ML20215L679
| ML20215L679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215L670 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7644, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8706260144 | |
| Download: ML20215L679 (16) | |
Text
ww-y'.
g.;; ; <
"," q< ij -
e s
y m.
- '-[t z.
,3 J.jj r
r
+
>bX
... : < g
~
- .;T'
- Qk
,M %
<:-13 ;, J y
.,t..
.M,
c 9
i st 0;.
.c
.s' Q:
'v i$.
- x;.
a 4
s EGG-NTA-7644 t
>G' d
May 1987 y
- n-y 4
...e
.= y' i;):.-
J 9}
4) f v a
.r'"
' Sjg
(,3
\\{ ;j
', l,p 3
s INFOftMAL REPORT
? w%
A~.
b]
1 g
~
on
[s!!
0 4
{ 'j
- ,i'b e
.I
'y
,.rqF-i t
i Idaho!
fNat/Ona/[ n[,k CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
!End/needngm;
/,T VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-3 RELATED COMPONENTS:
RANCHO SECO
- L bo.ratoryg a
s.
9 3
_0
.( <,'G' ?
L i e
}
+ n*.
- 1 W
' Nianaged-i
-1
'b9 th & U.Sh *
$j Alan C. Udy m
m
- Departmenty
/;
j fgb y~ w,.
ofBiergyl 8
4 2.x%.,.p 3
- y
? ?['d..l. r,
.a lQ
- x..
'j Ji.7)
Y s
hk
- >9 i
, qi
,y c
4-4 Ga w 11 7 ",, 'yp{
n,
'i ';
5 s
b L
F
'I 4
a:
0 r'
< j
{.:
'1 I'y
.-:/;l 'yl':h y
y e
a 4
- i) a'.
- n m 4
'.y qv 1
9 j
J s
l8
?
a
- g, n,,
y
. L:
&&p#
1.,
%e p3,f; j
h,EGnG A ' s c l
Prepared for the Y
pggggg 7 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'W
. No. DE-AC07-76lD01SW s,..
q,
, ~ ~ -..
ADOCK 05000312 p
- n n.
- ""'*py my~y n
."C e.
Ela_nn_nimi.___1_
I.i 1
c DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Govurnment. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, not any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the acluracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infnnge privately owned nghts, References herein to any specific commercial
. product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or irnply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
6 e
w l
f J
8-
' __, ;. T% 1,
.nm
.j_
.e' t. _ f5~ :
'y'
_I EGG-NTA-7644-n
-TECHNICAL l EVALUATION REPORT
- s
LCONFORMANCE'TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28,: ITEM 2.2 2--
VENDOR. INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
. RANCH 0LSECO.
c
,,,i.
i;
' Docket No. 50-3121
' Alan C. Udy Published MEy 1987
' Idaho National-Engineering. Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under 00E Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6001 s
L~
,e
..g g;
' ?,.
0;[I
__,, > -~*
., c..
.s.
7,'k '-
. T-i ;-.
'h ' :
e t
.['
i
+>;
i ABSTRACTf
-This EG&G Idaho..Inc., report provides.a review of-the':submittals from the: Sacramento. Minicipal: Utility District regarding'conformance to ' Generic Lett # 83-28,,Eltem 2.2.2, for-the Rancho Seco Nuclear. Generating Station.
9 t
<l i
l
[
l J
i Docket No. 50-312 TAC Wo. 53709 ii k_
-s
h a
l t;.
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 j
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.
Occket No. 50-312 TAC No. 53709 iii
w
[ CONTENTS.
~ABSTR CT1.......
11 4
' FOREWORD:.........................
iii c li IINTR00UCTION.....................................................
1
- REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT..............................-..........
2
'2.
'~
=3.c ' ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.................................
3-s K~
3.1 Guideline'...................................................
3-3.2 Evaluation........'.........................................
3<
3.3 Conclusion..................................................
4-4.
PROGRAM.WHERE_ VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED.......................................................
5 t4a12 Guideline...................................................
5 4.2 Eva1uation'..................................................
