ML20215M006

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

ML20215M006
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20215M000	List: ML20215L997 ML20215M006
References
CON-FIN-D-6002 EGG-NTA-7205, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8706260243
Download: ML20215M006 (20)

Text

hym W .u D ,M-My.

• SQg ..

^

e. .

- - s-49~ s

.9 gy ~

..h % ;i

^

1 (14 + p ,' a:N EGG-NTA' 7205.<

• 5 My Ap'ril 1987 1

+..  ;..%

,i,-4;nr. "M,j2 '

hnp 3 Mykd *l

,1 gMUp , , 4d y' :U <

% . 1 INFORMAL REPORT

.m iig 1

,..g 4 j" j_ a

,7 ~ ^

n. , yp.}Q.g + ~. jgjjyn

.  :, y f,k 3 g a

Y .

- 4...ptib,naMMb; ' R. . . 3 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-2P r Ji 2.2.1--

@c

.i E/igitiserity ,

EQUIPNENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHcn 4FETY RELATED COMPONENTS: ENRICO FERMI-2 n LUboratoryi 1

[

g( - -

y

, , (y

.;_ 3 Managodl , .. ;- 4,a

,W[, by the U. S."

?[g<

jff Deputment > R. VanderBeek Q

ofEnbhgy; }':p )

f .,

Mf l , A ? kh ' '

+fh) 9 a

p: .. 4 g

];

s 14 ,

F1 N s

~

Jc s y gIH z J g.

% d 4y '

9,%..4y' d

Mig y ffy g 7.,

]!h,.d l

}.:  :.

.h,h'r & ]df.0 .

Sk il t

A. %j .

g

!o ., e@.

w L fjf .

p p ,

9 a e se p

{ W.

i.: .

(ll 'llf ' Yi: Y b; .

'd xa A

y; '

q tl 'l'i .)l 4 'l .

~

'] gf EGnGk.s. '

]a f Prepared for the r g . A ~ .. . ..

1 ,

Q@' **-sar:2"ft"l _ a u S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Na_ DE-ACU7 70/D0/SN g; I L ..i.+ llk;  ;;jp;'

6706260243 DR 970$o3

.+ p ADOCK 05000343

- PDR m lo  ;

q'.

, , , _ - e .-,:.

J.-]

e. ,

b I q I

s I

i DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Govemment. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,' express or implied, or assumes any legal liabihty or responsibility for the occuracy, 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 otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Govemment 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.

i i

-1 l

l 1

I I

1 I

i

('fil .

EGG-NTA-7205 TECHNICAL)EVALUATIONLREPORT

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

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

ENRICO FERMI-2 i

Docket No. 50-341 R. Vander8eek L:

Published April 1987

~ Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

-Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 i

i

^J

. Prepared for the

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission  !

Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6002

, v, , . .-

y':( ,

f i:3 ; &

5s V.

Q . ., ~ . ,

{}' .'

}ly . ', ' ,.

,7-ABSTRACT-3v - This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a-review of the'.submitia'l from-

[ . Enrico Fermi' Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 for conformance to-Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1. ,

j

.]

1 d ,

y.-  :

~:

g. -

b ij]

, ,j 1

.. 1 l

'l

..*'t j i

j l

l 4

Docket No. 50-341 l l

-M I

4

L

.,u

. FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the progrcm 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 Reactor Regulation, Division of PWR Licensing-A, by EG&G Idaho,~ Inc.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded'this work under the authorization B&R 20-19-40-41-3, FIN No. 06002.

.' \

1 2

e i

Docket No. 50-341

L 1 d

i

.)

CONTENTS' j s

.s a

1 g A8STRACTc............................................................... 11. W FOREWORD ................................'.............................. iii

)

H.,, 1.. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

-2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................ 2

..c

^

y

. 3. ; ITEM 2.2.1.- PROGRAM .............................................. '3- j!

