ML20195F113

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1 - Equipment Classification for All Other Safety-Related Components: River Bend-1

ML20195F113
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	10/31/1988
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20195F118	List: ML20195F113 ML20195G810
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7301, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8811210007
Download: ML20195F113 (16)

Text

. .

e .

, EGG-NTA-7301 P0-tV TECHNICAL EVALUATION RF. PORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1 -

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

RIVER BEND-1 Docket No. 50-458 Alan C. Udy Published October 1988 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Unde CCE Co tea:t No. CE-ACC7-76:DC1570 FIN he. C5001

[

/

w , .

3 ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Unit No. 1 of the River Bend Station for c'nformance o to Generic Letter 83-28,'

Item 2.2.1.

l Docket No. 50-458 11

FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 "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 Engineering and System Technology, by EG&G Idaho, Inc., Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control Systems Evaluation Unit.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the authorization B&R 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. 06001.

4 I

Oceket No. 50-453

! tii

CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................. 11 FOREVOR0 .............................................................. iii

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

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT .....................................'... 2

3. I T EM 2 . 2 .1 - P R OG RAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . 3 3.1 Guideline .................................................. 3 3.2 Evaluation ................................................. 3 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. 3

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

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF EQUIPMENT CLAS3IFICATION LISTING . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1 Guideline .................................................. 6 6.2 Evaluation ................................................. 6 6.3 Conclusion ................................................. 6

7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ............................... 7 7.1 Guideline .................................................. 7 t 7.2 Evaluation ................................................. 7 7.3 Conclusion ................................................. 7

8. ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT ............... 8 8.1 Guideline .................................................. 8 8.2 Evaluation ................................................. 8 8.3 Conclusion ................................................. 8

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "!MPORTANi "9 SAFETY" COMPONENTS .................. 9 9.1 Guideline ........... ...................................... 9

10. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 10

11. REcERENCES ..................................... ................. 11 ,

iv i

~

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1--

EOUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR All OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

RIVER BEND-1

1. INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. This incident was termirated 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 Nuclear Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam generator low-low level during plant startup. 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 Salem Nuclear Power Plant. The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, "Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant." As a result of this investigation, the Commission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 1983 I ) all licensees of operating rea: tors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to the generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.

This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Gulf States Utilities Company, the licensee for the River Bend Station, for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the References Section at the end of this report.

1

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee or applicant to submit, for the staff. review, a detailed description of their programs for safety-related equipment classification. Detailed sepporting information should also be included in the description, as indicated in the guideline section for each item within this report. .

As previously indicated, each of the sjx items of Item 2.2.1 is evaluated in a separate section in which the guideline is presented; an evaluation of the licensee's/ applicant's response made; and conclusions about the programs of the licensee or applicant for safety-related equipment classification are drawn.

2

3. ITEli 2.2.1 - PROGRAM 3.1 Guideline Licensees and applicants should confirm that an equipment classification program exists that provides assurance that all safety-related components a e designated as safety-related on plant documentation and in the information handling system that controls safety-related activities.' The pu pose of this program is to ensure that personnel performing activities tha3 affect such safety-related components are aware that they are working on safety-related components and are guided by safety-related procedures and constraints. Features of this program are evaluated in the remainder of this report.

3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the River Bend Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated August 3, 19842 and May 20, 19853 . These submittals included information that describes 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 are available for audit upon request.

The licensee states that the quality classification system (Q-list) is their information handling system. The licensee states that all safety-related components are identified as such on all plant documents, drawings, and procedures. The licensee has listed (Reference 2) the criteria for the classification of structures, systems, components, and parts that are safety-related.

3.3 Conclusion We have reviewed the licensee's information and find that the licensee's response is acequate in rescercing to this item. Therefore, the  !

licensee's response for thit item is acceptable.

3

4 ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA 4.1 Guioeline The applicant or licensee should confirm that the program used for equipment classification includes the criteria used for identifying components as safety-related. .

4.2 Evaluation The licensee states that the Q-list identifies plant systems, portions of systems, structures, and equipment as safety-related if their failure or malfunction could cause an inadvertent release of radioactivity; if the .

equipment is required to safely shutdown the plant, or to remove decay or sensible heat; or if the equipment is required to mitigate the consequences l

of a postulated design basis accident.

