ML20215L748

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.2 - Vendor Interface Programs for All Other Safety Related Components: Oyster Creek, Final Informal Rept

ML20215L748
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20215L742	List: ML20215L740 ML20215L748
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7617, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8706260163
Download: ML20215L748 (16)

Text

q 9

W

<,y y

EGG-NTA-7617 April 1987 4

r

.l,'s ',:(.'

\\

o INFORMAL REPORT

, :o.

as-

- y

.-o-eidaho ;

LNationa/ --

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-

{

' Engineering ~.

'-.4 RELATED COMP 0NENTS:

OYSTER CREEK

. Laboratory; 16

. Managed.

by the U.S.!

'O Alan C. Udy

G

Department '

.'of EnergV

' 5*

! ;l

.1

.,. $i ti l

i'

-fj:/

)

\\

' ' \\ ) e,

.,t' N

} i q

)

I q

hEGsGw Prepared for the

... -..m__..-

"=-ggggy U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION No,' DE.AC07 761D01SW i

,, g, j u,

....r.',,wmLs.,,

870626'0163 870501 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P

PDR

.?

I-L_.

1

\\

t i

l 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 j

legal hability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any j

information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe pnvately owned nghts. References herein to any speofic commercial product process, or service by trade name, trademark, manuketurer, os otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or imply its endorsement recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof; The views and opinions of authors expresseo herein do not necessanly state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, i

1 I

]

l

EGG-NTA-7617 i

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 0

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

OYSTER CREEK Docket No. 50-219 Alan C. Udy Published April 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 9

Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6001

i i

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the GPU Nuclear Corporation regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

Docket No. 50-219 TAC No. 53698 11

1

)

O FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating j

licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions j

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. D6001.

Docket No. 50-219 TAC No. 53698 iii

CONTENTS j

ABSTRACT..............................................................

ii FOREWORD.............................................................

iii 1.

INTRODUCTION....................................................

1 2.

REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT........................................

2 4

4 3.

ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.................................

3 3.1 Guideline...............................................

3 3.2 Evaluation.................................................

3 3.3 Conclusion................

4 i

4.

PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED.....................................................

5 4.1 Guideline.................................................

5 4.2 Evaluation.................................................

5 4.3 Conclusion................................................

6 l

5.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT..............................

7 i

5.1 Guideline.................................................

7 5.2 Evaluation.............................................

7 5.3 Conclusion.................................................

7 6.

CONCLUSION......................................

8 7.

REFERENCES.......................................................

9 iv

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-2E; ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFET'-RELATED COMPONENTS:

OYSTER CREEK f

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 l

signal from the reactor protection system.

This incident was terminated manually by the operator about 30 seconds after n e initiation of the I

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 i

I generator. low-low level during plant startup.

In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.

l Followirg these in.idents, dn February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive j

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 l

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, applicanthfor an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to the generic issues raised by the j

analyses of these two ATWS events.

This rcport is an evalaation of the responses submitted by the GPU Nuclear Corporation, the licensee for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, for Itcm 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 1

2.

REVIEM CONTENT AND FORMAT

)

i 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 ali safety-related components including i

supporting information, in considerable detail, as indicated in the guideline section for each case within this report.

j i

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.

I

~

1 2

)

.)

3.

ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Guideline i

The licensee or applicant response should describe their program for j

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 ver' fy 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 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generation Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 14, 1983,2 3

November 20, 1984 and October 23, 1985.4 These submittals include information that describes their 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 nave 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 Ver. dor Equipment Technical Information Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC.

VETIP includes interaction with the NSSS vendor and with other electric utilities.

Typical 3

I

)

NSSS vendor contact with the licensee includes General Electric's service advisory program, including service information letters and turbine i

information letters. They also state that interfaces are established with vendors of major safety related equipment that have continuing product development programs.

The licensee also states that procedures to

{

implement the NUTAC/VETIP program are in place.

These procedures include 5000-ADM-7316.02, 5000-ADM-7370.92 and 5000-ADM-7315.03.

3.3 Conclusion We conclude that the licensee's response regarding program description is complete and, therefore, acceptable.

i e

e 4

2

l J

4.

PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT l

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 INPO 84-010, issued in March 1984.

If the NUTAC/VETIP program is referenced, the response should j

describe how procedures were revised to properly control and implement this

)

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 safety-related equipment will not relieve the licensee / applicant of his responsibility 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 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 states that plant instructions and procedures are currently in place to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled and implemented.

VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment J

I problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and the j

Significant Event Evaluation and Information Network (SEE-IN) programs.

j VETIP is designed to ensure that vendor equipment problems are recognized, evaluated and corrective action taken.

3

)

i 5

1 I

3

.Through participation in the NPRDS program, the licensee submits 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 (INP0) 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, INPO 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 exist to review and evaluate incoming equipment toehnical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures.

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 enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP program to the extent that the licensee can control or influence the implementation of these recommendations.

a 6

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 applicant 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.

5.2 Evaluation The licensee's response commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program.

They further state that their present and revised programs and procedures adequately implement this program.

The VETIP guidelines include implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services.

The licensee states that procedures will require vendors of service on safety-related equipment to either have a qualified quality assurance program or they will be required by procurement documents to work within the licensee's quality assurance program.

j

)

1 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.

l 7

6.

CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for Dyster Creek, we find that the licensee's interface program with its NSSS supplier, along with the licensee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program, is acceptable. This is based on the understanding that the licensee's commitment to implement the NOTAC/VETIP program includes the objective for " Internal Handling of Vendor Services" described on page 23 of the March 1984 report and includes the enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the report to the extent that the licensee can control or influence such enhancements.

i I

l e

r 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, GPU Nuclear Corporation-(P. B. Fiedler) to NRC, " Generic Letter.83-28," November 14, 1983.

+

3.

Letter, GPU Nuclear Corporation (P B. Fiedler) to NRC, " Generic

~

Letter 83-28," November 20, 1984.

4.

Letter, GPU Nuclear (P. B. Fiedler) to NRC'(J. A. Zwo11nski), " Generic Letter 83-28," October 23, 1985.

5.

Vendor Eouioment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, INP0 84-010.

i J

i e

i i

?

i

.I 9

u.

=uCt:4 nGuo ton,Co..

iauoaTNvM..a,A

.,rx v.,N..,,.

g,,oa==

'A*"JE'-

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7617

$48 iMSTRUCTION6 ON T t REvtRit J (SAvg STANK 2 YlTLE ANO sus tITLt CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER. 83-28. ITEli 2.2.2--

' VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-

• ""'"'c"'"a RELATED COMPONENTS: OYSTER CREEK Mo T.

j v

A.

April 1987

. auf oaisi Alan C. Udy

. OAT..PonT vio j

veAn moNT April 1987

7. taPOmMING ORGAN 12ATION NAME AND MA34tNG ADDntss tsanwege Caos 8 PROJ8CTITA8K/WOMK 98sif NUMetR EG&G Idaho, Inc.

P. O. Box 1625

' " * " a"^*' "v"""

Idaho Falls, 10 83415 D6001

10. $PCNSOntNQ ORGAN 12 ATION NAwt ANO MA# LING ADORGS$ ft.rneele caprJ tia TYPEOppgPORT

-Division of PWR Licensing - A

}

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Pta oo Covsaen t, Washington, DC 20555 1

l is sve*LeutNT Aav Nous 13 A857m ACT (200 = ores., aeses This EG&G Idaho,;Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the l

GPU Nuclear Corporation regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28,. Item 2.2.2, for Oyster Creek, 1

i i

is fiocue.NY ANA6V&rt e K(.WQMQ$'QtlGRIPf ons it Ava: lag:LITv ST Af gMg NT Unlimited Distribution 19 SECURITY CLA$$1FICAtloN IThos geppe olo NTi....s,o,eh No.o na*$

Unclassified i

f r...,,

Unclassified-1F NWMetR OF PAGES it PRICE I

t