J 3.1 Guideline .................................................. 3 l g

3.2 Evaluation ................................................. 3 1 3.3 ' Conclusion ................................................. 4

4. ITEM'2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA ........................... 5 >

'l 4.1 Guideline ................................................... .5. 1 I

4.2 Evaluation ................................................. 5 j 4.3 Conclusion ................................................. 5

5. ITEM 2.2.1!.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM ..................... . 6 5.1 Guideline .................................................. 6 5.2 Evaluation ................................................. 6 5.3 Conclusion............................................'...... 6 l

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING ........... 7 6.1 Guideline ................................................~. 7 6.2 Evaluation ................................................. 7 i i

6.3 Conclusion ................................................. 7

7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ............................... 8 1

1 t

/ L7.1 Guideline .................................................. 8 i

'7.2 Evaluation ................................................. 6 a

7.3 Conclusion ................................................. 8 i

i i

iv {

i e

'l

~

I 8.

ITEM '2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 1

8.1 Guide 11ne................................................... 9 )

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

'8.3~

Conclusion ................................................. _9

9. ITEM'2.2.1.6: "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY". COMP 0NENTS'..................- 10 l 1

9.1 Guideline .................................................. .10 l

J

10. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 11 l r

11. REFERENCES ....................................................... 12 a

b

-: i I

i

..v.

V l

6-CONFORMANCE~TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.2.1--

' EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED-COMPONENTS:

ENRIC0' FERMI -

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

"E 'the1 Salem Nuclear-Power Plant failed to'open upon an automatic. reactor s trip.

signal.from_the reactor protection system. -This< incident was terminated manually!by the _ operator: about. 30 seconds af ter the initiation.of: the automatic trip. signal. !Tne failure'of the circuit breakers was determined

'to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. Prior- 1 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-low level during plant startup. In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincident d y with the automatic' trip.

Following-these-incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive

' Director for Operations (E00), directed the staff to investigate and report ,

m 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. 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)' requested-I (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated .luly 8, 1983 ) all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two I

ATWS events.

1. This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by Detroit Edison, the applicant for Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 for Item 2.2.1.of Generic Letter 83-28. The actual documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of the report.

l 1

p 2.- REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT Item 2.2.1-of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee / applicant to submit., for staff review, a description of their programs for the classification of safety-related equipment that includes supporting information, in~ considerable detail,'as indicated in'the guideline proceding the evaluation of each item within this report.

~As previously stated, each of-the'six items of Item 2.2.1 is 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-its acceptability are drawn.

I l

t I

I

i l

i. 3. ITEM 2.2.1~- PROGRAM 3.1 Guideline Licensees and applicants should confirm that an equipment e- classification program exists which provides assurance that all safety-related components are' designated as safety-related on all plant .

1

'" documents, drawings and procedures and in the information handling system

]

that'is used in accomplishing safety-related activities,ssuch as work j orders for repair, maintenance and surveillance testing and orders for ,

replacement parts. Licensee and applicant responses which address the f features of this program are evaluated in the remainder of this report.

3.2 Evaluation '!

l l

The applicant for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2- 1 responded to these requirements with a submittal dated f November 3, 1983. This submittal described the safety-related equipment classification program presently in place. 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.

The applicant-has provided a description of the equipment i clasd fication program and controls associated with the identification of

. components and parts, activities for safety-related repair, maintenance, f and procurement.  !

The applicant. states that (1) adequate direction in the form of Design  :

Specification from the NSSS vendor identifying safety-related systems and i components, (2) the P&ID's and Design Instructions prepared by Detroit l Edison identifying the safety-related status, (3) designers designating j components and sub-components as safety-related unless there was j justification contrary, and (4) the multi-level reviews to obtain the  :

predetermined safety classification provide assurance that the i safety-related components are adequately and conservatively identified as safety-related.

