ML20235L915
| ML20235L915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235L904 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7658, GL-83-28, TAC-53720, NUDOCS 8707160870 | |
| Download: ML20235L915 (16) | |
Text
'
pe 1
.2 5
4 3
EGG-NTA-7658 June 1987 j:
w l
INFORMAL REPORT isi Idaho.
o
> Nationa/J CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-Engineering, RELATED COMP 0NENTS:
SUMMER Laboraf0fy
. Managed
' by the U. S. -
Alan C. Udy
. Department
.ofEnergV
- \\
y q.
\\i s
I l
L{l l
e, Vs.
9 EGcGiun.
p Prepared for the
- ToTg;"f;' -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION No. DE-AC07-761001570 b
. p, kok7 70 0706,$ '
o a
\\
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, appar3tus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not intnnge pnvately owned nghts. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or impiv its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency tnereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessanly state cr reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, l
l-EGG-NTA-7658 l
f L
1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
SUMMER i
l Docket No. 50-395 Alan C. Udy Published June 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
i I
Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6001 l
l
l I
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of :ie submittals from the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company regarding conformance to Generic. Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station.
Docket No. 50-395 TAC No. 53720 ii l
d
1 1'
FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is being i
conducted for the.V.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering and System Technology, by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&E Support Branch.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the authorization B&R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. 06001.
i
)
Docket No. 50-395 TAC No. 53720 iii j
)
CONTENTS i
ABSTRACT..........................................................
ii FOREWORD.............................................................
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION...................................................
1 2.
REVIEW' CONTENT AND FORMAT 2
3.
ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.................................
3 3.1 Guideline....
3 3.2 Evaluation................................................
3 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 VENDORS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT..............................
7 5.1 Guiaeline.................................................
7 5.2 Evaluation..............................................
7 5.3 Conclusion.........................
7 6.
CONCLUSION..................
8 7.
REFERENCES 9
t e
e l
l iv 1
}
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
Vp{0OR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
4 SUMMER s
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 manually by the operator ab'ut 30 seconds after the initiation of the o
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 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.
Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (E00), 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) 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 thi; generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.
This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, the licensee for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 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.
1 L
2.
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 j
~
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 that provide service on safety-related components or equipment.
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 W
s 2
I l
l l
l 3.
ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Guideline The licensee or applicant response should describe their program for establishi.ng 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 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 procedures as is appropriate.
3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station., responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1982,2 February 29, 1984,3 April 30, 1984 and September 28, 1984.5 These 4
submittals include information that describes their vendor interface programs.
In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it was assumed that the information and documentation supr,orting this program 1s available for audit upon request. We have reviewad the information submitted 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
NSSS vendor (Westinghouse) contact with the licensee includes receipted technical bulletins and annual listings of issued bulletins.
Information i
1 from vendors of other safety-related equipment is reported to be received on a voluntary or on an as requested basis.
Technical information is also obtained from the Westinghouse Owners Group.
The licensee also states that revisions to existing procedures to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program were to be in place by January 1985.
One of the VETIP implementation responsibilities is to seek assistance and equipment technical information from the vendors of safety-related 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, the guidelines for Section 2.2.2 of the generic letter state that formal vendor interfaces should be established with vendors besides the NSSS vendor.
The licensee has not indicated that any formal interface program has been established with vendors other than the NSSS vendor.
3.3 Conclusion We concluce that, with the exception of interaction with the vendors of other safety-related equipment, the licensee's response regarding program description is complete and, therefore, 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 valva operators) to facilitate the exchange of current technical information.
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.
W 4
4.
PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED 4.1 Guideline
.The licensee / applicant response should describe their program for
' 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 INPO 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.
The use of the NUTAC/VETIP program, instead'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 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.
4.2 Evaluation The licensee 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 to have been revised by January 1985 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 (NPRDS) and the j
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, 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 I
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, as part of his implementation of the NUTAC/VETIP program, evaluates the information to determine applicability to the facility.
This evaluation is then documented and I
corrective actions taken as determined necessary.
The receipt, the review, the documentation and the filing of this equipment technical information is tracked by one single organization within the utility's organization.
The licensee's response states that procedures to review and evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures will have been revised by January 1985.
4.3 Conclusion 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.
e 6
5.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT r
5.1 Guideline 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 are provided.
5.2 Evaluation The licensee's response commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program.
The VETIP guidelines include implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services. The licensee reports that safety-related vendor services are done under approved Quality Services Procedures or Quality Assurance approved vendor programs.
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.
e 7
6.
CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for Virgil C. Summer, we find that the licensee's interface program with its NSSS supplier (but not with vendors of other safety-related equipment), its internal handling of p
vendor-supplied services, along with the licensee's commitment to implement t
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 report to the extent that the licensee can control or influence such enhancements.
U 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.
In the case of l
the diesel generator and safety-related switchgear vendors, a formal interface, such as that established with the NSSS vendor, should be I
established, if practicable.
l l
e 8
L-_
l l
l i
(
l 7.
REFERENCES l
I 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, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (O. W. Dixon, Jr.) to NRC (H. R. Denton), " Generic Letter 83-28," November 4, 1983.
3.
Letter, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (O. W. Dixon, Jr.) to NRC (H. R. Denton), " Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2 Salem ATWS Events," February 29, 1984.
4.
Letter, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (O. W. Dixon, Jr.) to NRC (H. R. Denton), " Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2 Salem ATWS Events," April 30, 1984.
5.
Letter, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (O. W. Dixon, Jr.) to NRC (H. R. Denton), " Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2,"
September 28, 1984.
6.
Vendor Eouipment Technical Information Prooram, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, INPO 84-010.
l 9
9
)
WC Fom. 335 U.S NUCLEA. a50VLAfoa v Cotatst054oas i afront Numeen sampass ey Troc. aaa vor me,.# ears (2 848
',"', ' 0'-
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7658
/o 32
$tt IN51auCfloN5 eN T&st a(vgR$$
J fit LE AND 8v01sT Lt J Lgave gLANet CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VEND 0R INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL.0THER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: SUMMER-
' o^ " "oa ' co" < " o j
oo r.
..Aa June
.1987
. Aur o m -
l
- Alan C. Udy
,oAn..,o 1,.v.o j
v Aa oo r.,
June 1987
,no.o... oo.ca izafioN,....ANo.A.L,NoAoo.
u,,,i,.
e.C
., oaCrnAa,.oa.u 1No..
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
P. O. Box.1625 e em ca caANr Nu= sea Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001 to $PON50niNG oRGANi2 ATioN 8eAME AND MaagtNG AoomtES (sorts,aple Cases tie Typg op agpoaf Division of Engineering & System Technology.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Peaioo coveaso <,,~.-. --,
k!ashington, DC 20555 l
12 $UPPLEMENT AMV NOTES IJ AS$TR ACT f/fJ0 m e. ' eses This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station.
14 o0CUMt NT ANAL'&l5 e a t
- WORD 6 'of $Casef oi45 16 AV As at Lif v Un1imited Distribution is SEcuma7v CL AS$18,CAfloN t tnes oeper
..o NT,,,eas,o,iN.Noeo ve...
Unclassified i r~,
Unclassified r# NWM8tR of P AGs!5 16 #aict I
l