ML20215L966

Final Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.2,Vendor Interface Programs for All Other Safety-Related Components, La Salle Units 1 & 2, Informal Rept

ML20215L966
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20215L917	List: ML20215L914 ML20215L966
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7598, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8706260229
Download: ML20215L966 (17)

Text

.

~me, w, us.;

i 3

. m..

un%; '; ' b #.c ; %q.

, ",;' ly s

r y.

q-

%-; 'DF

'q

@n a$$',w,Z,,... ' %gyf @ q, p,y w,

m o

p

-. i.? !fN :9 ey

,r v&. h 1.' %&, ][.:1. c

'.i th

.<, VI N

s.

i c

,y m

4

' W-c Ly.

W. p:'

MM EGG-NTA-7598

, #g 4

J

'. L :m

-y ',~M4 April 1987 R

4 o

m itra ;n i

i M.. +A,

r.'

sa y

1 k'

,?,

'y~ ' n:'.

m* # #s A,

h, INFORMAL REPORT i

x&,.y

,.[

d e

4

.s

,A '

A%;. }u}f I

n s4,,

v..

h;;h. N

~

1 q Af f ?

• a m

GQ n ;gygg&fN 3]NAt/onaf

' y M CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.2--

4

• g JEns/neekingT *gA 4j VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-

! Laboratory?

E @j RELATED COMPONENTS:

LA SALLE-1 AND -2 E'

% ; ' q-, p 4 n

3,,

/,,:,

JM'a'naged;k o

t

-[

,g i/

l

,H.

7e f

Q' ' + hby the'.U,Si,%,4,, ; G}

g 3=

4 Alan C. Udy a Department; qx w

LofEnergy5 u L,,

',$n v

3 e

a en 3 l$A.4 f [.p i e4

\\ '} i....3,:

&, b.i nhk

} .

- R-

~

lj '.y, J,

+

d.

4M

a. t W.n e:

"... j;..-

+.;g y;+..y ;a

.:)yu y

.i s e s

.,91 3-t,.

a ;,., s

(; 4

+,

8 y

y

.m

. ;;y u

g' '%.!

.c s

F s

4

,.m' '

.'.')

1

. (lj, e(" s s

g.i;)

y

.1 I

.]. :

h).

I' k,'

d i

3

- r mm,:

ew

'q 0 x,.

I

.d.

t

>,3-

...., k i}#w.

., h. A' I

c' f s r ,, Aj, h,-

4 w, n-,j

y,,

a,;;p3.j, n

s, 2

q z g@g

~

i

E s v,,-

f.1

%.,t o U;d_g ' Cp/hg

...M r

l,p \\ :.

y Q

yL-m:

m

g

,,}

Y y

+

r

,, j#

c.

n y q~%

4

%W O.

1

' W

. 4( f 4^W', Q j.

g1 e

y m

3 n.' a 4

J s

o

, m

^ ',

, I,

,1 Q I,' '.

'}.

t t

1 v

G t; S D]c, q S p.

'ya e

.' c.

t j

' y-',

3 4 i

7.,

' 1' q.

l-e e

1

.. q" " ' y

/J ',.

< ji-L M,

s y

flj 3NjN(q[i j 'a'%

m

_. ; f' ',...

b., ' l

.J!.

• (

s

..,~ _ f, a

a e,.

~..

44 <

r.,

m f

[7 fj

'l+5

.lj /, ' ' '

g' N...i e

kf

.h>,,.EGEGO Wkf

-gi

(

,a

-...,.m o

Prepared for the 0f

? Workperformedunder.

]

1 a oarc=am U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

p

.fNo. DEAC07-MID01570 c V ;,

G Gi M ' '

+

a

M

+

O.;

,, i,.

i t >-

-M) gl' im

-f q

,-.,f,..

