ML20205N936
| ML20205N936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1988 |
| From: | Udy A IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N941 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7372, GL-83-28, TAC-53677, NUDOCS 8811070117 | |
| Download: ML20205N936 (20) | |
Text
_ .. . - - - _ _ _ - _ . _. - . _- . _. ._. _ . . _ _ . _ - ..
I l
i :
4 i
- EGG NTA 7372 January 1988 l ,
l .-, .
INFORMAL REPORT ,
, s-L 1
- /deho 'l l
1 National
- Engineering l
/,aboratory .. . f CONFORMNCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83 28, i 1
L ITEM 2.2.1 EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL !
OTHER SAFETY RELATED COMPONENTS: HADDAM NECK !
. Maneped . .
': ~ *. i
- by the U S. . . ;,
l Decemnent s' : . .n .
o/ Energy fgg Alan C. Udy
.,, l
.. . ; .47) i i I *'I Q '
- i;h.gJ. .a I
- j. %:
l
. MJf H
! ' ;r.6-aA \
.- @ l l
' . . . .:. >, i 1 .
j !
(
l t i :
- . t j
- i i
i !
l I
[EGsm was m.nme ow ce e.n Prepared for the so ummxism U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;
I l
p ss_ %
') $3
( 4} +,-
b- . .
e 4
4 4
9 9
Tre Does was weseos a en meewa t of usert eser,w Dy e egerev et M t# weed
$legen GNt Netw M Vrttee $ ween c;cJ. I w ey agrey oweet.
- aer ea, et por ewevese, == e, wey. empens e comes e sempus sev tage Wft er reperwhety tw N esevery togetrums. y tagNmme et pv musa. esswet.a. eroomt er erosess seeemos. er we mt fu use newes Mt ekw18 enweierv eurNO mgate h w to 0% mee% esseuweel rout, erseems. er carves tv osse more. eserws. #senwe ertwer. er gewwue sees met ressearww teretitute er egry res 0%wt. reser=cogeom, er W e, n vmes s'een c:r e t er e, agrev swee De m sw esmere er ewtmore entressed Po99 es met mesensavy state ers re ort sees of M Upsed $stes Opt er saw agrey sweet l
l l
I l
l l
e
l EG3-NTA-7372 TECHN! CAL EVALUATION REPORT l
CONFORMANCE 70 GENERIC LETTER 83 28, ITEM 2.2.1--
EQUIPMENT CLA55!FICAT!0N FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENT 5:
KADDAM NECK Co:ket he. 50 213 l
Alan C. Udy Pubit shed January 1984 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG63 Idaho, Inc. :
I l
I Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
Washington, D.C. 20555 !
Under DOE contra:t No. ^E-AC07-7:!D01570 FIN No. D6001 l i
I
[
J r
_____ ____.___.___ _ _ _ _ - - - - - ~
t r .
ABSTRA&T This E E G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittels from sne Macoa , heet Plant for conformance to Generic Letter 43-26, Item 2.2.1.
t
- l Decket No. 50-213 TAC No. $3677 11
_c-t FOREWdRD This report is supplied as part of the program for evalwating [
licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-24 "Regaired Actions 8ased on Generic Implications of Salem ATW5 Events." This work is being !
conducted for tre U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nwelear i
, Reacter Regulation Division of Engineering and system Technology, by EG&3 ,
Icane, Inc., Electrical, Instrueentation and Control Systems Evaluation Unit. !
The U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Commission fwnied this work under the authorizatten E&R 20-19-10 11-3, FIN No. C6001, e h
t 4
i i
i t
Docket No. 50 213 TAC No. 53677 iti
t
. CONTENi$
Al $ T RA C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. itt l
- 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................... . 1
- 2. R E V I EW C ONT EN T AND FORMAT . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
- 3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PRDGLAM ............................................. 3 Guideline ..................................................
3.1 3 3.2 Evaluation ............................................. ... 3 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. 4 4 ! TEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITER!i. ........................... ! :
4.1 Gsicaline .................................................. 5 ,
4.2 Evaluatten ................................................. 5 ;
4.3 Conclusion .........s....................................... 6 6 L
- 5. ! TEM 2. 2.1. 2 - IN FORMATION HAN0 LING SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .
l t
5.1 Guideline .................................................. 7 !
5.2 Evaluation ................................................. 7 l 5.3 Conclusion ................................................. 7
- 6. ITEM 2.2.3.3 - USE OF E0V!PMENT CLA35!FICAT!0N LISTING . . . . . . . .. . . I t
6.1 Guteeline .................................................. 8 6.2 Evaluation ..............................................l.. 8 6.3 Conclusion ................................................. 4
- 7. ITEM 2.2.1.4
- MANAGEMENT CONTROL 5 ............................... 9 ,
7.1 GWideline .................................................. I i I 7.2 Evaluation ................................................. 9 7.3 Conclusion ................................................. 9
- 8. ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DE$1GN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT . . . . . ... . .. . .. . 10 !
t l
1.1 Caiteltne.................................................. 10 8.2 Evaluation ................................................. 10 Conclusion .................................:...............
1 8.3 10 l l 9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "!MPORTANT TO 5AFETY" COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 k 1 >
l N
9.1 Guideline ........................................ ......,.. 11 (
r
- 10. CON:LV510N ....................................................... 12 l
- 11. REFEREN:!5 .......J............................................... 13 t t
iv 5
i i
i.
r '$ <
, CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.1--
EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
. HA00AM NECK -
- 1. INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Porcr 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. The failure of the circuit breakers was determined to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. Prior to this incicent, on February 22, 1983, at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on ste&m 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, 1933, the NRC Executive Director for Opert tions (EDO), directed the NRC staff to investigate and reocrt on the generic impiications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the j Salem Nuclear Power Plant. The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, "Geretic Implications c7 the ATWS Events at thi Salem Nuclear Dower Plant." As a result of this investigation, the Commission (NRC) recuested 1
(by Generic Letter 33-28 dated July 8, 1983 ) all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and helders of construction '
permits to respond to the generic issues raised by the analyses of these !
two ATVS events.
This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the
. Northeast Utilities Company, the licensee for the Haddam Neck Plant, for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28. .The documents reviewed as a part of s51s evaluation are listed it, the references at the end of this report.
l
[
1 l
, - ,,--w, maw---,-,,v-----mn-,,-,,w ,.,-- w-- - -,--,------,e- - - - -
- 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee / applicant submit, for staff 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 item within this report.
As previou ly stated, each of the six ite,ms of Item 2.2.1 is evaluated in a separate section in which the guideline is presented; an evaluation of the IIcensee's/ applicant's response is made; ar.d :en:1usicns about the licensee's or applicant's program for safety-related equipment classification are crawn.
l I
2
- 3. ITEM 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 comoonents are designated as safety-related on plant
~
documentation and in the information handling system that controls j safety-related activities. The purpose of this program is to ensure that l
personnel performing activities that affect safety-related components are aware that they arte working on safety-related components ano are guiceo ey ;
safety-relatad procedures and constraints. Features of this program are l evaluated in the remainder of this report.
3.2 Eva l ua ti c_n The licensee for the Haddam Neck Plant responded to these recuirements with submittals dated November 8,19832 and March 13, 1987.3 These submittals incluce informatiot that describes their existing safety-related equipment classification program. In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it was assumed that toe information and documentation suoporting this program were available for audit upon request.
The licensee's computer based Production Maintenance Management System (pMMS) and the Material Eauipment and Parts List (MEPL) make up the equipment classification program. Both of the PMS and MEPL use Nuclear Engineering and Operations Procedures (6.10 and 6.01) for control. Thus, the Nuclear Engineering and Operations Department has the responsibility for i both the Pms and the MEPL.
Work Orders are generated by the PMMS and include.a designation for saf,ety-related work activities. The plant procedures for surveillance testing, administrative co9 trol procedures, drawings, and purchase d]cuments also designate safety-related equipment.
l 3
3.3 Conclusion .
We have reviewed the licensee's submittals and find that the licensee's response is adeq:iate.
I l
l
\
l l
l l
-O 4
s ,
4 ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION C'IT~RIA 4.1 Guideline The applicant er licensee should confirm that the program used for equipment classification includes criteria used for identifying conponents, as safety-related.
4.2 Evaluation 6
/
The licensee's response provided the criteria for the original and ongoing identification of systems, structures, and components as safety-related. The criteria consist of a listing of safety-related systems, structures, and components and includes foundations and supports.
The listing consists of 19 items, most of which have sub-items. The licensee states that these criteria are currently used to identify safety-related components in accordance with quality assurance procedures.
Generic Letter 83-28 identifies as safety-related those structures, systems and components that ensure (following a design basis event) (1) the integrity of the reactor coolant boundary, (2) the capability to shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, ano (3) the capability to prevent or to mitigate consequential offsite exposures.
The licensee defines (but the definition is not limited to) as safety-related those systems, structures and components, including associated foundations, supports and auxiliary systems, that: (1) are a portion of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (2) are used for emeroency core cooling, reactor shutdown, residual heat removal and cooling water systems which support the previous systems; and (3) reactivity control systems, primary to secondary containment, porti*ons of radioactive waste control systems, and systems th,at might contain radioactive materials and whose postulated failure could result in offsite exposures.
5
4.3 Conclusion ,
We find that the criteria used to jdentify safety-related components encompasses the definition for safety-related trat is part of the generic letter. Therefore the identification criteria meets the requirements of Item 2.2.1.1.
4 4
e I
l f
l I
t t 6 l
I
__,,,,,.,,,,,e _ - -,O
- 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 in'cludes a list of safety-related equipment and that procedures exist which govern its development and validation.
1 5.2 Evaluation
. The licensee's submitt41s identify the hard copy MEPL as the information handling system that lists safety-related structures, systems, com;onents, and parts. T? e PMMS is a computerized data base that will eventually replace the MEPL. Currently the two systems co-exist, and the MEPL is the governing document. The description included the methods used for the development of these systems, the process by which new safety-related items are entered, how changes in the classification of listed items are made, how listed items are verified, how unauthorized enanges to the listing are prevented, and how the listing is maintained and distributed to online computer terminal users. Revisiens to both the MEPL and the PMMS are controlled by the MEPL engineer.