3

3.3 2 Conclusion-i-

The staff concludes that all the basic requirements of'their equipment

' classification are in place'and address the concerns of Item 2.2.1 of the Generic Letter. The staff has concluded'from the above four' statements ..

lthat all components designated as safety related are properly identified on all appropriate plant documents, procedures, and in_the information ,

handlin'g. system even though the applicant did not provide this direct confirmation. :

0 l

1 l

1 I

A

!- 9 1

4. ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA.

4.1. Guideline 3

'The' criteria for identifying components..as. safety-related should be

. presented., This.should include-description of means for handling; sub-components or parts as well as procedures for initiating the

' identification.of components as safety-related or non-safety related if no-previous classification existed.

4.2 Evaluation-The applicant's response included the criteria for identifying safety-related components. In addition, the applicant notes that.for the purpose of maintenance, operation,.or surveillance activities,. procedures.

have been and continue to be developed for identification of safety-related components. The applicant considers all components associated with a system designated as safety-related to be safety-related.

4.3 Conclusion The applicant'.s response to this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable.

l i

l

5.. ITEM 2.2.'1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING' SYSTEM.

5.1 Guideline.

.The applicant'sidescription of his information handling system for

' ^

component classification should' confirm that a' listing of safety-related-equipment l detailed to'the component level has been compiled thatJincludes ,

such components as switches, motors. relays, transmitters,! pumps,. pipes,

' fittings,? tanks, and valves. The description should show.(a) how the listing wasioriginally prepared; (b) how new safety-related items are entered; (c) how changes lin 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.3 This description should b'e in sufficient detail to allow us to' 't verify.that items (a) through (f) above have or will be met.

5.2' Evaluation i The applicant states that'the information handling system includes equipment and. components. identified in FSAR Section 3.2 Table 3.2-1, in electridal. diagrams, in P&ID's and in equipment lists at the component level;-that these documents are reviewed and approved per Detroit Edison 4 procedures;.and that the equipment and components are identified by Plant -

Identification System.(pIS) numbers. This system'was developed based on '

the classification criteria and has been validated by review and audit. -

'The applicant also states that provisions within the Detroit Edison's I

Quality Assurance program assures that the information handling systems is maintained current and that revisions are controlled.

5.3 Conclusion The applicant's response to this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable. l l

j 6

1

o

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE Of EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING 6.1 Guideline t

.i The applicant's. description should show how station personne1'use the

'- - equipment classification information handling system to determine:

L(a) when an activity is' safety-related, and (b) what procedures are to be used for maintenance work,' routine' surveillance testing.. accomplishment of l design changes, and performance of special tests or studies. We should be- i able to gain confidence from our review that there will be no confusion about when activity is safety-related.

4 6.2 Evaluation l The' applicant states that fermi 2 has approved procedures controlling  ;

. activities for safety-related components during maintenance, surveillance, parts replacements and other activities as defined in the introduction to

.10 CFR.50 Appendix B and that these procedures assure that safety-related components are treated as such during plant activities. The applicant

'further states that the predetermined classification minimizies the potential for errors which might result from determinations made on a case-by-case basis, i

6.3 Conclusion j The applicant's response is considered to be complete and is acceptable.

l i

2 i

8'- l 7

I .{ ,

L 7.~ -

JITEM 2.2.1.4'- MANAGEMENT CONTR01.S L <

'7.1 Guideline

, . Managerial controls that will be used by the applicant to verify thatt the information handling. system for equipment classification has been <-

I ' prepared.according to.the' approved procedures, that its contents have been' validated, that it is'being maintained current, and that it is being used q

1 to determine equipment classification as: intended shall'be described.

~

The

]

description of these controls shallibe in sufficient detail for'the staff

'to' determine that they are in place and are workable. . jl 1

7.2' Evaluation.

The applicant states ~that administrative procedures and.the Detroit' j Edison' quality. assurance program for fermi 2 control the activities and 1 procedures related to the information handling system. -These controls-I govern'the preparation, vali_dation and use of the.information.h'andling .

system. -Furthermore, a complete review of the adequacy of the l administrative controls'is performed by'the Onsite Review Organization.

