ML20216B926

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

ML20216B926
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20216B783	List: ML20216B775 ML20216B926
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7632, GL-83-28, TAC-53707, TAC-53708, NUDOCS 8706300184
Download: ML20216B926 (16)

Text

, - .

l

P'l AMyd . . ,[97  % --Xj @Mut

> ; 1'  ;, 2 s v s

s

, ., .a,

.. f9 .

St

-an , p@)gvig% ,.y yi

>S

,no -

r i n :.; y-u E

?

_c. ..a  ?. .f

,'-4 [i v . _ , ,

'r,y/ ~'-1

[c; i 5 !': v

.zjg , #lp ij my ,,, gj a 7, c

s. .

n- c 3 EGG-NTA-7632 gc ,nlx. J 'r,": April 1987 i y~ A-1

. t.

1 + ,.

u5 .-

, ,g < M :!\ *g

1. ,s s

r Q w,2

~ ,

b %~ Of m INFORMAL REPORT

'l 1

'k

'+ .>,

k' ,,.

, , .,'~ .. -'

is '.a n

- 31_

?'"  : National?

}/dahob s

@Yn s CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

. . . . . c' . . .

Engineer /n#3 '

) @h VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-c ,

Laboratory! .

4 e'.,

y y9 RELATED COMPONENTS: QUAD CITIES-1 AND -2 t y L J .4.  ;

,'I '

f

..1 ., ,e .

E 'h l1l:e_1'

.. JManaged ; , i..

m 7 lby the U.S.L  %

Alan C. Udy

' ' ?; Depariment}

y *]%

. ofEnergy[w <

eq~.sg?, .r 3 , l:f

-l-i y ;. . ,  :: p  ; t y y:; ,. 3,. , .jy .

n.; ,.g r

.L,w; iyJ<',- at m k

!$- ' 1 1lr'

.,a > ;3 ne+::

s . .ct

, . 9.a

t. ag  % -

u;, t'

}.

4 y:l ' {.. :, Q%

_ , f : ' ;L3y l:

W n$ p my

- , w 8

- !)'l- g j , ,, p_g

> ~ . .g

w. . .. u } @V D;)

a' ' ) Q. ,

's

5 i.j

} .'t u u .f '

p r_l,,

, aa

)

f.

4 7 ,s a .m ,,

, !y < s q.p. ' ' 'y 1 ,

1 n'l ;g

' 1;f

,n d  ; 3 ) :.1

, r

> 4

@jg I

i- ' 4: , Q) i b'y'e .c' ', -

Q%

l .

f b Y f' f' l l  ? '.

l? '

EBkB O I \ l

'i

l. t e.

o 'm([

i ,H  ; .. .; y 4 .. . . . . e Work performed under: 'a" 4

Prepared for the 1' -

, c oor coarac' T ' .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, No: DE-AC07 7&D01570 ' ,

M z

}; < d x -

, y l 4' , 3,'

n bed 63Od'kEi4 ' $Yd501

, J PDR ADOCK 05000254 t

'" P PDR mse/,7

(

. t i "' . -;

4 l

h

'A 1

DISCLAIMER This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United j 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 liabihty or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any j information, apparatus, product or process disclosed. or represents that its use would not infringe pnvately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial j product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, rnanufacturer, or otherwise. i does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favonng by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of .

I authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

i i

I l

4 1

l u

- 1 l

l l

l l

/

n.

,e 1

II -

' EGG-NTA-7632 5

..e TECHNICAL EVALUATION, REPORT

)

i m.

CONFORMANCE TO GENERICLLETTER-83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--

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

, QUAD CITIES-1 AND.-2.

Docket Nos.'50-254/50-265 Alan C. Udy

. .e Published April.1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory l EG&G Idaho, Inc. .!

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 .)