-Q'3., y.h42.5 k.w.d4/

NN-

.,"19'65250229 8705'0'1

?c PDR ADOCK 0500 3

[I p

sz.g, y~ < < m 7.yggmgg

} (.}

) /

J yi

l 4

)

.f i

l DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Gcernment. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, F

nor any of heir employees, makes any warramy, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would.

not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otnerwise, does not necessanly constitute or imply its endorsement, recomrnendation, or favonng 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.

f 1

(

I l.

w

2.

s_ ;W; r 2

1 EGG-NTA-7598

~

-1

.o 1

t,

- TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 4:.

x

__ JCONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28,-ITEM 2.2.2--

VEND 0R' INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

iLA SALLE-1 AND -2 Docket.Nos.'50-373/50-374 1

' Alan C. Udy

~ Published April 1987'

!J Idaho National Engineering ' Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

~ Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 J

f Prepared for the l

O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~

. Washington, D.C.

20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06001 i

l':

s l

1 l

.i l

A I

r I

ABSTRACT

'l l

1 This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from j

Commonwealth Edison for the LaSalle County Station regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2.

I I

i i

I i

Docket Nos. 50-373/50-374 TAC Nos. 53684/53685 i1 i

i

o-

,+

i, a;

J o

q

+

.o-

.g.

ci t

O:n;

,y FOREWORD This Jreport11s supplied.as part of the program for evaluating.

[

ilicensee/ applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28',(" Required Actionst

-Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." 'Thisiwork isLbeing-

~~

conducted for the'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of. Nuclear a

l Reactor Regulation, ' Division of PWR Licensing-A, by > EG&G:Idah'o, Inc., NRR '

1

('

and I&E. Support Branch.

The U.S.' NuclearLRegulatory Commission funded thisLwork under the

.auth6r'ization B&R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. 06001.

r

'I t

i i

i i

Docket Nos. 50-373/50-374 1

TAC Nos. 53684/53685 1

j iii 0

.1'

\\

~,

't-CONTENTS LABSTRACT=..............................................................

ii

FO R EWO R D ~...............................................................

1 1 1.

1..

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

1 M.

2.

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

2-N 3..

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

3-(

~.

l 3.1 - Guideline..................................................

3

[

3.2.

Evaluation................................................

3 i

3.3 Conclusion.................................................

4

'j 4.

. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT-PRACTICABLY BE 1

ESTABLISHED......................................................

5.

J 4.1; Guideline'...................................................

5 s

4.2 Evaluation'...-..........................

5

[

4.3: Conclusion.................................................

6 h

5 '.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE i

SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT...............................

'7-5.1 Guideline..................................................

7 i

5.2 Evaluation.................................................

7-5.3 LConc'lusion.................................................

7-6.

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

8 7.

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

9 i

. i i

\\

iv i

1

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

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

LA SALLE-1 AND -2

' I '.

INTRODUCTION

~0n February;25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers-at Unit l'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 bysthe; operator about 30 seconds after the-initiation of the A

automatic trip signal...The failure'of the circuit breakers was determined

!l

,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 i

Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam j

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.

Following;these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the'NRC Executive Director. for Operations (ED0), directed the NRC. staff to investigate. and.'

report on the. generic implications of these' occurrences at. Unit'l 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) j

~

1 requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8,1983 ) all licensees of j

operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of i

construction permits to respond to the generic issues raised by the i

analyses of these two ATWS events.

This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by l

. Commonwealth Edison, the-licensee for the LaSalle County Station, for LItem 2.2.2 of. Generic Letter 8348. The documents reviewed as a part of 3

this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report.

i 1

i h

c,

.j

+

uf

12. ~ REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT 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 all safety-related components including-supporting information,,in considerable detail, as indicated in;the guideline section:for each case within this-report.

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 thatL 1

provide service on safety-related. components or equipment.

l 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 b

d

.2 i

l

s 3.

' ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.

)

1 3.1 Guideline j

a r

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 4

~ or otherwise verified.