'This review is stated to assist in ensuring,the routine utilization.of specified management controls by plant personnel, j i

7.3 Conclusion i The applicant's response to this item is considered to be complete and'

'is acceptable.

L t L

8

.l l

dI

8. ITEM 2.2.1.'5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT l

8.1 Guideline The applicant.'s submittals shall show that the' specifications for'

"' procurement of replacement' safety-related components and parts require that  !

verification of design capability and' evidence'of. testing that qualifies-the' components and parts' for service under the expected conditions for the service life specified by the supplier is included.

ll P

8.2. haluation The applicant states that component procurement includes a technical evaluation which assures that the' appropriate design verification and qualification testing is specified for procurement of safety-related-components. The procurement program also specifies that approved

. procedures require a determination of the safety classification and that environmental conditions and'. testing requirements for-the component be identified.

8. 3- Conclusion The applicant's response is considered to be complete and is acceptable.

i e

I 9-l

c)w o

]Ia

.9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "IMPORTANT T0 SAFETY"' COMPONENTS -

9.1' Guideline Generic Letter 83-28 states that the_ licensee's;or' applicant's

. equipment classification ~ program'should' include-(in addition to th'e .!

safety-related components)ia broader; class of components designated-as , ,

. .. 3 "Important'to Safety'." However, since the. generic letter does not require- I the licensee or applicant to furnish this information as part;of their

- response, review of this item will not be performed.

4.

P i

k e

l 10 l

i.

l J

10. CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the applicant's resp >nses to the specific requirements of: Item 2.2.1,-we find that the ir, formation.provided by the l applicant to' resolve the concerns of Item 2.2.1' meets the requirements of  !

Generic Letter 83-28'and is acceptable. Item 2.2.1.6 was not reviewed as noted in Section_9 of this report.

l-(

. \

)

o 1 jl d

e 11 l

I

~I

11. REFERENCES

- 1. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating License,'and Holders of Construction Permits,

" Required Actions 8ased on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events  !

(Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983. '

.,,;n. < ,

'2. Detroit Edison Letter,,W. H. Jens to B..J. Youngblood, NRC, November 3,1983. ' "- i i

1 I

1 l

I

)

I 1

i I

i 12

1

(

U.S.seuCLSAA AtoutAfony 1 ASPo817 Nuescem tassey svey rioc, saw yet a,a,, sears Po8N8 35 -

"$$'# ' BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7205 .)

j 844 INSimuctsoms om TMt mtvinst 4LgAvggLANs 2 Tsttt ANO suersitt .

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

' EQUIPMENT. CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED * *^" ama' co*"o  !

' COMPONENTS: ENRICO FERMI-2 .oN e s. ViA.

- April .l- 1987 wurNo...,

R..VanderBeeki no r via.

j April 1987

. o .A,uNo Aoo in ,,,,, .se c , . ,.oaCm A u.o . u,,,, ,,u .. .l 1 Pet.oa.i o o.oAmeArioN NA EG&G Idaho, Inc. I 7 = oa oaANT Nu.esa  !

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

. D6002 l

10 SPON6antNQ ORoANtJ AfiON NAME ANo MAILING AcoR484 finrauerle Cedri 1la. fYPE oP REPORT Division of PWR Licensing ~- A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation '""'"*"'*""~'**-

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 12 $vd PLEMtNT ARY NOf ts tJ Assim ACT IJdo werss er neses This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of. the submittal from Detroit Edison regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1 for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2.

.. oocuMtNr.Nu ,... . o ,.o.o. onca.,,o,ii .. A,v,Agg1, Unlimited Distribution 16 SECURITY CL A381PICAfloN Ifnos 0e001

. iceNri.isaseoP N. Noeo naus Unc1assified

$Yhns oogertl Unciassified li. NWMGtR o8 8 AGES 14 PR4CE