.5 4 '. 3 -. Conclusion..................................................
6 M -
S '.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE-
' SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT:...............................
.7
' 5 1 Guide 11neL..................................................
7=
l 5.25 Evaluation................................................
'7 5.3
.Co'nclusion..................................................
7 3
~
L 6,
LCONCLOSION.......................................................
.8-7.
-REFERENCES.......................................................
9-m L}
1 i
iv i
4 l
J J
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED-COMPONENTS:
RANCHO.SECO 1.
INTRODUCTION
'On February 25, 1983,. both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit.1 of
.g the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip h..
signal'from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the:
J automatic'tr.ip signal _. The-failure of the circuit breakers was determined
-l to be related to.the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment.
Prior j
to this incident, on February 22,'1983, at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear 0
l Power PlantJ a' automatic trip signal was generated based on s' team-l n
generator 1ow-low ' level during plant startup.
In this cas'e,'the reactor.
~
was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip, 1
s.
Followi.ng these incidents, on February 28,.1983, the NRC Executive Director for. Operations (EDO), directed the NRC' staff;to' investigate and' c
- report on the generic'impli o tions 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 i
NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear.
I 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.
l l
operating reactors, applicants for'an operating licen'se, and holders of-p p
construction permit's to respond to the generic issues raised by the E
analyses of these two ATWS events.
This report is'an evaluation of the responses submitted by the L
I Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the licensee for the Rancho Seco
\\.
}
Nuclear Generating Station, for Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28.
The h,
documents' reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the I
references at the end of this report.
1 f
___.I...______mm._
_m.___.
v
," K V;
s
,/.
\\
2'.
REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT o
h s
N Item 2 222 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests' the licensee or applicant
-to submit',;.for'the! staff review,-r description of their programs for interfacing:with the vendors of all; safety-related componentsfincluding supporting'information,..in considerable detail, asindicated in the' m
'2
~
.~
. guideline section :for each case withiri-this rep'oh, a.
These guidelines. treat. cases where direct vendor contact programs.are=
pursued, treat cases where such contact cannot practically be established,'
- and! establish. responsibilities of licessaes/applicdnts and vendors that-provide service on safety-* elated. components or equipment, y-
~
.Aspreviouslyinaicated}-thecase'sof1 tem 2.2.2'are'evaluatedin.a
~
separate.section;in which the guideline.is presented; an,m,valuati6niof the le
~
licens.ee's/ applicant's res'ponse is made; and conclusions about.the' programs
' f theilicensee or applicant for. their vender interface program for o
safety-related: components and equipment are 6rawn,
. e'
(
W
,,4 b
1
~
e
/t l
4 2
l 1
.a m
?
Y V.; N
,o
{
w 3.
ITEM 2.2;2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION gn'
- Q' ' 'y i 3.1 Guideline The licensee' or applicant response should ' describe their program fori
~
j,
- establishing::and maintainf ng interfaces ~ with vendors of Esafety-related y' :
' components!which ensu'res that vendors are. contacted on a periodic basis and:
'that ' receipt;of Lyendor equipment technical. information (ETI) is acknowledged or oth'erwiseNeri fied.
/
t
'// '
f Thisl program descriph on.should establish thatssuch interfaces are established witf( their NSSS vendor, ~ as well as with the. vendors of. key safety-re' lated componints such as diesel generators, electrical switchgear, aux 1.11ary feedpumps?'emergsncy core cooling system'(ECCS) pumps,. batteries,.
4 battery char <jers,-_and valye operators, to facilitate the exchan'ge of current 7
!F Ftechnica1Linformai. Ion. The description should'vertfy[that' controlled procedures. exist for handlNg this vendor technical irlformation which ensure -
L.; >
that'it'is kept current and complete and that it is incorporated into plant L
s i
operating,-maintenance and ten, procedures as is appropriate.
3.2 ' Eval uati on -
p The-licensee-fortheRankhoSecoNuclear.GeneratingStationresponded to'these requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1983,2 9 ovember 19, 1984,3 Mh23,19854 N
and April 20,.1987.5 These s
submittals include information that describes the licensee's vendor
-interface programs.