Prepared for the f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

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

FIN No. D6001

'1 1

l I

I i

1 l

)

] l l

i i

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report prevides a review of the submittals from Commonwealth Edison for the Quad Cities Station regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2.

i l

f I

l l

c 1

Docket Nos. 50-254/50-265 TAC Nos. 53707/53708 l ii l

l

k. '

I l l

j l

FOREWORD ,

.This report is supplied as part of.the program.for. evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter l83-28, " 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.,- NRR and I&E Support Branch.  :

' The U.S. Nudlaar Regulatory Commission funded.this work under the authorization B&R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. 06001.

i i

l Docket Nos. 50-254/50-265 TAC Nos. 53707/53708 - i iii i

, CONTENTS i 4

_i - 1 ABSTRACT .............................................................. ii.

{'

FOREWORD .............................................................. iii 1

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

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

3. I TEM 2. 2. 2 - P ROG RAM DESCRI PTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 {

O- .

I' 3 .- 1 Guideline .................................................. 3 3.2 ~ Evaluation ................................................. 3 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. 4 j

'4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED ...................................................... 5 4.1' Guideline ..................................... ............ 5 4.2. Evaluation ................................................. 5 1

4. 3 - Conclusion .... .'........................................... 6

]

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS THAT PROVIDE u

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

-7 l

5.1 ' Guideline .................................................. 7- l 5.2 Evaluation ............ ....................................

. 7 (

~

5.3 Conclusion ................................................. 7

6. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 8 l 1

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

i 4

j i

1 O

e iv )

1 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, % TEM 2.2.2--  !

~

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: i QUAD CITIES-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  !

s signal from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated l 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 relate'd to the . sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment. P.ri or

~

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 generator low-low level during plant startup. In-this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip. j Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director 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 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) i 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 Commonwealth Edison, the licensee for the Quad Cities Station, for Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents reviewed as a part of i

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

i l

1

I

2. REVfEU CONTENT.AND FORMAT j l

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 safe'ty-related components including supporting information, in considerable detail, as indicated in_ the .

guideline section' for each case within this report. .

i a  !

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

pursued, treat cases where such contact cannot practically be established, i and establish responsibilities of-licensees / applicants and vendors that d provide service on< safety-related components or equipment. I 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- j of the licensee or applicant for their vendor interface program for . j safety-related components and equipment are drawn.

i 4

l 2

, 3 ~~ V

~3. ITEM'2.2.2'- PROGRAM DESCRIPTION' 3.1 Guideline-The licensee or applicant response should describe their program for

., establishing and maintainingsinterfaces with vendors of safety-related Lcomponents which~ ensures that vendors are contacted on a periodic basis and

- .that receipt of: vendor equipment technical information (ETI) is acknowledged or otherwise verified.

A This program description 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 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 and complete and that it is incorporated into plant operating, maintenance and test precedures as is appropriate.

3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the Quad Cities Station responded to these  !

requirements with submittals dated November.5, 1983,2 February 29, 1984,3 June 1, 1984,4 and June 28, 1985.6 These submittals include i information that describe 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 j audit upon request. We have reviewed this information and note the following. j

. The licensee's responses state that they actively participate in the Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC). program. This program, titled ;

Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program-(VETIP), includes interaction {

with the NSSS vendor. Typical NSSS vendor contact with the licensee  ;

includes regular meetings and service bulletins and advisories. The licensee also states that procedures to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program  !

3 <

i - . . -

are in place'as;of July.1, 1905. This_ includes NSSS. vendor contact end Edirect. interaction with other vendors. The licensee's Nuclear Stations Division issued a directive, NSDD-M02, as the overall control procedure to handle vendor technical 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 1

1 9

9 1

4

]

4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR' INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BEl ESTABLISHED ,

i 4.1 Guideline l

The 1.icensee/ applicant' response should describe their program for ,

compensating for.the lack of a formal vendor interface where such an i interface cannot be practicably established. This program may reference ke the NUTAC/VETIP program, as described in INP0 84-010, issued in )

March 1984. If the NUTAC/VETIPl program is referenced, the response should~

describe how procedures were revised to properly control and implement this l program and to. incorporate-the program enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the.NUTAC/VETIP. report. It should-also be noted that the

' lack-of either a formal interface with each vendor-of safety-related equipment or a program to periodically 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 j quality assurance in.accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. l 4.2 Evaluation The licensee's submittals provided a brief description of the vendor interface program. Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program.

