ML20235M420
| ML20235M420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1987 |
| From: | Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235M375 | List: |
| References | |
| EGG-NTA-7666, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8707170192 | |
| Download: ML20235M420 (12) | |
Text
.,,
' ;).,',
df'
'qd l
EGG-NTA-7666 June 1987 i
J INFORMAL REPORT
- e j
, -, -e l
4
/daho' Aratjogia/;
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-
. Engineering RELATED COMP 0NENTS:
V0GTLE-1 AND -2 Laboratory [
. Managed by the U.S.'
Alan C. Udy Department ofEnergV i
l
,f:
r
?.,
v jk EGsG'i..noL j
Prepared for the
"""* "!87CN,"f/1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION No. DE-AC07 76tD01570.
l.
1 l
7g717019p97aggg' a!
ADOCK 050004n4 p
PDR l.
L -
l 1
1 1
i
- i 1
4
{
a i
.- l l
l l
1 l
i a
l OISCLAIMER l
This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United Sts:es Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, j
nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or imolied, 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 j
not infringe privately owned nghts. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessan'y constitute or smply its endorsement, recommendation, or favonng -
by the United States Govemment or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
l l
l l
I l
1 t
i i
1
)
c_-___-
b
EGG-NTA-7666 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 4
i VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR
, ITEM 2.2.2--
V0GTLE-1 AND -2 TY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
\\
Docket Nos. 50-424/50-425
\\
Alan C. Udy
\\
Published June 1987 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
Under DOE Contract No. OE-AC07-76ID01570 20555 FIN No. 06002
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Georgia Power Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, a
Item 2.2.2, for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant-Unit Nos. I and 2.
Docket Nos. 50-424/50-425 ii
1 l
)
i FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the program for evaluating i
1 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, Division of Engineering and System Technology, by EG&G I
Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&E Support Branch.
1 l
l The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the authorization B&R No. 20-19-40-41-3, FIN No. 06002.
i l
4 Docket Nos. 50-424/50-425 l
iii
4 1
l CONTENTS l
1 l
ABSTRACT..........................................................
11 FOREWORD..............
iii 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................
1 1
l 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 j
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 I
5.2 Evaluation.................................................
7 l
5.3 Conclusion 7
j i
i 6.
CONCLUSION..............
8 7.
REFERENCES......................................................
9 1
l l
e
)
l 1
iv 1
l l
. _ _ _ _ _______ __ _ _J
CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
V0GTLE-1 AND -2 1.
INTRODUCTION 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 signal from the reactor protection system.
This incident was terminated manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the l
automatic trip signal.
The failure of the circuit breakers was determined to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment.
Prior j
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 1
l automatic trip.
Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive.
l Director for Operations (ECO), directed the NRC staff to investigate and j
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 l
l generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, " Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear i
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 j
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 Georgia Power Company, the applicant for Unit Nos. 1 and 2 of the Vogtle Electric l
Generating 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 l
l
I i
i 1
2.
REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT i
Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee or applicant j
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 i
9 2
1 l
3.
ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION I
l 1
3.1 Guideline i
The licensee or applicant response should describe their program for l
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 l
or otherwise verified.
l This program description should establish that such interfaces are j
I 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 j
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.
)
3.2 Evaluation l
l The applicant for Units 1 and 2 of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 2
responded to these requirements with submittals dated November 8, 1983 and May 20, 1985.3 These submittals include information that describes their vendor interface program.
In the review of the applicant's response to this j
item, it was assumed that the information and documentation supporting this program is available for audit upon request.
We have reviewed the information submitted and note the following.
4 i
The applicant'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 l
interaction with the NSSS vendor and with other electric utilities.
- However, 3
j
)
the applicant has not described their vendar interfece program with the NSSS vendor (Westinghouse) nor with vendors of other safety-related equipment as reovired by the guidelines for Item 2.2.2 of the generic letter.
l The applicant has not reported on controls and procedures that would require the review of safety-related equipment technical information to verify that it is referenced by and incorporated into plant procedures and instructions.
3.3 Conclusion We conclude that the applicant's response regarding program description is not complete.
The applicant should show that procedures either exist or have been modified to incorporate current and past vendor technical information into plant operating, maintenance and test procedures.
The applicant should verify that vendor contacts are established on a regular i
basis with the NSSS vendor and with vendors of other safety-related equipment (such as diesel generator and Class 1E switchgear manufacturers) to ensure that vendor information is current and up to date.
l l
l l
l l
4 I
l
)
l 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 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 l
program and to incorporate the program enhancements described in j
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.
-l 4.2 Evaluation The applicant provided a brief description of the vendor interface program.
Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program. The applicant has not stated that plant instructions and procedures to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled have been 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
Through participation in the NPRDS program, the applicant 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.
I 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 (SERs), in Significant Operating Experience Reports (SOERs) and as Operations and Maintenance Reminders.
[
l The applicant's response does not show that procedures have been implemented that require the review and the evaluation of incoming
]
equipment technical information, including SERs, SOERs or Operation and Maintenance Reminders, or the incorporation of this information into existing procedures.
)
4.3 Conclusion We find that the applicant's response for this concern is inadequate.
The applicant should describe how their procedures were revised to control
]
and implement the use of the NUTAC/VETIP program as a means for compensating for the lack of a direct vendor interface program for safety-related equipment.
av 6
i i
l I
l 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 l
service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of I
applicable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment are provided.
5.2 Evaluation 1
We could find no information in the applicant's responses that address the control of vendor supplied services for maintenance work on safety-related equipment.
The applicant has not stated that they have specific procedures to provide the proper quality assurance control over vendor-supplied service on safety-related equipment.
l 5.3 Conclusion We find that the applicant's submittals are not sufficient for us to conclude that the applicant's and vendor's responsibilities are defined and controlled appropriately.
Therefore, the applicant should provide
~
verification that the responsibilities and instructions for vendor-supplied l
services on safety-related equipment are defined and controlled as is the i
objective for " Internal Handling of Vendor Services," described on page 23 of the March 1984 NUTAC report.
7 l
'i 6.
CONCLUSION Based en our review of the applicant's *esponse to the specific requirements of Item 2.2.2, we find that the information provided by the applicant to resolve the concerns of this program do not meet the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28.
The applicant should show that procedures incorporate the vendor technical information into plant procedures and that a program of regular vendor contact has been established (Section 3.3).
The applicant should describe how their procedures were' revised to control and implement the use of the NUTAC/VETIP program as a means for compensating for the lack of a direct vendor interface program for safety-l related equipment (Section 4.3).
I i
The applicant should provide information regarding vendor-supplied services on safety-related equipment (Section 5.3).
i I
1 1
l k
4 8
7.
REFERENCES l
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, Georgia Power Company (D. O. Foster) to NRC (E. G. Adensam),
" Generic Letter 83-28,'" November 8,1983, Log: GN-276, File:
X6BK10.
3.
Letter, Georgia Power Company (J. A. Bailey) to NRC (E. G. Adensam),
" Generic Letter 83-28," May 20, 1985, Log: GN-613, File:
X6BK10.
4 Vendor Eauipment Technical Information Program, Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee on Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, March 1984, INP0 84-010.
l l
l 4
l 4
0 i
j j
9
u s. Nueu A...out Aro, C,M.uneN i a,oa r ~ uM u a, A.,-, r,oC. - <., N...,,,,,,
Nrc roam :=
[2b;3
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7666 Sit INSTRUCTIONS ON Ywt PEVE R$4 2 fif LE AND ave tit LE J L8 AVE BLANE CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: V0GTLE-1 AND -2 a cAn an* Oaf mMauno l
,sA.
Mom,N June 1987
. AuT oaisi Alan C. Udy
. oar.... 1,uu o g
viAn McNrm June 1987 7 FE A'OnMiNG ORGANi2 A110N NAME AND MAILING ADOptSS adwassele GeeJ 8 PROJACTiT ASErwo81K uNii NuM8ER EG&G Idaho, Inc.
"6"'"'"""""
P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6002 10 SPoN50HiNG ORGAmil ATeoN NAME AND MAILING ADOmtse #8sectusw to Cseet 1le TV'tOFAEPORT Division of Engineering and System Technology s
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
" ""'" "*'"' " " ' " ~ * * '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 12 sueettueNr Aav Notas o Auro.ci a..
This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the Georgia l
Power Company regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
~
ia occuMt%f e% Asvses. af v romos Osscaiatous is avai6AsitiT v BTAftMENT Un1imited Distribution 16 SECURITY CL AS$15sCATION f rnos o. pet
"***'""$'"*'*o'"""5 Unc1assified t ra,,,..,,,
Unclassified i, ~ emu o,, Aou i8 & mice l
_. - - - _ _