In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it'was-assumed tM t the'information and documentation supporting this program is available for audit upon request. We have reviewed the information submitted and note the following.
I w;;'e,
5 n>
The lic3nsee's-response states that they actively participate in the h
. Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. The Vendor Equipment M C Technical Information-Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC.
VETIP includes
.l
/M9,
. interaction with the NSSS vendoh and with other electric utilities.
The
!/,
^/
.,/
']
{
- /T
,3
/
j
, j,,
c dMA
m g7 j'g g:
Llicensee states thatlthe NUTAC/VETIP program recommendations'are'to 'e b
implemented by" July 1,.1986.' 'They have described their interface program with the NSSS vendor.'and with' vendors.of other. safety-related equipment.
-Review,' approval.(where necessary), and distribution of all' vendor' L
-(including:the.NSSS vendor) technical information is controlled by
~
m'".
Administrative Procedure AP.46,. '!ControlL of Vendor Technical Manuals." The L "h.
licensee reviews:the' received information'and, through contact with'each
~
L'k;[1.
vendor,' verifies tha't all: applicable information has been received.
ns 3.3 ' Cone'lusion H
'Weiconclude that the licensee's response regarding. program description is complete and, therefore,' acceptable..
L-f.
- 5) -
--). ' )
yg e ;..
i a
i l
1 4
n F
4.- -
-t
- g n
4.
PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR ' INTERFACE CANNOT
?
-PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED
.4.1 Guideline
- t TThe licensee / applicant response should. describe-their program for e
- compensating.for the lackLof'a formal vendor interface where such an-
~ interface cannot.b'e practicably established.
This program may reference the NUTAC/VETIP, program, asl described in INPO 84-010, issued in I
March 1984.
If-the NUTAC/VETIP program is' referenced, the response should describe how procedures were. revised to properly control and implement this program.and to-incorporate the. program. enhance.ments 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 c.
Lequipment or a' program to periodically contact each vendor of'
'1 safety-related equipment.will not relieve the licensee / applicant of his E
respons'ibility to obtain appropriate vendor instructions and information where necessary to provide adequate' confidence that a structure, system or.
' component will. perform satisfactorily in service and to ensure. adequate 1 quality assurance.in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
4.2 ' Evaluation The. licensee provided a brief description of the. vendor interface program. 'Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program.
The
(
. licensee stated that plant instructions and procedures are to be P,
incorporated by July 1, -1986 to assure. that the VETIP program is properly n
3
-controlled and implemented.
VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and the a
[
Significant Event' Evaluation and Information Network (SEE-IN) programs.
[,.
VETIP is designed to ensure that vendor equipment problems are recognized, evaluated and corrective action taken.
I 1
s.
I 5
1
l l
Th' rough _ participation in the NPRDS program,:the licensee submits engineering information, failure rep' orts and operating' histories lfor review under.the.SEE-IN program.
Through the SEE-IN program, the Institute of i
Nuclear-Power'0perations (INPO) reviews nuclear' plant events that have been-
-l reported by-either the'NPRDS programs, by Nuclear Network or by NRCz 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 'and describing.related problems. -This report also recommends practical corrective actions.
These reports are issued as Significant Event Reports, as Significant Operating Experience Reports and as Operations and Maintenance Reminders.
Upon receipt of,these documents, the 1.icensee evaluates the'information to determine applicability to their facility. This evaluation is documented and corrective actions are taken
'as determined necessary.
4.3 Conclusion We' find that the_ licensee's response to this concern is adequate and-acceptable.
This finding is based on the understanding that the licensee's commitment to implement the VETIP program includes the implementation of the enh'ancements described in Section'3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP program t'o the.
extent that'.the licensee can control or influence the implementation _ of these recommendations.
l l
i i
{
6
m Ds GT; 5.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF. LICENSEE / APP' LICA' T, AND-VENDOR N
1
.THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT 5.11 Guideline
-The licensee /applicantLresponse should verify.thatLthe'
< :n
~' responsibilities-of the 11censee or applicant and' vendors that provide 1
. service on. safety related equipment are defined-such that control)of' oapplicable instructions for maintenar.ce work on' safety-related equipment
.are provided.
,5.2. Evaluation.
L The licensee's response' commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP-program.
They'further state.:that their present'and revised programs and proceduress
~
' adequately implement this program.
The VETIF guidelines. include implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services.
- 5. 3. Conclusion P
p
, We. find the' licensee's commitment to' implement'.the VETIP; recommendations acceptable, with the understanding that'the licensee's commitmentLincludes.the' objective for." Internal Handling of Vendor Services" describe'd on pa'ge 23 of the March I984 NUTAC report.-
I 1
s 1
?
.]
-)
E 7
J J
"k
- (
6 ~ CONCLUSION t
' Based on. our review' of: the L11censee's-response :.to' the : specific.
Lrequirements of: item 2.2.2 for Rancho Seco,,we. find thatStheilicensee's interface program with its NSSS supplier'and with vendors offother.
h safety-relatedequipment(alongwiththeIlicensee'scommitmenttofimplement the NUTAC/VETIP program, is acceptable. -This isl based on the understanding that.the licensee's commitmentLto. implement the NUTAC/VETIP program:
includes' the objective Lfor '.' Internal Handling of Vendor. Services"' describe'd on page 23'o'f.the March 1984 report ~and includes the enhancements described in Section 3'2 of the report to.the' extent.that theilicensee can control or
- influence:s'uch enhancements.
L 1
s 0
'({
O e
8
7.
REFERENCES l '.
Letter,- NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, l
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, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (R. J. Rodrequez) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," November 4,1983, RJR 83-725.
3.
Letter, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (R. J. Rodriguez) to NRC (J. F. Stolz), " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2),"
November 19, 1984, RJR 84-517, 4.
Letter, Sacramento Monicipal Utility District (R. J. Rodrequez) to NRC (H. L. Thompson, Jr.), " Generic Letter 83-28, Request for Additional Information," May 23, 1985, RJR 85-269.
5.
Letter Sacramento Municipal Utility District (J. E. Ward) to NRC (F. J. Miraglia), " Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2 Equipment Classification and Vendor Interface," April 20, 1987, JEW 87-583.
6.
Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task i
Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, j
I s
4 9
_r,-
(i4 deAC Poets 35 UA asWCLS.A AGGUL.T.AY oceanssou i m.6Po#7 NUM80A taaseuer er IloC. AsW V8f #8,8f 8HFi -
(28s1
- 'llli"'7 BISUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET -
EGG-NTA-7644
.....oC,.
3 TerLA Asso suefif Lt A gg.vg SL.as.
CONFORMANCE.TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.2--
l VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR'ALL OTHER SAFETY-l i
-RELATED COMPONENTS: ' RANCHO SEC0 4 o.re asaoar co-Lereo mourn j-
,u,...,
. May 1987 Alan C.: Udy
.. r T,
T.
j
...a May
-1987
,_,.. o.
o.o. u.rio.
o...u
..,,es se c,
seTnam monau ir vu.
EG8G Idaho, Inc.
P. O. Box 1625
. m aa oaAar aumesa -
Idaho Falls..ID: 83415 06001 l
ta SPosesomesso one. ass 4.fio.e es. ass.8eo as.sksNo. A888 frassuspie casus tie Tvpt of aEpofiT Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch Office _ of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m 'asoc covaso 'e===- -
Washington, DC' 20555 i
12 SUPPLGAAGNT.Rv880798
-1 13 AS$7M.CT (J00 weres er west This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of-the submittals from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2,.for Rancho Seco.
io oocume=r a=a6vses. as =nonos,oescairrons.
is av.i6.e4uf v e
STattutNT Unlimited Distribution 14 48CuntTVCLAS$iPICAfloN iTner assed
..o ri.....,o,....... o f a-o Unclassified Itan rueerrs Unclassified i7 NuMGER 08 # AGES it PasCE 1