This-' program descr'iption should establish that such' interfaces are L

established with their NSSS vendor, as well as with 'the vendors of key s'afety-related components.such as diesel generators,~ electrical switchgear, auxiliary feed pumps, 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 ensura that it is kept current and completeLand that it is' incorporated into plant operating, maintenance and test procedures as is appropriate.

3.2 Evaluation.

-The. licensee'for the.LaSalle County Station, responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1983,2 February 29, 1984,3 June 1,-1984 and May 16,c1985.5 These submittals ' include-4 information that describes their past and current 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 response states that they actively participate in the f

Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program.

The Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC.

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

k I

3 l

4

~!

r i

~

r NSSS vendor; contact;eith the licensee' includes reg'ularameetings and service bulletins andJadvisories IThe: licensee also; states-that: procedures;to implement 1the NUTAC/VETIP program are'in place'as#of July 1,:1985...This Jinc10 des NSSSLvendor. contact and direct interaction with otherLvendors,-

The licensee's Nuclear lStatibns Division issued a directive, NSDD-M02,.as1

.the overallLcontrol' procedure.to' handle vendor technical information. ~It is included 'in. Reference 5, Lalong with procedure LAP-100-15, " Control' of-1 Vendor EquipmentsTechnical 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.

1

-l 1

i i

1 l

9 l

~

! _' j.?

4 4

d

m y;

[ y[ '

l, IN y

m x

32 4; :. PROGRAM WHERELYENDOR~ INTERFACE CANNOT

'l 4

'I~

'? PRACTICABLY ~BE.ESTABI.ISHED 4.1' Guideline 6

1 The;11cysee/ applicant response should' describe their programfforj s

d i

t. compensating! for the11ack-of a forma 1L vendor, interface where such an n

interface;can'notIbelpracticablyestablishedhI.This program may reference =

n

-the NUTAC/VETIP program,.as; described in.INP0 84-010,Lissued in

]

3:

? March 1984.. If:the N'UTAC/VETIP program is referenced,.the, response should j

describe how procedures 1were revised'to properly, control and implement this:

program and'to incorporate the program enhancements described in.

4

~

C Section 3.2 of the.NUTAC/VETIP report.

ItLshould also be'noted that.the:

i Llack of either a' fc ' mal interface with each vendor of safety-related equipment o.r a programLto periodically contact each vendor of safety-related equipment wilijnot 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 a

1 Y

quality assurance.in.accordance with Appendi.x'B to 10.CFR Part 50.

]

4.2 Evaluation j

The licensee!s subre ttals provided a brief description. of-the vendor-

^

i.nterface program.

Their de'scription' references the NUTAC/VETIP~ program.

j

The

: licensee states'that' plant instructions and procedures are currently 1'n'

'j a

-place <to ' assure'that the VETIP program is properly controlled and

-]

L. ~

implemented.

j p

y L

.VETIP is comprised of'two basic elements related to vendor equipment problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and the l

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

L VETIP is designed to ensure that vendor equipment problems are recognized, r

l l: Y evaluated and corrective action taken.

=l i

1

(

L.

5 l

2 4

p-1Through 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-(INPO)' reviews nuclear plant events that have been reported through.the NPROS 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, describing'related problems and providing recommendations'for 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

. licensee' evaluates the information to determine applicability to the facility.

This evaluation is documented and corrective actions are taken

.as determined necessary.

4 The licensee's response states that procedures now exist to review and I

evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into. existing procedures.

4.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's respo'nse to this concern is adequate and

~

acceptable..This finding is based on the understanding that the' licensee's l

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.

(

6 a

=

J 6

"iw j

qR o

i Mg n

.c 5.1i RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND' VENDOR-1 S

1

4..

~THAT PROVIDE? ERVICE;0N' SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT l

f 5.-1!. ' Guidel i ne.

.)

- The licensee / applicant' response'should verify:that.the-y

.responsibilitiestof the licensee or applicant'and vendors.that provide-

service'on:s'afety-related' equipment are' defined such;that control of

.I i

Lapplicable instructions;for maintenance: work on" safety-related equipment jare provided.

5.2 Evaluation

.Theflicensee's response commits'to implement the'NUTAC/VETIP program.

They further state that their present,and revised programs and procedures adequately im'plement.this program. -The VETIP guidelines include

implementation procedures forf the. internal handling of vendor services.

5.3 Conclusion

l

.We. find th' licensee's commitment to implement?the VETIP j

e-

recommendations' acceptable, with'the understanding that the licensee's

'l commitment ' includes the objective -for " Internal Handling _of Vendor l

Services" described'on page'23 of the March 1984.NUTAC' report.

l l

i 1

,.4..

.A '

h 7

\\

s

, +

6.

CONCLUSION.

Based on' our review of the licensee's. response to'the specific :

s

. requirements of item 2.2.2 for. LaSalle,. we find that the licensee's interface program with its NSSS supplier and'with_other vendors of-safety-related equipment, along with the 11censee's. commitment to implement j

This is based on the understanding--

4H

-the NUTAC/VETIP. program,'is acceptable.

'that'the licensee's' commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program

]

-includes' the objective for " Internal-Handling of Vendor ; Services described i

on_'page 23 of the March 1984 report and includes,the enhancements desdribed-l in Section 3.2 of the, report to the extent that the licensee'can-control,or influence such enhancements.

-jj 4

j u

a l

1 q

r <

i

]

e 8

n 7.

REFEilENCES 1.

Letter, NRC (O. G. Eisenhut), to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License, gind Holders of Construction Permits,

" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28),". July 8,1983.

f f

2.

Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton),

" Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28," November 5, 1983.

.3.

Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton),

i

" Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28," February 29, 1984.

4.

Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) to NRC (H. R. Denton),

<8e

" Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATSW Events,"

June 1, 1984.

5.

Letter,. Commonwealth Edison (G. Alexander) to NRC (H. R. Denton),

i

" Response to Request for Additional Information, Generic s

Letter 83-28," May 16, 1985.

6.

Vendor Equipment Technical Informatim. Program, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-23, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, INPO 84-010.

l t

i l

w e

9 l.

fe#C POAM 333 U.S. NUCLEAR ASOULATORY COednesABIOss i ASPDA T NUM90 A insegnes e, Ts#C. ese v.# wJ, er says 13 446

'2,"3d','-

BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7598

$48 IN87RUCTtON5 0N TNg mgvenst 3 verLt AND EV$lil L8 J LS AVG SLAN8L CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.'2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS-LA SALLE-1 AND -2

. oAve apoat CoMemio j

..Aa oi April 1987 uuvmo=>.

l e oAre apoar is.Veo Alan C. Udy; l

v.A.

oNr April 1987 1

7. !h5ORMING ORGAN 12 A1 ION N AME AND M AsLING ADDR884 idarflam te C.ms

8. PAOJ4CTIT ASE/ WORK UNIT 8eUM05R EG&G Idaho,'Inc.

P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 10 SPON5ORING OMGANRJ AflON NAME ANO MAILING AODAtSS trasmeetqp C.ses 11e TYPtOfMEPORT Division of PWR L! censing ~- A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-

• *'a'a cov'a'o " '~ ~~'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 t) $UPPLtMtNr ARY NOf t1

, A.

r R Act an

(

1 This EG&G Idaho, Inc... report provides a review of the submittals from Commonwealth Edison regarding conformance to Geieric Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for l-LaSalle-1.and -2.

l g ),

j t

.4

-9 t o DOCUMt NY 4.e ALs ang, ag.swoRos,ptscRiproR3 ig ayaggag,gir y STATEMENT e

Unlimited Distribution is 6tcumity CLA88tPICAtl0N trass oneet

. io Nrt mas,o,iN Noeo t'a*

Unclassified arme, em.,,,

Unclassified i P. NUMOtR Of PAGES r

'j it PReCE 3

=

mm-___

_..m._____m.____

__ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _