ML20215M390

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

ML20215M390
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20215M366	List: ML20215M363 ML20215M390
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7579, GL-83-28, TAC-53674, NUDOCS 8706260380
Download: ML20215M390 (16)

Text

w llL ' ff? m .s,.

e' -

o s

Ni-

.. e m6m d- . -

\<' ,.[,g ^ >

"l ',,

Jl .f x , ,r

' .. ?

EGG-NTA-7579

' 4' , April 1987

=v I \

J f .1

's  ;

.,; .j M.;t t 5

Y 4' Y t.

a. ,

INFORMAL REPORT

,;i a

). \-

,-n. ...

' - e ' i ,

<, ' $- . yl ,3 ,; ldah0T L:A: : a . .. . , .

, ,, Nationa/6 4 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

Engineering ;; VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-4 RELATED COMPONENTS: FORT ST. VRAIN

.Laboratory:? -

9:

,M ' Y YManaged; M

/.by the US.J Alan C. Udy

+_ Department.J R

l (ofEnergy: . r,

, 2

.a

,' f }, , a i, 'A

/ ', , We-; & ?j s.i. ,

L ,

AV ,

?: ' u, h; ,

3 x4 ,

ll[

.j(. r  ;+ i 7[ _

u.; ,

q c.: a g ,

, /' , ';

s

s. .

,, .9

((p~: ,-. ,

.,r pr 3; ,

y

..g r s , e ..

t

.c 1

D *

.i; r 4 y . < :i M vy- 4

.. 'l l1 lmI  ; gGgGi j M

"[>

Prepared for the yMl M *'""g'"g?"fl:

NolDE 4C0746fD01570 '

o, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

.s . .~ a .. ,;nw_ , . . , .a 8706260380 870501 lj PDR ADOCK 05000267 P Pon

'y,:r,v ip . v., s g. ,

a.;

j. s .q . s 1 n.-.

y. , ..

'i' i

.,.y, jf i)

K >

3s 4 j.

I i l.

)

l e

1

-l

- i 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 .

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 rignts. 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 i

by the United States 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

I EGG-NTA-7579 i TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

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

'. VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

FORT ST. VRAIN i

l Docket No. 50-267 l i

Alan C. Udy i

Published April 1987 l

i Idaho National Engineering Laboratory  ;

EG&G Idaho, Inc.  !

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 i 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

l l

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittal from the Public Service Company of Colorado regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station.

~

1 Docket Nos 50-267 I TAC No. 53674 l

ii

\

W j

.c

.j j

1 1

3 i

FOREWORD l

-This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating  :

1icensee/ applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions i 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.

i The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work .under the

- authorization B&R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN.No. D6001.

4 Docket No. 50-267 TAC No. 53674 .

iii 8 . . . . . . . . , . . . .. . . . .

f .

i.

L CONTENTS-1 ABSTRACT ..... .....................-.......... ......................... 11-

' FOREWORD .............................................................. iii-11 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 2.: REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ......................................... .

2 ,

i

3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................. 3 3.1. Guideline .................................................. 3  !

~3.2 . Evaluation ................................................. 3 i 3.3 Conclusion ......................................... ....... 4

4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY.BE

-ESTABLISHED ................... .................................. 5

'4.1- Guideline ................................................... 5 .

4.2 Evaluation ................................................ 5 4.3 - Conclusion ................................................. 6

'5.. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND'VEN00RS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT .............................. 7 )

5.1 . Guideline .................................................. 7-5 '. 2 ' Evaluation ................................................. 7 5.3 Conclusion .................................................

7

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

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

.l '

i I

1 Q

.. l 1

l l

l iv

4 1.

