ML20215M212

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

ML20215M212
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	05/31/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20215M153	List: ML20215M151 ML20215M212
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7589, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8706260314
Download: ML20215M212 (16)

Text

v m , ,

y 35 --- -- 7

,7; s 5p ,

> . ,< .:u .; . ',

.:a 4:,, 1 jg ' '- ..,.y

', , p + :]

6 n 1

- (

[, > i L

d EGG-NTA-7589

$ May 1987

- g

< ', 9 i

, INFORMAL REPORT t-

. 'i -. l r

'h .

. ,Tyg,g ,g, y .

Nationsid a.f % ,

D,,

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

Engineering l f7 ~ s VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-1 Laboratory jf -

'/ RELATED COMPONENTS: HATCH-1 AND -2 4 g )

,, $. \

. ManagedJ

w. . ,

2

. ' by.the U S. ..

Departmenti

~

Alan C. Udy

^ y; JofEnerg9 -

i a i i u:-j Y

, '! \

.' l'i bj e s

' )Y "j

~

n 3 4 11 . p a

b J

m J

zit j .

4 a

c, p l.) .i t 5 3

' i gggg,j ib x -

.a 4 Prepared for the Work performedunder :

-n 33tJl/#3Y/ !

d*

II.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,.....,,,..s. ,

.-e.., ib 'k rv - ~

. 8706260314 870'*5'*'01 PDR ADOCK 05000321 PDR-

p

. , , , , ,. g w. 3 A >

_____ _j

7--- .. . .

l DISCLAIMER  !

This book was p epared as an account of work sponsored by an egency of the' United States Government. Neither the United States Govemment not any agency thereof, '

not any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completencas, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, prodi.ct or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not ininnge privately owned ngnts. 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 Stetes Government 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.

i l

e i

EGG-NTA-7589 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

HATCH-1 AND -2 Docket Nos. 50-321/50-366 i

Alan C Udy Published May 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 l

Prepared for the l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C. 20555 Under 00E Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. 06001

e ABSTRACT  ;

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

the Georgia Power Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, l Item 2.2.2, for Units 1 and 2 of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant.

-l

)

l Docket Nos. 50-321/50-366 TAC Nos. 53678/53679  !

1 ii 1

{}

j l

.. l FOREWORD -l 1

-This report is supplied as part of the program,for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic.' Letter 83-28, " Required' Actions l Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This: work is being '

conducted for.the.V.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.

1 1

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funde:i this work under the authorization:B&R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. D6001.. I l

+

Docket'Nos. 50-321/50-366~

TAC Nos.=53678/53679 iii ,

CONTENTS I l

l l

A B S T RA C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 l

FOREWORD ......................... ................................ ... iii )

1. INTRODUCTION ........ ............................ ............... 1 l

, 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................ 2

3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................. 3 l

3.1 Guideline ....................................... .... ..... 3 3.2 Evaluation ........... ..................................... 3 l 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. 4 l

4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED ................................................ ..... 5 l 4.1 Guideline ... ................. ............................ 5 4.2 Evaluation ................................................. 5 j 4.3 Conclusion ................................................. 6 l l

l

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT ............ ................. 7 l

1 5.1 Guideline .................................................. 7 1 5.2 Evaluation ........ ........................................ 7 l 5.3 Conclusion ................................................. 7

6. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 8 l l

l

7. REFERENCES ....................................................... 9 l l

I iv

1 i

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

1 VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: l HATCH-1 AND -2

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 signal from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated l l

manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the  !

1 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 l

Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam j 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 Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive l Director for Operations (ED0), 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 )

~

generic irtplications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in i 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 inalyses of these two ATWS events.

This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Georgia

, Power Company, the licensee for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, for Item 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

i 4

+ 2. -REVIES 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 I

interfacing with the vendors of all safety-r' elated components including -t su'pporting information, in considerable detail, as indicated in the gu'ideline section for each case within this report. -

l These guidelines treat cases where direct. vendor contact. programs are-

• 1 pursued, treat cases where.such contact.cannot practically be established, l j

\

and establish responsibilities of licensees / applicants and . vendors that l

provide service on safety-related components or equipment.

l As previously indicated, the cases of Item 2.2.2 are evaluated in a j separate section in which the guideline is presented; an evaluation of the l licensee's/ applicant's response is made; and conclusions about the programs )

of the licensee or 'applican't for their vendor interface program for -

safety-related components and equipment are drawn. i l

e I

i 2

1 I

l

3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Guideline l

t 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 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 l l

safety-related components such as diesel generators, electrical switchgear, I 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 verify that controlled procedures exist for handling this vendor technical information which ensure that it is kept current ar,d complete and that it is incorporated into plant operating, maintenance and test procedures as is appropriate.

