ML20235L998
| ML20235L998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235L991 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7663, GL-83-28, TAC-53725, NUDOCS 8707170018 | |
| Download: ML20235L998 (16) | |
Text
p .-. -
m 3, n
4 y
t 4 " * '
.l , ,T f
~ yj
> i
.y w :s m .\
'o EGG-NTA-7663 E -
'ia June 1987
- , p
. g
...S j; :' ..
l l ; INFORMAL REPORT l1 ,
9
- Q r >> s m,
4
'IdahoI ,
A CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
?1
.G-Nationaff .. .
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-
, Engineenny ,
- t 7 RELATED COMPONENTS: TROJAN lLaboratoryF -
} ~~
. Managed:. !
by the US, Alan C. Udy Department'. , f ,
of Energf.. g ',
>f3
\
.f.',
,l.
A s
., i I'k
, . .g 5
l
- . . +,
4
'a I '
- 2 ~
t Idaho 1
+ . ic Prepared for the
.w ::l ll.S. NljCLEAR REGl1LATORY COMMISSION
~~ggguggf '
l i
No, D&AC07-76tD01570 a , '%
'3 j c
..F.'
, . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . d l 8707170010 070617 ..
i PDR ADOCK 05000344 P PDR s , , -. ..s,
't :
_ . _ _ _ . - - . - . _ . -.--..~.__.--.____:..-___._.-_-
e , , .
e e
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 responsibihty for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, 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 imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favonng by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The viewg and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessanly state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
9
l l
1 EGG-NTA-7663 j I
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 4
1 i
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
TROJAN 1
l Docket No. 50-344 l'
I Alan C Udy Published June 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
{
l' l Prepared for the f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN No. D6001 Q
(
L - - - -- ----------------------J
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from ,
the Portland General Electric Company regarding conformance to Generic --
Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
Docket No. 50-344 TAC No. 53725 ii
I l
FOREWORD ;
This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating i
licensee / applicant conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications .of Salem ATWS Events." This work is being f conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear l Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering and System Technology, by EG&G -i Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&E Support Branch.
l l
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the ,1 l
authorization B&R No. 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. D6001.
i1 1
I l
l l
Docket No. 50-344 TAC No. 53725 l
1 iii
CONTENTS ABSTRACT . ............................................................ ii FOREWORD ............... .............................................. iii
- 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
- 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................ 2
- 3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................. 3 I
3.1 Guideline .................................................. 3 3.2 Evaluation ................................................. 3 3.3 Conclusion ................................................. 4
- 4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE I
ESTABLISHED ...................................................... 5 l 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 Guideline .................................................. 7 5.2 Evaluation ................. .... .......................... 7 5.3 Conclusion ................... ............................. 7 i
- 6. CONCLUSION ......................... ........... ................. 8 j
- 7. REFERENCES ....................................................... 9 1
1 iv
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
TROJAN
- 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 about 30 seconds after the initiation of the 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 (EDO), directed the N.RC sta'ff 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 the generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.
This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the Portland General Electric Company, the licensee for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, 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
- 2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT.
l l
Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests:the licensee or applicant to submit, for the staff review, a description of theirLprograms for interfacing with the vendors of all safety-related components including i supporting information, in considerable detail,' as indicated in the: -
guideline.section for each case within'this report.
These guidelines treat cases where directivendor contact; programs are
' pursued, treat cases where such contact cannot practically be established, and establish responsibilities of licensees / applicants and vendors that. q 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 c.ade; and conclusions about the programs of the licensee or applicant for their vendor interface program for safety-related components and equipment are drawn.
e i
I 2 ;
l
. - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ . _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ -___m-.._ __. __ s-_
i 1
- 3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Guideline.
.. The licensee or applicant response should describe their program for )
establishing and maintaining interfaces with vendors of safety related 1
-~ 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.
1 This program description should establish that such interfaces are _j established with their NSSS vendor, as well as with the vendors of key l safety-related components such as diesel generators, electrical switchgear, I auxil.iary feedpumps, emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pumps, batteries, .
l battery chargers, and valve operators, to facilitate the exchange of current.
l technical information. The description should verify that controlled j 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.
l 3.2 Evaluation The licensee fnr the Trojan Nuclear Plant responded to these I requirements with submittals dated November 4, 1983,2 May 9, 19843 and June 14, 1985.4 These 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 occumentation supporting this program is available for audit upon request. We have reviewed the information submitted and note the following.
~
l 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 j
3
_ _ _ _ J
NSSS. vendor (Westinghouse) contact with.the licensee includes 10 CFR 21 reporting and technical bulletins. Technical bulletins are sent again lf the j licensee does not acknowledge receipt within a reasonable time. 'The .]
assistance of the vendors of other safety-related equipment is sought on an. I as-needed basis'. Thus, the licensee does not have a formal' program for 'l
- E -regular interfacing with the vendors of:other safety-related equipment. .'I One of the VETIP implementation responsibilities is to seek ass'istance I and equipment' technical information from vendors of-safety-related' equipment ]
(other than the NSSS vendor) when the licensee's' evaluation ~of an equipment l
problem or an equipment technical information problem concludes that sucn l interaction is necessary or would'be beneficial'. The guidelines for ;
Section 2.2.2 of the generic letter state that formal vendor interfaces )
should be established with the vendors besides the NSSS' vendor. The licensee has not indicated that any formal interface program has been established with vendors other than their NSSS vendcr.