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

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL-OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

L FORT ST. VRAIN

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 .j manually.by the operator about 30 secondc after the initiation of the l

automatic trip signal. The-failure of.the circuit breakers was determined l to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. Prior l to this incident, on February 22, 1983, at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuriear '

Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was: generated based on steam generator low-low level during plant startup. In.this case, the reactor i 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 (EDO), directed the NRC st3.ff to investigate 'and j report on the generic implications of these occurre1ces at Unit 1 of the j 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, 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. .;

l This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Public l j Service Company of Colorado, the licensee for the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station, 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.

i 1 l l

1

2. REVIEU 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'. ,

l t

1' 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. i 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..

l .-

i I

S 2

'3.; ITEM 2.272L- PROGRAM DESCRIPTION' j

l 3.1 Guideline .j i

The licensee or applicant respo'nse'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 j

' ~

e that receipt of' vendor equipment tech'nical information (ETI).is acknowledged j l

or' otherwise verified. J

~This program descr'iption 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 o'perators, to facilitate the exchange of, current

~

technical in. formation. The description should verify 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. 1 q

J 3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1983 2

'and June 12, 1985.3 These submittals include information that describes their past and current vendor interface programs. In the' review of the 'l licensee's response to this~ item, it was assumed that the information and -l

' documentation supporting this program is available for audit upon request. 'i We have reviewed this information and note the following.

i 4

4 i

3 l

1

.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. The licensee also states that equipment technical information (ETI) will be obtained whenever direct interaction with a vendor would be necessary or beneficial. This is in accordance with the requirements of the -

VETIP program. However, the licensee has not described a program of regular i periodic contact with the NSSS vendor nor with the vendors'of other safety-related equipment. The licensee states that controls over the ETI will ensure its dissemination to appropriate personnel and the updating of operating and maintenance manuals and procedures.

One of. the VETIP implementation responsibilities is to seek assistance and equipment technical information from the vendors of safety-related i equipment (other than the NSSS vendor) when the licensee's evaluation of an equipment problem or an equipment technical information problem concludes that such interaction is necessary or would be beneficial. The licensee states that they' comply with this NUTAC implementation requirement.

However, Section'2.2.2 of the generic letter states that formal vendor f interfaces should be established with vendors besides the NSSS vendor. The licensee has not indicated that any formal interface program has been j established with the NSSS vendor nor with vendors of other safety-related t equipment.

3.3 Conclusion We conclude that, with the exception of interaction with the NSSS vendor and with vendors of other safety-related equipment, the licensee's response regarding program description is acceptable. The licensee should establish a program to periodically contact vendors of key components (such as auxiliary feedwater pumps, safety-related batteries, ECCS pumps and -

safety-related valve operators) to facilitate the exchange of current technical information. A formal interface with the NSSS vnedor should be established. In the case of the diesel generator and safety-related electrical switchgear vendors, the licensee should establish a formal interface similar to that with the NSSS vendor, if practicable.

4

1 l

4. iPROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT.  ;

h PRACTICABLY' BE ESTABLISHED q 4.1 Guideline The . licensee / applicant' response should describe their program for.. .4

(* compensating for the lack of a formal vendor interface where-such an 4 interface cannot be' practicably established. This program may reference 1 l

the NUTAC/VETIP prog' ram, as described in INPO 84-010, issued in l 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 I

. lack of either a formal interface with:each vendor of safety-related equipment or'a program to periodicelly contact each vendor of safety-related' equipment will.not relieve the licensee / applicant of his responsibility to obtain. appropriate vendor instructions and information j 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.  !

l 4.2 Evaluation

.i

.The' licensee provided a brief description of the vendor interface I program. .Their description references the' I:UTAC/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..

4 VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment j problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and the i 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. 4 5

i i

Through participation in the NPRDS program,cthe licensee submits engineering;information,-failure _ reports and operating histories for review .

under the SEE-IN program. Through the SEE-IN program, the Institute of-1 Nuclear Power-Operations (INP0) reviews nuclear plant events _that have been j reported.through the.NPRDS programs, through Nuclear Network and by NRC )

reports. Based on the significance of the event, as determined by the I

. screening review, INPO issues a. summary report to all utilities outlining ,

l ,

the cause of the event and related problems. This report also recommends ,

practical' corrective actions. These reports are issued in Significant -

Event Reports, in 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 now exist to review and evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures, i

4.3 Conclusion j 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.

i t

i

- l i

i 5 6

_____________m

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 j

• service on safety related equipment are defined such that control of )

applicable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment I are provided. )

5.2 Evaluation l l

The licensee's response commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program. 1 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.

5.3 Conclusion We find the licensee's commitment to implement the VET 1P recommendations _ acceptable, with the understanding that the licensee's commitment includes the objective for " Internal Handling of Vendor l Services" described on page 23 of the March 1984 NUTAC report.

6 d

7

~

n . . ..

a.; 1

6. CONCLUSION i

t Based 'onicur: review of the -licensee's response to' the specific q requirement's of. item 2=.2.2:for Fort St. Vrain,-we find that the licensee's I 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 ' 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.

<f .

.In addition, the licensee shoul.d establish a program to periodically-

~

contact the NSSS' supplier.and vendors of key components (such as feedwater  !

pumps,' safety-related batteries, ECCS pumps and. safety-related valve operators)'to facilitate.the exchange of current technical-information. In the case.of the diesel generator and safety-related switchgear vendors, a j formal interface,'such as that established with the NSSS vendor, should be. '!

established, if practicable.

-l 1

4 e i i

c i , b l

1 8

i

.j

[]$4

7. RFFERENCES 1 :. Letter, NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), to all Licensees'of-Operating Reactors, L Applicants for.0perating . License, and Holders of Construction Permits,

" Required Actions 1 Based on Generic Implications'of Salem ATWS Events-(Generic' Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.

t. .

2. Letter, Public . Service Company of . Colorado (O. R. Lee) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), " Response to Generic Letter 83-28,"

November 4,11983,.P-83359.

i

's:

3. Letter, Public Service Company of Colorado (J. W. Gahm) to NRC (E. H. Johnson), " Response to Generic Letter 83-28," June 12, 1985, P-85204.  ;

' 4. Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task  !

Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 196:5,  ;

INP0 84-010. q l

i 1

l 1

4: i l'

9 e <

ae ,oa* 3. v. Nuca aa.outaroayco .u.om i a eoar No .a .... ., r,oc. - v., N.. ,,,.,,

l i

8 BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7579 hb' .UC160NS oN 'M8 atviaSE 8446N11 3L8.v0SL.NM 2 firLt.NoSUGI1768  ;

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.2--  !

^ VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL'OTHER SAFETY- i 4 o.n apoar co=Pareo 4 RELATED COMPONENTS: FORT ST. VRAIN

..oN1- vs..

l i tur oaint .

April 1987 Alan C. Udy . o.n nuoar .u.o

.oNrN YEAa April l 1987

, ,. ,o..,No oaa.4,z., ion ... .No ...L No .ooa.n ,, ,,,. e. c , . ,noacm.a.onn u,,i1 Nuon. 3 EG&G Idaho, Inc.

P. O. Box 1625 . . N oa ca.Nr =v na l

Idaho Falls ID 83415 D6001 10 SPoN$oa,NQ Ono.N.z.1 ION N.M6 .No M.. LING.oont$$ tiern,eirle casps, tia. TYPt op atPoar j

. Division of PWR Licensing - A  !

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . esaioo coveaso <,-~ .-,  !'

. Washington, DC 20555-i 13 SUPPLEMENr.av Nort8 l

,2 .or .c t ,m , . ,

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

Service' Company of Colorado regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Fort St. Vrain.  ;

l i

\

l

( .. oocv t 1.N.s ,... . . maao .onca,,10 . .........s,1, ,

! y Sr.TtM8Nr '

L Unlimited Distribution-16 SECuasty CL.531,1CArioN t Tnan oere,

< . o Nr,. .as,o,e n eso n a s Unclassified  ;

<r,.,.,,,

Unc1assified 17 NWMeta oF P.ots 14 Palc6 i- l