3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 7, 1983,2 February 29, 1984 3 and June 3, 1985.4 These submittals include 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 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 3'

i NSSS vendor contact with the licensee includes General Electric Service  !

Information Letters, 10 CFR 21 reporting, urgent communication (telex, l i

telecopy, etc.), Service Advice Letters, Turbine Information Letters and application information documents. A General Electric operations engineer is assigned to the plant site. Additionally, the. licensee states a similar interface exists for Colt Industries (the diesel generator vendor), and Bechtel and Southern Company Services (the architect engineers). The ,

licensee states that vendor technical information.is controlled by' )

procedures that govern receipt, review, revision and audit of controlled .

copies. Procedures also govern the update of plant manuals and procedures with any vendor technical information. The licensee states that new or revised procedures to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program were implemented in January.1985.

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

1 l

i i

)

e e

a

I J

4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT l

PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED I 4.1 Guideline 1

l The licensee / applicant response should. describe their program for l 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 INP0 84-010, issued in 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 enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP report. It should also be noted that the l lack of either a formal interface with each vendor of safety-related )

equipment or a program to periodically contact each vendor of 1

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 l quality assurance in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.

4.2 Evaluation In References 2, 3 and 4, the licensee provided a brief description of the vendor interface program. Their description references'.the NUTAC/VETIP program. The licensce 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 problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPROS) and the 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.

5-

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 (INPO) 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, INP0 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 ,

i I

-determine applicability to the facility. This evaluati.on-is documented and corrective actions are taken as' determined.necessary.

l 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 response to this concern is adequate and j acceptable. This finding is based on the understanding that the licensee's  ;

commitment to implement the VETIP program'inc hdes 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.

h l

l l

l l

6 l l

1 j

i

-i l

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR i THAT-PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT l 5.1 Guideline 3

. The licensee / applicant response should verify that the q

) responsibilities of the licensee or applicant and vendors that provide l

• 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 outlines these controls as part of the requisition of services. The licensee also audits the quality assurance program of any

~

vendor that provides safety-related equipment or services. I l

l 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.

]

m 7

l l

l l

6. CONCLUSION l

Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for Hatch-1 and -2, 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 NUTAC/VETIP program includes the enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the March 1984 report to the extent that the licensee can control or influence such enhancements. ,

1 l

l i

l l

l l

I e

4 8

7. REFERENCES

1. Letter, NRC (O. G. Eisenhut), to a'll 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, Georgia Power Company (L. T. Gucwa) to NRC (J. F. Stolz),

" Status Report on Salem Generic Requirements," November 7, 1983, NED-83-546. (

)

3. Letter, Georgia Power Company (L. T. Gucwa) to NRC (J. F. Stolz),

" Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Salem Requirements,"

February 29, 1984, NED-84-054.

4. Letter, Georgia Power Company (L. T. Gucwa) to NRC (J. G. Stolz),

" Response to Request for Additional Information Following Staff Review of Responses to Generic Letter 83-28 (Salem Requirements),"

June 3, 1985, NED-85-401, 0622y.

I

5. Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task )

Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, I INPO 84-010. I l

l l

e 9

1 k

I R480mT Nuwstm (Assw ay TIOC. eaa vor No)says seaC 70AM 3J5 U.S. NUCLSAA ARGULAf 04v ComasissaoM 12 846

'i;*,"@ BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHkET EGG-NTA-7589 Sit IN3f RUCfl0NS ON T 6 mtVtRSt 1 TITLE ANO Sueletti J Llavt SL Ahst CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-4 oArt atacar CoM'urto RELATED COMPONENTS: HATCH-1 AND -2 mon , >. ,eAn

• l

. Aur oais, May 1987 Alan C. Udy . oArt.t.oari vio McNsN , tan May l 1987 1 4 PROJECT / TASK /wromst uni, NUMeta 7 etR80AMING QRGAN12 AflON NAMt ANO Mat (ING ADDatSS ffar#wa te Comt EG&G Idaho, Inc.

• *iN oa caANr hvMeta P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001 1

J 10 $PONSOR,NQ QRQAN14ATION NAME AND MAILING ADonts$ (far#weer de Cases 11a TYPE OF REPORT Division of PWR Licensing - A l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . ,taioo Covlato <,a.,v. .-, l Washington, DC 20555 l

l 12 $UPPttutN T ARY NOTel i

l u A.s r Ac t <= . .r . ,

This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Georgia Power Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Hatch-1 i 1

and -2.

e

, to 00Cuut N T AN A6vst3 e atinom05 Ot5Cmdfods is AvangAsigit y .

$fAffMtNT Unlimited Di str'ibution 16 $4Cumity CL At317lCAf TON 17not papel

. otNr,,,tms,o,8N tNoto team $ Unclassified ITnn recorra Unclassified i, ~uM.t. o. , Ao ts it PRICS