The licensee states that plant instructions and procedures are currently in place to assure that the VETIP program '.s properly controlled and implemented. 1 VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment i problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) 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 i

i l

l 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 4 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, 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 i evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures.

i I

4.3 Conclusion 1 I

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 J 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 6r influence the implementation of )

I these recommendations.  !

)

1 e

I 6

l

5.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR 1

THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT 5.1 Guideline.

i The licensee / applicant response should verify that the responsibilities of the licensee or applicant and vendors.that provide

- service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of applicable . instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment 1 are provided. )

I 5.2 Evaluation i l

i The 1.icensee's responses commit to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program.~

They further state that their present and planned future practices and activities adequately implement this program. The VETIP program includes

- implementation procedures for.the internal handling of vendor services.

5.3 Conclusion We find the licensee's commitment to implement the VETIP recommendations acceptable, with the understanding that the licensee's commitment includes the objective for " Internal Handling of Vendor Services" described on page 23 of the March 1994 NUTAC report.

I l

l 9

0 7

6. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for Quad Cities-1 and -2, we find that the licensee's' interface program with its NSSS supplier and with vendors of

.other. safety-related equipment, 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 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.  ;

l l

l l

8 I

l j

7. REFERENCES

1. Letter, NRC (D. G. ' Eisenhut), to all 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, 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),

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

4. Letter, Commonwealth Edison (P. L. Barnes) t'o NRC (H. R. Denton),

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

June 1, 1984.

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

" Supplement Response to Generic Letter No. 83-28, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," June 28, 1985.

6. Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, INPO 84-010.

4 9

l alAC Pom. .as - U.S. 8suCLBAR A8oWLAfollY CoadRMABios, t atPoRT NUMSGR (AugmeWer Troc,saw vet No,,rsays b' ','- d slauCGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7632

$48 IN$TRUCfloN4 om int Atytalt 3 fiTLS ANQ SUSIIT LE . .

J LEAVG SLANel

'CONFORMANCE T0 GENERIC LETTER 83-28,' ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY- 3 RELATED COMPONENTS:

• * ^ " aoa ' *"' "

• QUAD CITIES-1 AND -2~ moNr , . A. ],

l Apri1 L

- u,, o. .., 1987 j Alan C. Udy . oAn .. 1,mv.o J oo r., veA.

! J April 1987 '

7

• G48onusNo omGANs2AiloN Naast ANo MacLINo AoomtSS #saenteto Cast 8 emoJ4CT/TAastrupo#K WNif NuMeta i

EG&G'. Idaho, Inc.

P. 0. Box 1625 e ** oa oaaar avassa Idaho Falls, ID 83415

.D6001 io oN.o No o.oa Ar.oN NA.c ANo MA.u o Aeoa.m u se e , ii. rvn o, aseoar 1

Division of PWR Licensing - A'

< .0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *"a'"**'a*"*****'

Washington, DC 20555 12 SUPPLEMtNT ARv NOf ts tJ AS$f R ACT (200 we,es er msJ This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the  !

Commonwealth Edison' Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Quad Cities-1 and -2. 1 i'

e to coCVutNTaNaLv6i8 e a t t wongs,og &Cmirf OMS 16 AvatLA8tuiv IT ATG 84t NT Unlimited Distribution 16 sacyniTv CLAS$17lCAYloN t ra., o,,,o e soeNiisisasioreN emoto unus Unclassified t ra,, ,.wu  !

Unciassified 17 NUM$tR oS PAGl$

i3 emics I