The licensee reports that prccedure NDP 100-3, " Updating Technical Manuals," and A0-9-4, " Operating Experience Review Program," requires the review of safety-related' equipment technical information to veri.fy that it is l referenced by and incorporated into plant procedures and instructions.
3.3 Conclusion l
l We conclude 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 I safety-related valve operators) to facilitate the exchange of current technical information. In the case of the diesel generator and
- i safety-related electrical switchgear vendors, the licensee should establish a
~
formal interface similar to that with the NSSS vendor, if practicable.
4 l- )
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 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. 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 have been modified 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 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 L - o
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, INP0 issues a report,to all utilities outlinin_g 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 l receipt'of-these documents, the licensee, as part of the implementation of the NUTAC/VETIP program, evaluates the information to determine applicability to the facility. This evaluation, performed by the Nuclear l
Safety and Regulation Department, is documented and corrective actions l taken as determined necessary.
The licensee's response states that procedures have been modified to require the review and evaluation of incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures. Maintenance procedures reference applicable equipment technical manuals.
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.
a 1
.j 6
i
.l l
- 5. RESPONSIBILITIES 3 0F LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR !
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 are provided.
k 5.2 Evaluation i i
The licensee's response commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program. l l They further state that vendor services are centro 11ed by approved I procedures in accordance with the VETIP guidelines that include implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services.
5,3 Conclusion 4
We find that the information contained in the licensee's submittals is sufficient for us to conclude that the licensee's and vendor's l
responsibilities are defined and controlled appropriately. Therefore, the information provided by the licensee for this item is acceptable.
~
=
7
- 6. CONCLUSION-Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for Trojan, we. find that the licensee's )
j . inte'rface p'rogram with its NSSS supplier (but not with vendors of other- --
safety-related equipment), plus the licensee's commitment to implement'the )
~
NUTAC/VETIP program, is acceptable. Th_is is based on the understanding I that'the licens'ee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program i
includes the objective for " Internal Handling of Vendor. Services," <
described on page 23 of the March 1984 report, and includes the q
> enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the' report to'the extent that the j
O licensee can control or influence such enhancements.
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 the diesel generator and' safety-related electrical'switchgear' vendors, a formal interface, such as that established with the NSSS' vendor, should be ;
established, if practicable.
,; I I
i 8 ,
i L___-._-_ ----_.--___-_.__-----__.-_--___-._-_-_____-______:.__.-_ -______:-____.- ._-_--_.____:- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _-
a i
1
'7 . REFERENCES.
- 1. Letter, NRC (D.' G. . Eisenhut),-to all Licensees of E0perating 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, Portland General Electric Company (B. D. Withers)' to NRC . D (D. G. Eisenhut), " Required Actions Based on Generic' Implications of j Salem ATWS' Events-(Generic Letter 83-28),". November 4, 1983. :
1 .
Letter, Portland General Electric Company (B. D.-Withers) to NRC 3.
(D. G. Eisenhut), " Supplemental Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2,. Vendor Interface," May 9, 1984. !
4 .' Letter, Portland General Electric Company (B. D; Withers) to NRC
'(J. R. Miller),'"PGE Response to Request for Additional Information on \ '
Generic Letter >83-28," June 14, 1985.
- 5. Vendor Equipment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task-Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section'2.2.2, March 1984, INPO 84-010.
l
-)
i l
l I 4
L-9 i
Y
s.aC PORM 335 - u.8,NUCLBAA #80uLATORY.Xm steseON p atPORT Nuutf R rougaar ey TfDC, ase vor No, seenyJ hk'$ , BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7663 365 tN87 RUCTIONS ON TMt REv4RSE
^ ' ' * '
CdN'F'0$A"NIET0GENERICLETTER83-28, ITEM 2.212--
VENDOR INTERFACE' PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: TF,0JAN . OAT: auOa7 Co-LiTeo MONT- veAn l
. . Auf,. oms, June 1987 Alan C. Udy . OAT . ,0.T,.u.o MoNT,. viAn June l
- 1987 I F4RFoAMINo ORGANQATION NAME ANO MAILINo Aoomise uaess.eJe C.mJ 6 PROJECTITA8Elvuoma UNif Nuangen EG&G Idaho, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1625 . .. on onANT Nu ..
Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001 ,
l ,o wo~.oa.No oacANQ AT,om NAM. ANo MA,L,~a Aoo... u-,,,.ie C , ii,Tv,.o,auO.T lf Division of Engineering and System Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation " ""'* * "'"' " " ' * * " " '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 12 $uPPLEMtNT AMV NOTt8 u A..,.Ae7 ax ,, ,
This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Portland General Electric Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
to DocuMtNT ANAbt5s3 e a tino DS'Of1CR'Pf o S IS AvAigatikaf v STATEMENT Unlimited Distribution is 8tCURITY CLAS$1,1CAf ton IYhas g.p,I
. ,o NT,. ..,OnN Nono fiaM, Unclassified (Thss reperfJ .
Unclassified 17 NUMSER OF PAGES
, 18 PR,CE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _