ML20204J664
| ML20204J664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204J670 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7295, GL-83-28, TAC-55200, NUDOCS 8703270285 | |
| Download: ML20204J664 (16) | |
Text
I
.?
l E GG-NTA-72 95
. i e I i
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.1 EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS),
CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 l
Docket No. 50-483 Alan C. Udy Published February 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory I EG&G Idaho, Inc. I Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 .
l l
l
.- V Prepared for the / D U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission p\
Washinginn. 0_C. 20555 .as Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06001 N
4 6
i
. l l
. l ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Callaway Plant regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1.
i j
d 4
J l
Docket No. 50-483 TAC No. 55200 1
I 11
k
. l 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 PWR Licensing-A, by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&E Support Branch.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the authorization B&R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. D6001.
I t
s Docket No. 50-483 TAC No. 55200 i
11%
1 CONTENTS 1
. I i
ABSTRACT .............................................................. 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. 111 ;
- 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
- 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT . .... .. ........ ..................... 2
- 3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM ............................................. 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 CLASSIFICATION 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 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 "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS .................. 9 9.1 Guideline ...............!.................................. 9
- 10. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 10 f
1). REFERENCES ....................................................... 11 iv t
I i
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.1.
,' EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS),
1 CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 j
- 1. INTRODUCTION
'l On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of l
,, the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the automatic trip signal. Tne 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 Plarit, 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 (E00), directed the NRC staff to investigate and i
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 ) all licensees of l
operating reactors, 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 Union Electric Company, the licensee for the Callaway Plant, for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28. Thedocumentsreviewedasapar[ofthisevaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.
5 t
l
-?
- 2. REVIEW-CONTENT AND FORMAT r
Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee or applicant i
to submit, for the staf f review, a description of their programs for safety-related equipment classification including supporting information,
! in considerable detail, as indicated in the guideline section for each ,
sub-item within this report.
As previously indicated, each of the six sub-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 is made; and conclusions about the programs of the licensee or applicant for safety-related equipment classification are drawn.
l I
2 1
(
- 3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM 3.1 Guideline i
l Licensees and applicants should confirm that an equipment -
classification program exists which provides assurance that all l safety-related components are designated as safety-related on all plant documents, drawings and procedures and in the information handling system that is used in accomplishing safety-related activities, such as work orders for repair, maintenance and surveillance testing and orders for replacement parts. Licensee and applicant responses which address the features of this program are evaluated in the remainder of this report.
3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the Callaway Plant responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 11, 1983 , March 12, 1984, May 21, 1984, and December 27, 1984 and January 27, 1987. These submittals include information that describes their existing 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 is available for audit upon request. We have reviewed this information and note the following. -
The licensee states that administrative procedures provide consistency between the Q-List and the Computerized History and Maintenance Planning System (CHAMPS), which are used to identify safety-related components. The licensee sta'tes that all work requests identify whether equipment is safety-related or not, and identify the proper work restraints.
Additionally, the licensee has stated that safety-related components are identified as such on design drawings, the Final Safety Analysis Report, work requests and referenced procedures.
3.3 Conclusion We have reviewed the licensee's information and, in general, find that the licensee's response is adequate.
3
- - - - - ,+-mam--
2
- 4. ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA 4.1 Guideline The applicant or licensee should confirm that their program used for equipment classification includes criteria used for identifying components as safety-related.
4.2 Evaluation The licensee states that the criteria used for the development and validation of the Q-list is " essentially the same" as that used for the electrical equipment list, and that the criteria are identified in the environmental qualification program.
4.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee has confirmed that they have identified the criteria used in the identification of safety-related components, thus meeting the requirements of item 2.2.1.1.
4 l
l l
l
- 5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 - 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 confirm that this information handling system includes a list of safety-related equipment and that procedures exist which govern its development and validation.
5.2 Evaluation The licensee's submittals identify the "Q-List" as the computerized index that identifies safety-related components. The description included the methods and procedures used for its development, verification and validation.
5.3 Conclusion We find that the information contained in the11censee's submittals is sufficient for us to conclude that the licensee's information handling system for equipment classification meets the guideline requirements.
Therefore, the information provided by the licensee for this item is acceptable.
D 5
l
- 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 their l program for equipment classification includes criteria and procedures which govern how station personnel use the equipment classification information handling system to determine that an activity is safety-related and what procedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement and other activities defined in the introduction to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, apply to safety-related components.
6.2 Evaluation The licensee states that maintenance planning personnel use the onsite Computerized History and Maintenance Planning System (CHAMPS), which contains the 0-List, to determine when a component is safety-related. It identifies the procedures to be used for maintenance work, routine surveillance testing and other maintenance and testing activities. The CHAMPS is consulted before any maintenance, testing, design changes, engineering support, setpoint changes or special tests or studies are initiated. -
6.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's description of plant administrative controls and procedures meets the requirements of this item and is, therefore, acceptable.
6
t
- 7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 7.1 Guideline The applicant or licensee should confirm that the management controls
, used to verify that the procedures for preparation, validation and routine utilization of the information handling system have been followed.
7.2 Evaluation The licensee states that the Q-list will be controlled, maintained and updated in accordance with SNUPPS QA program procedures. The 8echtel, Westinghouse and SNUPPS components of the Q-List are subject to internal licensee audits as part of the SNUPPS QA committee. The procedures are subject to audit by the quality assurance department. The licensee also states that written procedures will call for routine use of the Q-list.
7.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's description meets the requirements of this item and is, therefore, acceptable.
O s
4 7
~
- 8. ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT 8.1 Guideline The applicant's or licensee's submittal should document that past usage demonstrates that appropriate design verification and qualification
- testing is specified for the procurement of safety-related components and parts. The specifications should include qualification testing for expected safety service conditions and provide support for the applicant's/ 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's submittals state that specifications for safety-related components include qualification testing and analysis for environmental conditions. These tests and analyses are documented in a historical file.
The licensee's surveillance and maintenance program includes the equipment qualified life. The licensee states that specifications imposed by administrative procedures on safety-related items specify the appropriate -
technical and quality requirements, including environmental and seismic testing.
8.3 Conclusion The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete.
The information provided addresses the concerns of this item and is acceptable.
4 8
1 i
- 9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 ,*IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS j
. e l
Guideline J. 9.1 l l
Generic Letter 83-28 states that the licensee's equipment
, classification program should include (in 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 to furnish this information as part of their response, review of this item will not be performed.
9
. 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 Items 2.2.2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4 and 2.2.1.5 meet the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable. Item 2.2.1.6 was not reviewed as noted in Section 9.1.
i 10
- 11. REFERENCES
- 1. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits,
" Required Actions 8ased on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.
- 2. Union Electric Company letter, D. F. Schnell to H. R. Denton, NRC,
- " Response to Generic Letter 83-28," November 18, 1983, ULNRC-687.
- 3. Union Electric Company letter, D. F. Schnell to H. R. Denton, NRC,
" Additional Responses to Generic Letter 83-28," March 12, 1984, ULNRC-763.
- 4. Union Electric Company letter D. F. Schnell to H. R. Denton, NRC,
" Implementation of Generic Letter 83-28," May 21, 1984, ULNRC-829.
- 5. Union Electric Company letter, D. F. Schnell to H. R. Denton, NRC,
" Generic Letter 83-28," December 27, 1984, ULNRC-lD02.
- 6. Union Electric Company letter, D. F. Schnell to NRC, " Generic Letter 83-28," January 27, 1987, ULNRC-1435.
e e
s I
11
4-s - - s - " a-- a 4 ,,a- -
e i e /
{, - b t
(
J*
/
w.!
ENCLOSURE 2 9
l
- - - - - - -- ._ . . . _ , . . . _. __ _ . _ __ _ _ _