ML20214R708
| ML20214R708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214R700 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7572, GL-83-28, TAC-53667, TAC-53668, NUDOCS 8706080270 | |
| Download: ML20214R708 (15) | |
Text
.
EGG-NTA-7572 March 1987 INFORMAL REPORT idaho.
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
Engineering VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-Laboratory-RELATED COMPONENTS: DRESDEN-2 AND -3 Managed by tho U.S.
Department Alan C. Udy ofEnergy jfEGzG,.
Prepared for the wort performes urse, uo.ord$fs/f!
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8706000270 870331 PDR ADOCK 05000237 P
PDR i
DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liabAty or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not intnnge pnvately owned nghts. References herein to any specific commercal 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 Government or any agency thereof.
J e
I
EGG-NTA-7572 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR (ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
DRESDEN-2 AND -3 Docket Nos. 50-237/50-249 Alan C. Udy Published March 1987 Idaho Natio'nal Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06001
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Commonwealth Edison for the Dresden Station regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2.
)
3 Docket Nos. 50-237/50-249 TAC Nos. 53667/53668 11 i
e
O 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. 06001.
i i
l t
Docket Nos. 50-237/50-249 TAC Nos. 53667/53668 til I
CONTENTS ABSTRACT..............................................................
11 FOREWORD..............................................................
iii 4
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 i
3.3 Conclusion.................................................
4 4
PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED......................................................
5 4.1 Guideline..................................................
5 4.2 Evaluation.................................................
5 j
4.3 Conclusion.................................................
5 5.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT..............................
6 5.1 Guideline..................................................
6 i
5.2 Evaluation.................................................
6 5.3 Conclusion................................................
6 l
l 6.
CONCLUSION.......................................................
7
'l l
7.
REFERENCES.......................................................
8 1
8 I
e i
iv 1
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
DRESDEN-2 AND -3 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 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 (E00), 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) 1 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.
This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for the Dresden 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.
1
l 1
I 2.
REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee or applicant y
r l
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
-l guideline section for each case within this report.
i l
l These guidelines treat cases where direct vendor contact programs are
]
pursued, treat cases where such contact cannot practically be established, l
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 f
)
separate section in which the guideline is presented; an evaluation of the l
j licensee's/ applicant's response is made; and conclusions about the programs j
of the licensee o applicant for their vendor interface program for i
safety-related components and equipment are drawn, i
1 I
i 1
I t
4 I
4 1
l
(
l 2
i I
I
3.
ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 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 Dresden Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 5, 1983,2 February 29, 1984,3 June 1, 1984,4 and July 26, 1985.5 These submittals include information that describe their past and currant 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 responses state that they actively participate in the i
Nuclear Utility Task Actici Committee (NUTAC) program.
This program, titled Vendor Equipment Technica. Information Program (VETIP), includes interaction with the NSSS vendor.
Typical NSSS vendor contact with the licensee includes regular meetings and service bulletins and advisories. The licensee also states, that procedures to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program 3
are in place as of July la 1985. This includes NSSS vendor contact and direct interaction with other vendors.
The licensee'.s Nuclear Stations Division issued a directive, NSDD-M02, as the overall control procedure to handle vendor technical information. A formal review process is used to ensure that equipment technical information is kept current and available.
3.3 Conclusion We conclude that the licensee's response regarding program description is complete and, therefore, acceptable.
P e
4
j 4.
PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT 1
PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED 3
i 4.1 Guideline i.
The licensee / applicant response should describe their program for i
l compensating for the lack of a formal vendor interface where such an f*
interface cannot be practicably established.
This program may reference
{
the NUTAC/VETIP program, as described in INPO 84-010, issued in i
March 1984.
If the NUTAC/VETIP program is referenced, the response should l
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 equipment or a program to periodically contact each vendor of j
safety-related equipment will not relieve the licensee / applicant of his i
responsibility to obtain appropriate vendor instructions and information l
where necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or l
component will perform satisfactorily in service and to ensure adequate l
quality assurance in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
i 4.2 Evaluation l
l i
j The licensee's submittals provided a brief description of the vendor j
interface program. Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program, j
The licensee states that plant instructions and procedures are currently in f
place to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled and L
implemented.
i f
4.3 Conclusion
[
l We find that the licensee's response addresses this concern adequately j'
and is acceptable.
I 1
i
-~
5.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT 5.1 Guideline The licensee / applicant response should verify that the responsibilities of the licensee or applic&nt and vendors that provide service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of applicable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment are provided.
3.2 Evaluation The licensee's responses commit to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program.
They further state that their present and planned future practices and j
dCtiVities adequately implement this program.
The VETIP program includes implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services.
5.3 Conclusion We find that the information contained in the licensee's submittals is sufficient for us to conclude that the licensee's and vendor's responsibilities are defined and controlled appropriately.
Therefore, the information provided by the licensee for this item is acceptable.
i t
I e
a f
l 1
)
6
6.
CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of Item 2.2.2, we find that the information provided by the licensee to resolve the concerns of this program meets the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.
e i
i
{
1
\\
f I
l I
t i
l
)
j I
)
I t
i i
I i
7
7.
REFERENCES i
1.
Letter, NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits, i
" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8,1983.
2.
Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton),
" Response to Generic Letter No. 83-7.8," November 5, 1983.
i j
3.
Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton),
" Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28," February 29, 1984.
i 4.
Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton),
j
" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATSW Events,"
l June 1, 1984.
5.
Letter, Commonwealth Edison (G. L. Alexander) to NRC (H. R. Denton),
l
" Supplement Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28, " Rec utred Actions l
Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," iuly 26, 1985.
1 l
1 l
I
)
I I
l 4
4 1
3 j
s l
9 8
t l
u a uc6.o..outaro., c;. ;:
i.po.r so
. % r,oc. - e.
ye,.o 1"85'?
BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7572
... i%.f uCitC%S On tm...v 2 si.... u..
,, s v..... r s.
I CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEli 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR.tLL OTHER SAFETY-
"""o"*
l RELATED C0fiPONENTS: DRESDEN-2 AND -3 j
.o~r.
l March 1987
. w-v....
. o.r
.po.,.ne.o Alan C. Udy j
oo r.,
March 1987
...o.u r r.
.oa... r.
,....o...~oo.a..4.r.o...
...s,~o.co.....,
. u c,
EG&G Idaho. Inc.
P. O. Box 1625 T,* o. c..~ r ~w.ua Idaho Falls 10 83415 06001
.. iw~.o...o...
4.r.o..........s,
.oo..u,,, u c
... r
- o..uo.,
Division of PWR Licensing - A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
....' coco,p.o,, - - - -
Washington OC 20555 s...,,...,o r..
. c....sr.m This EG8G Idaho. Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Commonwealth Edison regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28. Item 2.2.2. for Dresden-2 and -3.
.. p,.g. sp.
.oex..,r.,..........
2......e......
Unlimited i
Distribution
...u...,. c 6.
.... r.o s
)
i o,eis....e o*i i*eio 'iave Unelassified
)
,r.4, Unclassified t
4..
l l
.. an.4.
.