5.3 Conclusion We find that the information contained in the licensee's submittals is sufficient for us to conclude that the licensee's information handling Ayatea foi equipu.orit classifiestion meets tne guiceline requirements.
Therefore, the information provided by the licensee for this item is ac;eptable, 7
- 6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING t
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 handling system to determine that an activity is safety-related. The description should also include the procedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement, and other activities defined in the intreduction to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, that apply to safety-related Comeonents.
0 6.2 Evaluation The licensee has proviced a list of 26 administrative control procedures that govern maintenance, modification, and procurement activities. These controls provide the criteria regarding the Quality assurance category listing of components or systems before any maintenance, testing, design changes, engineering support, setpoint changes or special tests or studies are initiated. The licensee states that station personnel use the MF,8L (the information handling system) to determine what activities are saftcy-related. Consultation of the MEPL is required by procecures OA 1.2-2.2, "Quality Assurance Program Boundary"; OA 1.2-5.1, "Maintenance / Work Recuest and Work Permits"; OA 1.2-4.1, "Procure-ent Document Review"; and QA 1.2-2.5, "Classifying and Upgrading Soare Parts";
for the procurement of parts or the issuance of any work orcer.
6.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's description of plant administrative controls and proceduret meets the requirements of this item and is, therefore, acceptab'ie. .
8 a
- 7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 7.1 Guideline i
The applicant or licensee should briefly describe the management controls that are used to verify that the proceoures for preparation, validation,and routine utilization of the information handling system have
~
bten and are being followed.
7.2 Evaluation i The licensee's response states that their Quality Assurar,ce Program j Topical Report serves as the method of managerial control. QAp 18.0 (audits), as implemented by NCA 1.14, is used to verify tne preptration, validation, and routine use of the information handitng system. Quality assurance reviews and aucits occur on a scheduled basis and assure that the programs and their implementation are correct.
7.3 Conclusion We find that the management controls used by the licer ?e assure that the information handling system is maintained, is cu4 rent, and is used as intended. Therefore, the licensee's response for this item is acceptable.
l l
e 9
- 8. ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICA.!ON AND PROCUREMENT .
8.1 Guideline The apolicant's or licensee's submittal should document that past usage demoastrates that appropriate design verification and qualification testing are scecified for the procurement of safety-related components and parts. The specifications should incluot 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 recommended by the supolier. If sud documentatlon 's a.0L available, confirmation that the present program meets these requirements shoulo be provide $.
8.2 Evaluation Nuclear Engineering and Operations (NEO) Procedure 5.04 is the controlling procedure for procurement. NEO Proceoure 6.02 outlines the ac:ropriate documentation requirements. The originator of the purchase recuisition is responsibla for specifying the technical, testing and r documentation requirements of the purchase. Responsibility for ensuring that qualification testing and testing documentation are spec'ified is also delineated in Procedure 6.02.
8.3 Cenelusion The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete.
The information provided addressus the concerns of this item and is sc::::at ie.
e 10
I
. 9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 . aIMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS !
9.1 Guideline Generic Letter 83-28 states that the licensee's equipment classification program should include (in addition to the safety-related
.omeonents) 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, this item will not be reviewed.
e
- 10. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of Item 2.2.1, we find that the information provided by the licensee to resolve the concerns of Items 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4 and 2.2.1.5 meets 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 I
1 l
12
- 11. REFERENCES
- 1. Letter, NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License. and Holders of Construction Permits, "Recuired Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATW5 Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.
- 2. Letter, Northeast Utilities Company (W. G. Council) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), "Response to Generic Letter 83-28 Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," November 8, 1983, A03381, Attachments 2 and 5. -
- 3. Letter, Northeast Utilities Company (E. J. Mroczka) to NRC, "Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2, 'Ecuipment Classification'," March 13, 1987 A06176, A06384, A06385, B12375.
e 13
-___-_._a
pens W WA Wh4k.44 S.G.ska,.A. W 733 a e ..a.e, .wme.4 s.s.ur av f C ass we e. , e ,e 7 58 848UOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7372 M. serp.wC,so.u. O.s ..u. vgam
......u,,,. . ..... 6 CONFORi%NCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1-- 1 EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED ***
l COMPONENTS: Haddam Neck . . " "*";' * * " ' ' " . ' . . .
January 1988 Alan C. Udy . n . . . ..
January 1988 i
...............a...,.-
. .~,,n.,..
I EG&G Idaho, Inc. l P. O. Box 1625 'a= ==a==a=" l Idaho Falls. ID 83415 06001
..--ea.........-,. ... r.,g ,
Division of Engineering and System Technology -
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission *M '" * - ~
Wasaington, DC 20555 m . . . . . .o n .
This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals from the Haddam Neck Plant regarding confomance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1.
.. .,............ . . = . . . ,........,,.
n . n.. . ,
Unlimited Distribution
- . M w i et , g, .m e .ta i s fP am
. . . . . . . . 6 o,. . . . e i ' Unc1=ssified
,r Unclassified
, , w. . o . . .. . .
il 8. 4 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _