ML20214F475
| ML20214F475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214F479 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001, CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7558, GL-83-28, TAC-57742, NUDOCS 8705260111 | |
| Download: ML20214F475 (16) | |
Text
~
EGG-NTA-7558 February 1987 INFORMAL REPORT \
l idaho National CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2,
- Engineering VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED ,
Laboratory COMPONENTS) CATAWBA-1, -2 ,
Managed ,
by the U.S.
Department Alan C. Udy I ofEnergy i
i l l
l i
l 1
l l
l
$4EGzGw-Prepared for the y,.,,jfffglg U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r<
$705'2E O '
th
o w
OlSCLAIMER This book was prepared as La account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neitner tne United States Govemment nor any ager.cy thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liacility or respons:bility for the accuracy, completeness, ct usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infnnge pnvatevy owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favonng by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessanly state or reflect those of the United States Gevernment or any agency thereof.
e w
EGG-NTA-7558 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2, VENDOR '4TERFACE PROGRAMS (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS),
CATAW3A -1, -2 Docket Nos. 50-413/50-414 l
Alan C. Udy Published March 1987 j
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
! Prepared for the i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos. 06001 & 06002 i
l
a A8STRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Duke Power Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28,
! Item 2.2.2, for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
1 i
i i
1 I
t I
4 j
Docket Nos. 50-413/50-414 i
i TAC No. 57742 i
l
- - _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . __. . - . - - _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - . _ . _ - ~ - _ _ - - - . _ . _
s 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 Nos. 20-19-10-11-3 and 20-19-40-41-3, FIN Nos. 06001 j and 06002.
i h
i t .
l Docket Nos. 50-413/50-414 TAC No. 57742 111
.- n- -- -
-m-- .- w-., a e- .,s._ --.,.,-----..w, ,e.-. , ,,r,-- -- r.- - . .,-e- - --
--m-.
CONTENTS A8STRACT .............................................................. 11 FOREWORD .............................................................. 111
- 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
- 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................ 2
- 3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................. 3 3.1 Guideline .................................................. 3 3.2 Evaluation ................................................. 3 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. 4
- 4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED ...................................................... 5 4.1 Guideline .................................................. 5 4.2 Evaluation ................................................. 5 4.3 Conclusion ................................................. 6
- 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT .............................. 7 i 5.1 Guideline .................................................. 7 1 5.2 Evaluation ................................................. 7 5.3 Conclusion ................................................. 7
- 6. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 8
- 7. REFERENCES ....................................................... 9 i
i 1
e i
iv
- . - _ , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . - - . - - - - , - - - - y ,y.. .,,,,.m-,
-,,, . _,-----.. -.-,------ ~-. .- ..--.,,,,_ --- . ~ . , , , - - - - - .
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.2.
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS).
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2
- 1. INTRODUCTION e
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 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 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 ) all licensees of 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.
3 This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Duke Power Company, the licensee for the Catawba Nuclear Station, for Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.
l 1
I
- 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT l Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee or applicant to submit, for the staff review, a description of their programs for interfacing with the vendors of all safety-related components including supporting information, in considerable detail, as indicated in the .
guideline section for each case within this report.
These guidelines treat cases where direct vendor contact programs are pursued, treat cases where such contact cannot practically be established, and establish responsibilities of licensees / applicants and vendors that provide service on safety-related components or equipment.
As previously indicated, the cases of Item 2.2.2 are 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 their vendor interface program for safety-related components and equipment are drawn.
l 2
- - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - ~ ' - - - - - - - -
4 l
- 3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION l 3.1 Guideline The licensee or applicant response should describe their program for
. establishing and maintaining interfaces with vendors of safety-related components which ensures that vendors are contacted on a periodic basis and that receipt of vendor equipment technical information (ETI) is acknowledged or otherwise verified.
This program description should establish that such interfaces are established with their NSSS vendor, as well as with the vendors of key safety-related components such as diesel generators, electrical switchgear, auxiliary feedpumps, emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pumps, batteries, battery chargers, and valve operators, to facilitate the exchange of current technical information. The description should verify that controlled procedures exist for handling this vendor technical information which ensure that it is kept current and complete and that it is incorporated into plant operating, maintenance and test procedures as is appropriate.
3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the Catawba Nuclear Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1983 and May 7, 1984.
These submittals include information that describe their past and current vendor interface programs. 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's response states that they actively participate in the Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. The Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC. VETIP includes interaction with the NSSS vendor and with other electric utilities. This is in addition to the licensee's continuing interface 3
1 program with the NSSS vendor (Westinghouse) which consists of Technical Bulletins and technical recommendation letters. The licensee describes how this information, as well as information from other vendors of safety-related equipment, is incorporated into plant procedures and i instructions. The licensee states that this process is controlled by administrative procedures and internal programs that were reviewed and found '
acceptable to implement the NUTAC/VETIP guidelines.
i 3.3 Conclusion We conclude that the licensee's response regarding program description is complete and, therefore, acceptable.
