ML20235M394

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

ML20235M394
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	06/30/1987
From:	Udy A EG&G, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20235M363	List: ML20235M360 ML20235M394
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7665, GL-83-28, TAC-53728, NUDOCS 8707170181
Download: ML20235M394 (17)

Text

sm n; - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

u t 1 m N -' ' qug ' j c .

^

l A , ':

EGG-NTA-7665

+ ,

June 1987 1

INFORMAL REPORT

- +.

l

@ Idaho; National.' 4 CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.2--

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-Enp neering - RELATED COMPONENTS: VERMONT YANKEE Laboratory ,

Managed,

' by the U.S. Alan C. Udy Depanment

.ofEnergy l~

jfEGaGw.u.

Prepared for the

• o""* ""*': U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOE Contract

, No. DE-AC07-76/D01570 '

B7071701og 0-jo ^

DR ADC,cy opoo$g,j opy; PDR i4 L

l l

d o l

l l

l 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 amployaes, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal hability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not ininnge pnvately owned nghts. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trace name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necess6nly constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or sny agency inerect. The views and opinions of authors exoressed herein do not necessanly state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

1 e

l l

l

3 l

i j

EGG-NTA-7665 I

, TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT  !

l i

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

VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

VERMONT YANKEE l

Docket No. 50-271 l

i Alan C. Udy l

l l

Published June 1987 ,

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 I

Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Uncer DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6001 l

l u__________________.___________________.___._..__________.__.______. ____.___ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _

__ .j

i 1

• l ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation regarding confornance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for Vermont Yankee.

Docket No. 50-271 TAC No. 53728 ii

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 conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Divisien 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. D6001.

~

Docket No. 50-271 TAC No. 53728 iii

CONTENTS ABSTRACT .. ..... ... ....... .... .. ............. ................. ii FOREWORD ............... .. .. .............. . ...................... iii

1. INTRODUCTION ........... ....... ................................. 1 o

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 Guideline ..................................... ............ 7 5.2 Evaluation ............................... ................. 7 5.3 Conclusion .. ......... ... ........... ................... 7

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

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

~_

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28', ITEM 2.2.2-- l 1

V.NDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: 1 VERMONT YANKEE l 1

4

1. INTRODUCTION i

e On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of I the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip f 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 d generator low-low level during plant startup. In this case, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the j l

automatic trip.

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 l 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) 3 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 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, the licensee for Vermont Yankee, 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

j

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 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, l

and establish responsibilities of licensees / applicants and vendors that provide service on safety-related components or equipment.

l 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.

2

3. ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Guideline i

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 i

that receipt of vendor equipment technical information (ETI) is acknowledged or otherwise verified. j 1

This program description should establish that such interfaces are j 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 Vermon: Yankee responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 7, 1983,2 March 23, 1984,3 June 26, 19844 and July 3, 1985.5 These submittals include information that describes their past and current vendor interface programs. In the review of the licensee's ,

i response to this item, it was assumed that the information and documentation i supporting this program is available for audit upon request. We have reviewed the information submitted and note the following.

The licensee's respense states that they actively participate in the l Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. The Vendor Equipment Technical Information program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC. VETIP includes q interaction with the NSSS vendor and with other electric utilities. Typical I

3 l

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ .__ _ _ _ _ _ . __ ___________b

NSSS vendor (General Electric) contact with the licensee includes Service Advice and Service Information Letters, 10 CFR 21 reports, urgent communication and Turbine Information Letters. The licensee states that their program of vendor / utility interface goes beyond that recommended in paragraph 4.1.1 of the NUTAC report. They state that their interface is not limited to General Electric, but includes "all vendors." The licensee also states that new or revised procedures, utilizing an assessment coordinator to implement the NUTAC/VETIp program, are being used. .

The licensee reports that controls and procedures which require the review of safety-related equipment technical information to verify that it is referenced by and incorporated into plant procedures and instructions have been established.

3.3 Conclusion i

i We conclude that the licensee's response regarding program description is complete and, therefore, acceptable. d l

)

1 Y

F 4

ll

4. PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED 4.1 Guideline  ;

i i

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 L

the NUTAC/VETIP program, as described in INPO 84-010, issued in l March 1984. If the NUTAC/VETIP program is referenced, the response should I 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. 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 j i

safety-related eqdipment, will not relieve the licensee / applicant of his j i

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 l l

4.2 Evaluation  !

I l

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 being used to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled and implemented.

l 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, 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 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's assessment coordinator tracks  ;

the licensee's evaluation of the information which determines applicability to the facility. This evaluation is then documented and corrective actions taken as determined necessary. Periodic internal audits assure that this l

review process operates correctly.

l The licensee's response states that procedures to review and evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures are being followed.

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.

. 1 i

l l

i i

6 I

(

{

1 I

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

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 1

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 1984 NUTAC report. I I

1 l  ;

1 l

e l

l 7 ,

6. CONCLUSION Based en our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of item 2.2.2 for Vermont Yankee, w,e 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

e 8

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, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (W. P. Murphy) to NRC (D. B. Vassallo), " Generic Letter 83-28, Generic Implications of the Salem ATWS Events," November 7, 1983, 2.C.2.1, FVY 83-117.

3. Letter, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (W. P. Murphy) to NRC (D. B. Vassallo), " Generic Letter 83-28, Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," March 23, 1984, FVY 84-25.

~

4. Letter, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (W. P. Murphy) to NRC-(D. .B. Vassallo), " Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2,"

l June 26, 1984, FVY 84-73. f l

5. Letter, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (R. W. Capstick) to NRC (D. B. Vassallo), " Response to Request for Additional Information Following Preliminary Staff Review and Licensee Response to Generic Letter 83-28," July 3, 1985, FVY 85-63.

6. Vendor Eouipment Technical Information Procram, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, INP0 84-010.

)

l l

l

$ l I

9 1

L---_______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Nec,o M m v s. =uct Aa a.outAvoav coMMI loN , .oa s -uM. a <=- ., r,oc. ,- v., .. . , ~, i 12 Sal EC" "7- T BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7665

$tt IN$1RUCTlONS oN 7 t aEVI8tSE 2 f tTLE Amo sue tlTLE aggaygggANg CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2- .

VEND 0R INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMP 0NENTS: VERMONT YANKEE

• oa aoa' co",o MoNr- .Aa l

• . Aur oa'5' June 1987 Alan C. Udy

• oa "*'oa "58"'

MoNrN veAa

' g June 1987 F PERFoAMING ORGANIZAlsoN NAME ANo MatLING AoDatSS,severt. Coos 8 PROJECT /T ASK' WORE UNIT NUMSta EG&G Idaho, Inc.

P. 0. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001 l

l ,o .,oNso ,~o o.o AN,4 ArioN NAME A~o MA.6,No Aooaiss u ,.e. c , n. Tv*e o* anaoa1 Division of Engineering and System Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation """'*'""'"~~~~~'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 12 StJPPLEMtNT ARY NOTis tJ A05T A ACT (200 weren er 'ess, This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 Item 2.2.2, for Vermont Yankee.

l 1

)

I e to DOCUMt NT AN AL

• Sil e EE *WonoE DE SCR'PTOMS 15 A vasL A.iLsT V

% $7ATEMENT Unlimited Di stribution .

56 SECuntTV CLAS$1FICAf ton f rMs 0 009

. .oeNr . ..s,onN ~oso 'eaMs

.. Unclassified

< rn, .,s, Unclassified 17 NUM$tR Q6 paQgg

, 18 FReLt 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ .