine licensee's response to this item is considered to be complete.

Althcagh the procedures referenced in the information were not included .

with the res:ense, the infermation provided addresses the concerns of this ,

'te and is 4::eptable.

I G

e 4

6

I

7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 7.1 Guidelines ,

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

7.2 Evaluation The licensee's response states that the MEL is a plant document administratively centrolled through a safety-rtlated plant procedure which is reviewed and 4; proved by the Plant Operating Cor.mittee. As such the

. ieple entation of the procedure is subject to periodic review, surveillance and aucit by the OA organization. In addition, it is subject to the inde;erdent review of the WNP-2 Nuclear Safety Assurance Group (Safety Engineering Group).

7.3 Conclusion Ita licensee's restense to this item is considered to be' complete an:

is a::eptable.

0 7

4

._ - -- .. - . , - --e_ e = --- - - - - - - - - - - - P

, 8. IVEM 2.2.1.5 DESfGN VER8FfCA?!ON AND PROCUREMENT

, 8.1 Guideline The applicant's or licensee's submittal should document that past usage cemonstrates that appropriate design verification and qualification t:: ting are specified for the procureme.nt of safety-related components and parts. The spect.Pications should 'r:lude qualification testing for expected safety service conditions and should provide support for the applicant's/ licensee's receipt of testing documentation to support the ,

limits of life recom. mended by the supplier. If such do,cumentation is not available, c)nfirmation that the presant program meets these requirements should be provided.

8.2 Evaluation '

The licensee's response states that all safety-related equipment procurement is subject to a prepurchase engineering review which includes verification that the subject item is environmentally and/or seismically qualified for the intended use. The criteria used and the documenting of the review are controlled by in place procedures. For first of a kind applications dstailed qualification crit + ia and requirements are provided .

in the equip? ant specification. In ca. .here equipment was procured withcut detailed qualification requiremeras, test specifications, procedures, results requirements are specified to an independent test laboratory.

8.3 Conclusion The licensee's response to this item is censidered to be complete and is acceptable.

4 e

8 u si un i i is . . _ _ . . _ _ ii -i --ii---,W

~

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "!MPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS 9.1 Guideline Generic letter 83-28 states that the li.vnsee's or applicant's equipment classification program should include (to 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 or applicant to furnish this information as part of their respense, this item will not be reviewed.

6 1

O Q 4

(

9

e

10. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of Item 2.2.1, Equipment Classification Program for All Other Safety-Related Components, we find that the information provided by the licensee to resolve the concerns of Item 2.2.1 eeet the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.

Item 2.2.1. 6 was not reviewed by the staff as noted in Section 9 of this report.

b O e 9

e I

I e

I i

l 10

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

l

11. REFERENCES

1. Letter, NRC (D. G. Eisenhut) to All Licensees of Operating Reactors,

.. Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits, "Required Actions Based on Generic Implication of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8,1983.

2. Letter, Washin (A. Schwencer)gton Public

, November Power Supply System (G. C. Sorensen) 'to NRC 18,1983(G02-83-1076).

3. Letter, Washington Public Power Supply System (G. C. Sorensen)'to NRC (W. R. Butler), May 17,1985(G02-85-257).

4 4

e O

4 l e e e

e 9

e f

0 11 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --