ML20215L765

Final Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1 - Equipment Classification for All Other Safety-Related Components,Mcguire 1 & 2, Informal Rept

ML20215L765
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	05/31/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20215L738	List: ML20215L735 ML20215L765
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7383, GL-83-28, TAC-53687, TAC-53688, NUDOCS 8706260166
Download: ML20215L765 (21)

Text

' g. W

q

.l0

'l_t_

,a I

,\\,'

f EGG-NTA-7383 J

May 1987 cv a,

[

I

)

INFORMAL REPORT

~r,.

a ;.-

('<i} f '

4 Mg Vi$

.+.

. Idaho *

' National + ~.

jy ' ??

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1--

m En,ginsonng.c

. L

"l EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-1.aboratoryL m

RELATED COMPONENTS:

MC GUIRE-1 AND -2 4

': Managed [

by the U.S.L

']

Departmenff Alan C. Udy

- of Energy

1 i;

a

,.1' 2 4:

i%

]

.'t,'

4 nn.

.,2

,,,-ri n

'$. 4 gg 4

)6 ?

a t

I 3

i

(.

['

q

'1.

d l.

V.

r s,

.y:

4c s

~n

~Lw

'n'.

'4, ;j,,,

. e 4EGaGu.3

... n workpedoimesd$di$]yk:

Prepared for the

^

no. o u cS fa#88/78 8 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. O L;J, m s th

,m i

8706260166 870507 PDR ADOCK 05000369 p

PDR a

L

. ~.

L 1 '.

i e

i I

i l

l DISCLAIMER i

l This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govemment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completenets, or usefulness of any i

Information, apparatus, prodLct or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe pnvately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial l

(.

product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, of otherwise, f-does not necessarily constitute or imoly its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Govemment 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.

1

[.

S e

ij:b:

a:-

o

.c v;:

^'

i

, EGG-NTA-7383~

o.

r i

p l;

. TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

'l s.3 1

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC. LETTER' 83-28, : ITEM 2.2.1--

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

.MC GUIRE-1 AND -2u l-

-Docket Nos. 50-369-and 50-370

+1.,

Alan C. Udy Published May'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 DOE Contract No.-DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6001 i

?

.?

T

' 4 g.,

,f m

4 I "

tu *

• i 4

L

+-

j1 I'.

O

(..

r I.

f I

j.i ABSTRACT

=This,EG&G Ida'ho, Inc.. report provides a review of the submittals from

[

theMcGbire-Nuclear.Sta' tion,.' Unit.Nos.1and.2,regardingconformanceto Generic Letter 83-28, Item.2.2.1.

i.-

i r

i-,

f Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370

. TAC Nos. 53687 and 53688 11 I'

t t

J r

,3 i -.

~;

LFOREWORD 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 L

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.

i l

1 J

W f

i Docket Nos. 50-369 and.50-370 1

TAC Nos. 53687 and 53688 1.7 111 l

y,-

LCONTENTS~

as 1

1

,~4 f'

h{

b 1ABSTRACTc.....i.....L....................................................-

sii

' FO R EWO R D L.. T. J. '..........................................................

iii?

' us 10 l15 INTR 00VCTION'.....................................................

11' n

2.

REVIEW CONTENT AND' F0RMAT.............................-............

2 0

l3.,

. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM...............................................

3 4

--IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA............................

5-oh 4.1" Guideline..-.................................................

51

4.2 Evaluation.................................................

'5 4.3 Conclusion ~..............;....,.............................

51 5,

ITEM 2.2.1.2 -~INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM".......................

6 o.

5.11 Guideline t..................................

.s.

6:

5.2 Evaluation..................................'..............

61 5.3 Conclusion...............................................-

6.

6.

I'iEM 2.2.1.3:- USE;0F' EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION: LISTING............

'7 ;

H'

6.1 Guide 11ne'..................................................

7-6.2L Evaluation.................................................

-7 6.3-C o n c l u s i o n -..................................................

.7s 7.;

ITEM 2.2.1 4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS...............................

8

'7-.11 Guideline...................................-................-

8:

7.2 Evaluation.................................................,, 8 G

7.3c Conclusion-................................................'

8 8..

ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT...............

.9 8.1' Guideline..................................................

9 8.2 Evaluation.................................................

9 8.3 Conclusion..................................................

9

}

~. -

4

.9.

ITEM 2.2.1.6-

"IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS..................

10 L~

!9.1" EGuideline.................................................

10 (10. ; CONCLUSION.......................................................

11 j

~11.

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

12 iv

',g..

.;J+

s

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1--

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

MC GUIRE-1 AND -2 1.

INTRODUCTION On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of j

I 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 i

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-1cw level during plant startup.

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

1 Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive D' rector 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 j

generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in l

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 the Duke Power Company, the licensee for the McGuire Nuclear Station, for Item 2.2.1 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.

I j

i l

1 i

i

(

rin:

. 1 i

2.

REV!EW-CONTENT AND FORMAT'

(

1 rn

+

h Item: 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests theilicensee or applicant

.to' submit,;for thesstaff review, a description of their, programs for--

l safety-relatediequipment classification including supporting _information,.

in considerable detail,Las indicated in the guideline section for'each sub-item within this. report..

As previously' indicated,feach of the six'sub-items of-Item 2.2.1 is

~

F-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 safety-related equipment' classification areldrawn..

rn ti O -

D i

2 i

i i

a; s

4,

,ha i

t' i

j[5 !.$ ~

7

3. ITEM 2.2.1-PROGRAM 3.1 Guideline

{

l u

E

' Licensees andLapplicants should confirm that an' equipment y

i classification program exists.which provides' assurance that'all-(safety-related components'are designated a.s safety related on.all. plant-7 documents','. drawings and procedures and in the information handling system t

thhtis.usedinaccomplishingsafety-relatedactivities,'such.aswork~ orders t

'for repair, maintenance and surveillance testing and orders for-replacement parts.

Licensee and applicant responses which' address the ~ features of this

- program are evaluated in the remainder of this report.

3.2 Evaluation

,e

The licensee for the McGuire Nuclear Station responded to these 3

requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1983,2 February 1, 1984 and March 30, 1987.4 'These submittals include information that describe their. existing. safety-rehted equipment classification program.

In the review of the'11censee's response to this item, it.was assumed'that'the

-information and-documentation supporting this program isLavailable for audit uponirequest. We have reviewed'this information.and note th'e following general concern.

The licensee states'that their McGuire Nuclear Station Quality Standards Manua'l for Structures, Systems and Components is the component classification information handling system referred to.

The licensee has stated.that safety-related components are identified as such on plant documents, drawings and procedures. The licensee's work request system-identifies the~ classification of the system or component before any work is done. Therefore, the personnel doing work on safety-related systems and

components'are aware of the safety-related status of the work and of any 7

'special. procedures to be used.

3

3.3 Conclusion r,

We have reviewed the licensee's information and in general, find that the. licensee's response is adequate.

l~

.g

~

5 t

I 1

4 i

M

r 1

C

' TEM'2.2.'1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA L4.

I

,p.'

4.1 : Guideline.

The-applicant or. licensee should' confirm that their program used for l'

t l

y.

iequipment classification-includes criteria used for identifying components j

as safety-related.:

.a

4.2 Evaluation l

.J The' licensee's response gives the criteria for identifying-safety related' equipment >and components.

A. component is considered

~

fsafety-related if it is' required to assure:

(a) the integrity'of the.'

j reactor coolant-system pressure ' boundary, (b) the capability to achieve and Lmaintain a safe shutdown or (c) the capability to prevent or to mitigate-the consequences of an-accident'that could: result in potential offsite.

1 e

exposures. Additionally, the licensee has identified other. considerations

and' guidance that are used in determining the safety-related status for

-structures, systems and components..

y 4.3 Conclusion-l We find that the criteria used in the identification of safety-related components meets'th'e_ requirements.of Item 2.2.1.1 and are acceptable.

.,, i 5

m

5.

ITEM 2.2 3.2

.INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM

'i 1

5.1 Guideline

.)

l The._ licensee or. applicant should confirm that the program for 1

l equipment classification includes an information handling system that is-used to' identify safety-related components. The response should confirm that-this information handling system includes a list of safety-related--

equipment'and that procedures exist which govern its development and validation.

j f

5.2 Evaluation The licensee states that the draft Station Manual-received an.

interdepartmental review to ensure completeness and to verify accuracy.

.The licensee also defines the' process used in r'evising the Station Manual.

The licensee-states that the~ 1isting was originally prepared during the station design phase.

Changes to the station design are controlled,

.such that new safety-related items are identified in accordance with the same quality assurance program that identified'these items. in-the original.

station. design. The procedures for revising the component list is contained in the Quality Standards Manual.

5.3 Conclusion We find that the information contained in the licensee's submittals is sufficient for.us to conclude that the licensee's information handling system for equipment classification meets the guideline requirements.

Therefore, the information provided by the licensee for this item is acceptable.

t 6

4 V

/

6.

ITEM 2'.2.1;3 - USE OF-EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING

,6.1 Guideline 3

The.11censee'.s 'or applicant's description should confirm that their-program for equ'ipment' classification includes criteria and procedures which govern how station personnel use the equipment classification information.

. handling system to determine that an activity is safety-related and what

- procedures for. maintenance, surveillance, parts' replacement and other activities defined'in the introduction to 10 CFR 50,. Appendix B, apply.to safety-related components.

6.' 2 Evaluation g

The licensee's response provided a description of the station.

. personnel

• sluse of the.McGuire Nuclear Station Quality Standards Manual for Structures,' Systems and Components.

This manual contains the equipment

~

classification listings or.. directs the user to supplemental component lists. A criteria checklist for the determination cf equipment-classi.fication was alsofincluded.

The procedures:for preparing a work request..(a prerequisite for. maintenance work) requires the use of the i

equipment classification information handling system to determins the-y

- safety classification of the equipment involved and the identification of the plant instructions.and procedures which are to be used for maintenance work, routine surveillance testing, accomplishment of design changes, and

in the performance of special tests or studies.

6.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's description of plant administrative controls and procedures meets the requirements of this item and is, therefore, acceptable.

l l

1 I

7 i

Y

/

,{.

7. ' ITEM 2.2.1'.4~- MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 7.1 Guideline

rs

. /

-e m iNuMn 4. s i,a m N.,,,,,

l l

u4,,ucume;.uwoav coM-woM i

n.e.,

m EGG-NTA-7383.

%""$'t SISUOGRAPHIC D'ATA SHEET 1

ses esnucTioNs oN TNe nevease 3 LEAV4 BLANK

.j

& Yn L8 LNo sueTif LE 1

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28', ITEM 2.2.1--

l EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR.ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED-

. COMPONENTS:.MC GUIRE-1 AND -2

' "' " " " "" "". 'v t A a l

a MoNTN uu. oaisi..

May 1987

~

Alan C..Udy:

. oATi..oavimu.o v Aa

-p

.T May 1987

>..sowiNo o.GANaArioN NAM. ANo MAivNo Anoaus o T. c,

. mu cTa A=

can uNii NuMua

- EG&G Idaho, Inc.,

""a'"'"""""

P.:0.-Box.1625 Idaho Falls', ID 83415 j

10. SPQN$QalNQ oaGANi4Af son NAMS ANo M4646Mo Aooatsa omsv.p te c.s.,

it. TYPt os Apoaf Division of PWR Licensing - A l

0ffice of; Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

U.S.LNuclear Regulatory Commission,

o. apioo covnu> o---,

! Washington, DC 20555-12 $UNLEMENTAaY NoTR$

.3 d.0STaACT,200 w.r.s sr 'see,

,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 2.2.1 for McGuire-1

-and -2.

I

.(

iA DOCUMENT ANAi,v$is.e EEvnoacgiotscairtoa$

16 AV A#LA8.uT V STATEMENT Unlimited Distribution

,. secua a v eLAssi,icATioN

<r.,,,

.aon mieasio...i nosotna"$

Unclassified (T4as r rr/

Unclassified i n NVM6f.>$ oP PAGe$

~

te Pa C4

__________________j