ML20215K473
| ML20215K473 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1986 |
| From: | Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Opeka J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8610280185 | |
| Download: ML20215K473 (6) | |
Text
-
October 22, 1986 Docket No.: 50-245 Mr. John F. Opeka, Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Re:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 By letter dated November 8, 1983, you responded to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2 - Part I, " Equipment Classification." We find that additional information is needed to complete our review as discussed in the enclosed request. Please inform the NRC project manager within 30 days of your schedule for complying with our request. This request affects fewer than ten respondents, therefore OMB clearance is not required in accordance with P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by: C. I. Grimes Christopher I. Grimes, Director Integrated Safety Assessment Project Directorate Division of PWR Licensing - B
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: See Next Page
(, DISTRIBUTION Docket-File 3
ISAP Reading NRC PDR Local PDR 8610280185 861022 PDR ADOCK 05000245 CGrimes P
PDR PAnderson JShea FHiraglia
- SEE PREVIOUS SHEET FOR CONCURRENCE.
ISAP:DPL-B*
ISAP:DPL-B*
ISAP:DPL-JShea:lt PAnderson CGrimes 10/17/85 10/17/86 10/gl /86 I
@ Mos
~e'g UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
?,
[
October 22, 1986
- ..+
Docket No.: 50-245 Mr. John F. Opeka, Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Re:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 By letter dated November 8,1983, you responded to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2 - Part I, " Equipment Classification." We find that additional information is needed to complete our review as discussed in the enclosed request. Please inform the NRC project manager within 30 days of your schedule for complying with our request. This request affects fewer than ten respondents, therefore OMB clearance is not required in accordance with P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, M
Christopher I. Grimes, Director Integrated Safety Assessment Project Directorate Division of PWR Licensing - 8
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: See Next Page
Mr. John F. Opeka Millstone Nuclear Power Station Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Unit No. 1 cc:
Gerald Garfield, Esquire Kevin McCarthy, Director Day, Berry & Howard Radiation Control Unit Counselors at Law Department of Environmental City Place Protection Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 State Office Building Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Edward J. Mroczka Vice President, Nuclear Operations Richard M. Kacich, Supervisor Northeast Utilities Service Company Operating Nuclear Plant Licensing Post Office Box 270 Northeast Utilities Service Company Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management ATTN: Under Secretary Energy Division 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN: Superintendent Millstone Nuclear Power Station P. O. Box 128 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Resident Inspector c/o U.S. NRC Millstone Nuclear Power Station P. O. Box 811 Niantic, Connecticut 06357 l
First Selectman of the Town i
of Waterford Hall of Records 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, Connecticut 06385 l
l
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEM 2.2 (PART 1) 0F GENERIC LETTER 83-28 EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION (ALL OTHER SAFETY RELATED COMPONENTS)
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 The licensee for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station responded to Item 2.2 (Part 1) of Generic Letter 83-28 by a submittal dated November 8,1983. The staff has reviewed this response and finds additional information is needed for some of the sub-items of Item 2.2 (Part 1). The review guidelines used by the staff for these sub-items are listed below, followed by a brief evaluation of the licensee's submittal, and a sumation of deficiencies identified by the staff.
i Item 2.2.1 - Program Guideline l
Licensees and applicants should submit a program description that provides as-surance that all safety-related components are designated as safety-related in all plant documents, drawings, procedures, and in infomation handling systems l
that are used in accomplishing saf'ety-related activities such as work orders for
[
repair, maintenance, and surveillance testing and orders for procurement of replacement parts.
Evaluation The licensee states that they are converting to a computer-based information handling system. The licens e has not stated that the scope of the computer-based system and the present system encompass all safety-related components or that the safety-related components are designated as safety-related on all plant documents, drawings, procedures, and in infomation handling systems that are used in accomplishing safety related activities. The licensee should confirm that all safety-related components are encompassed in the identification s'ystems and are identified in the documentary material used in accomplishing all safety-related activities.
l
E m
. Item 2.2.1.2 - Information Handling System Guideline The licensee's description of his information handling system for component classification should confirm that a listing of safety-related equipment detailed to the component level has been compiled that includes such components as switches, motors, relays, transmitters, pumps, pipes, fittings, tanks, and valves. The description should show (a) how the listing was originally prepared; (b) how new safety-related items are entered; (c) how changes in classification of listed items are made; (d) how listed items are verified; (e) how unauthorized changes to the listing are prevented; and (f) how the listing'will be maintained and distributed to users as an official, single, consistent, and unambiguous version.
Evaluation The licensee's submittal identifies the Category 1 Material, Equipment and Parts List (MEPL) as the information handling system that lists safety-related structures, systems, components and parts. The description included the methods used for its development; the process by which new safety-related items are entered; and how changes in the classification of listed items are made. The licensee is changing over to a computer-based system, the Production, Maintenance Management System (PMMS) for which infonnation was not supplied, however, it was noted that the PMMS is intended to replace the MEPL.
Revisions to the PMMS are controlled by the MEPL engineer. The licensee's response does not describe how listed items are verified; and how unauthorized changes are prevented. Thus, it is not clear that the listing is maintained and distributed to users as an official, single, consistent, and unambiguous version. The licensee should provide additional information describing the new computerized version of the safety-related com-ponent listing and describing how the listed items are verified,'now unauthorized changesarepreventedandhowthelistiniismaintainedandcontrolledasan official, single, consistent and unambiguous version as indicated in guideDne items (d), (e) and (f) above.
. Item 2.2.1.5 - Design Verification and Procurement Guideline The licensee's submittals should show that the specifications for procurement of replacement of safety-related components and parts require that the supplier include in their documentation, verification of design capability and evidence of testing that qualifies the components and parts for service under the expected conditions over the service life.
Evaluation The licensee's submittals specify that Quality Assurance Program procedures QAP 4.0 and 7.0 satisfy the requirements of this guideline. Procedure GEC 2.01 (Generation Engineering and Construction Division) augments these procedures by stipulating testing requirements and acceptance criteria.
Procedure NE0 3.06 (Nuclear Engineering and Operations) also supplements the Quality Assurance pro-gram procedures by assuring that the purchase documents have the proper Quality Assurance documents attached to them.
However, the requirement to submit evidence of testing is not specifically addressed by the licensee.
The licensee should show that the procurement specifications specifically require the supplier to include verification of design capability and evidence of testing that qualifies the components and parts for service under the expected conditions over the life i
of the component or part.
Principal Contributor:
A. Toalston, Electrical, Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch, DPL-A
- j.. '
-