4.3 Conclusion The licensee's response to this item is considered to be complete.

Therefore, the licensee's response for this item is acceptable.

e 4

. . . . . . - , . . ..-s

~..

5. ITEM %.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM 5.1 Guideline The licensee or applicant should confirm that the program for equipment classification includes an information handling system that is used to identify safety-related components. The response should con, firm 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 describes how the Q-list was originally prepared and validated in accordance with the architect / engineer's (Stone and Webster) procedures. The architect / engineer has procedures for entering new safety-related items and for changing the classification of listed items.

The licensee states that their procedures for controlling the Q-list data base are similar to the Stone and Webster procedures.

l 5.3 Conclusion

! The licensee's response is considered to be complete. Therefore, the licensee's response for this item is acceptable.

l l 5 I .

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING 6.1 Guideline i

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 ecuipment classification information handling system to determine that an activity is safety-related. The l 1

description should also include the procedures 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.? Evaluation The licensee's response describes procedures that direct the utilization of the Q-list to determine when an activity is safety-related.

Procedures that control the above activities were being revised to assure l

that the safety-related status of the components affected by the activity is determined. Procedure ENG-3-007 requires routine use of the Q-list.

6.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's description of plant administrative controls and procedures meets the requirements of this item. Therefore, the licensee's respense for this item is acceptable.

6

~

7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 7.1 Guideline The applicant or licensee should briefly describe the management controls that are used to verify that the procedures for preparation, validation, and routine use of the information handling system have been and are being followed.

7.2 Evaluation The licensee's response states that their Quality Assurance Program serves as the method of managerial control. Audits and surveillance inspections are used to verify the preparation, validation, and routine use of the information handling system.

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, the licensee's response for this item is acceptable.

7

a S. ITEM 2.2.1.5'- DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT 8.1 Guidelir.e The licensee's submittals should document that past usage demonstrates that apprcpriate design verification and qualification testing are specified for the procurement of safety-related components and parts. The specification should include qualification testing for the expected safety-service conditions and should provide support for the licensee's receipt of testing 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 states that plant administrative procedures require that the original specifications be used for replacement parts or that a design verification be performed. Qualification testing is a part of the specification for the original safety-related part.

8.3 Conclusion e

We conclude tha't the licensee has addressed the concerns of this item. Therefore, the licensee's response for this item is acceptable.

4 e

8 I

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "IMPORTANT TO 3AFETY" COMPONENTS 9.1 Guideline Generic Letter 83-28 states that the applicant's or licensee's equipment classification program should include (in addition to the ,

safety-related components) a broader class of components designated as l

"Important to Safety." Hoiever, since the generic letter does not require

the licensee to furnish this information as part of their response, this ,

f item will not be reviewed.

l t

)

i l

l l

i .

4 i

j I

, i i

i J

t

, , i

, . i

. 10. CONCLUSION l P

Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific i requirements of Item 2.2.1, we fird that the information providec by the licensee to resolve these concerns meets the requirements of Generic  !

! Letter 83-28 and is acceptable. Item 2.2.1.6 was not raviewed as noted in

[

Section 9.1.

• l a . ,

5 l

! i l i l

I o

L i  !

4 t

1 i

l i I

.i I

l l

I i .

1 -

1 10 i

I t

I i

i

r---------------------------------

I' .

i 11. REFERENCES

1. Letter, NRC (O. G. Eisenhut) to All Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Opeasting 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, Gulf States Utilities Company (J. E. Booker) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), August 3, 1994, RBG-18,521, File Nos. G9.5, G9.33.4

3. Letter, Gulf States utilities Company (J. E. Booker) to NRC -

(H. R. Denton), "Generic Letter 83-28," May 20, 1985, RBG-21,053, File Nos G9.5, G9.33.4.

4. Letter, Gulf States Utilities Company (J. E. Booker) to NRC, "Generic Letter 83-28. Item 2.1 (Part 1) Request for Additional Information,"

!ay 12, 1988, RBG-27827, File Nos. G9.5, G9.33.4.

5 l

1

^

4 v

i a

i l

I 11 l

l

' .