I i
l 1
i i
F f
I l
1 4
l l
- 4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT i PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED 4.1 Guideline
, The licensee / applicant response should describe their program for
] compensating for the lack of a formal vendor interface where such an
- interface cannot be practicably established. This program may reference the NUTAC/VETIP program, as described in INP0 84-010, issued in March 1984. If the NUTAC/VETIP program is referenced, the response should describe how procedures were revised to properly control and implement this i
program and to incorporate the program enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP report. It should also be noted that the lack of either a formal interface with each vendor of safety-related i equipment or a program to periodically contact each vendor of Ir safety-related equipment will not relieve the licensee / applicant of his j responsibility to obtain appropriate vendor instructions and information
] where necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or l component will perform satisfactorily in service and to ensure adequate quality assurance in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
4.2 Evaluation i
In Reference 3, the licensee provided a brief description of the
! vendor interface program. Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program. The licensee states that plant instructions and procedures are j currently in place to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled
! and implemented.
]
j VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment i q problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPROS) and the !
Significant Event Evaluation and Information Network (SEE-IN) programs.
VETIP is designed to ensure that vendor equipment problems are recognized, j evaluated and corrective action taken, i
i l 5 i
i
Through participation in the NRPDS program, the licensee submitts engineering information, failure reports and operating histories for review under the SEE-IN program. Through the SEE-IN program, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) reviews nuclear plant events that have been reported through the NPRDS programs and Nuclear Network and NRC reports.
Based on the significance of the event, as determined by the screening '
review, INP0 issues a report to all utilities outlining the cause of the event, related problems and recommends practical corrective actions. These reports are issued in Significant Event Reports, and Significant Operating Experience Reports and as Operations and Maintenance Reminders. Upon receipt of these documents, the licensee evaluates the information to determine applicability to the facility. This evaluation is documented and corrective actions are taken as determined necessary.
The licensee's response states that procedures now exist to review and evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures.
4.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's response for this concern is adequate and, therefore, acceptable.
r 6
i
- 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT 5.1 Guideline I l
,. The licensee / applicant response should verify that the
{
responsibilities of the licensee or applicant and vendors that provide
'- service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of 1
) applicable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment +
1
! are provided.
! I 5.2 Evaluation The licensee's response commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program.
- They further state that their present and vevised programs and procedures adequately implement this program. The VETIP guidelines include j implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services.
l The licensee states that they have specific procedures to provide the
! proper quality assurance control over vendor-supplied service on j safety-related equipment. l l 5.3 Conclusion I
i
! We find that the information contained in the licensee's submittals is j sufficient for us to conclude that the licensee's and vendor's
! responsibilities are defined and controlled appropriately. Therefore, the j information provided by the licensee for this item is acceptable.
! I i
< 1 r
I l l,
- 1 7
I
~
- 6. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of Item 2.2.2, " Vendor Interface Programs for All Other Safety-Related Components," we find that the information provided by the licensee to resolve the concerns of this program meet the requirements of ,
Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.
4 h
l 4
i 4
d T
^
4 i
4 1
8
. , _ . __..- _ ._.-. .. - _ _ _ - . _ . ~ . . _ , . _ . _ _ . _ . - _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . ._ __. . __ _ ____. .___ _ _ ,
- 7. 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 Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.
- 2. Letter, Duke Power Company (H. 8. Tucker) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut),
, November 4, 1983.
- 3. Letter, Duke Power Company (H. 8. Tucker) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut),
- May 7, 1984.
9
e t A., oar sw.e4e e,_as.pa.e ey rsoc .es ve, me , .a eg s W 3. MuCLEA. ASGULAto. # Coas.eassoas
's.C.*Po.es 13 S 33
- 'g",','y- sisuCGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7558 lae inst.uCisCNS CN rut tv4 14 3 (s.v4SL.Ns 3 r.yLa .40 iwstif ta CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2, VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS), , ,,,,,,,,,,,; ,,,,,,,
CATAWBA-1, -2 .o~r, ...a l
March 1987
'y ',-*"d . Udy ' ,' **" ' "" ....
March 1987
. . ,.oacr.r.. - .. ..r. ..
, .. .o.., ~o a. . . ,. r .o , .... .~o ... L, ~o .o o. . .. ,,,.
e., c ,
EG8G Idaho Inc. ,,,,,c.c ..r~w.es.
P. O. Box 1625 Id~aho Falls, ID 83415 06001
.., < , c , , , . r . .. o, . o. ,
.. i,os.a. ,,o o.c.~,4. r.o, ,... .~a . .. ... .oo.
Division of PWR Licensing - A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ""*""~~'"""
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
, a u u . , r.. . ,o r .
.. ...r..cr m - ,
This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Duke Power Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28. Item 2.2.2 for the Catawba Nuclear Station.
i 1
i
..ooce.. ,.~............o.2 n.ic. ,12.i
, i * ,.,. , g. ,3 r .
. Unlimited Distribution
.. i.cu..rv es.ii.. car,e*
,r..,,
. ,oist+eai c'** e,eso +i.wi Unclassified t ,r. ,.e.,,,
Unclassified
,, .... c......
i e 8. (,6