ML20236L655

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SER Re Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1, Equipment Classification Programs for All Safety-Related Components. Util 831103 Response Acceptable
ML20236L655
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/04/1987
From:
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20236L654 List:
References
NUDOCS 8711110003
Download: ML20236L655 (6)
v • d • e


Text

. .

-~y iV .

t '

. 'b ;- .

ENCLOSURE 1r

.D#%4'o.

UNITED STATES

'l

.yf (g '/ .

L <

=

  • NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

r  :; ".

'7y WASHING TON, D. C. 20555  !

%y.....f '

i SAFETY' EVALUATION' REPORT

[ ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWWER PLANT, UNIT 21

' DOCKET N0':50-341-j

} - GENERIC' LETTER 83-28,. ITEM 2.2.1 I

EQl'1PM,ENT- CL OSSIFICATION

3. PROGRAMS FOR b IAFETY-RELATED COMP 0NENTS

-l 3  :  !

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 Generic Letter,83-28 was issued by the NRC on July 8,1983 to indicate actions to De taken by licensees:and applicants based on the generic-implications of;

. the Salem ATWS events.--Item 2.2.1 of that letter states that licensees and ,

1 L ' applicants shall describe.in considerable detail their program for-classifying-allisafety-related components other than RTS components as safety-related on l E<N plant'. documents'.and l in information handling systems that are used to control. l plant activities that may affect these components. Specifically, the licensee /

\ applicant'ssubm'ittalwasrequiredtocontaininformationdescribing;(1)The-criteria used to identify these components 'as safety-related; (2) the' information handling system which identifies the components as' safety-related; j

, (3) the manner in which station personnel use.this infomation handing system to c o trol' activities affecting these components; (4)' management controls that  ;

. are used to verify that the infomation handling-system is prepared, maintained, validated,andusedinaccordancewithapprovedprocedures;and(5)-design ->

verification and qualification testing requirements that are part of the specifications for procurement of safety-related components. j The licensee for the Enrico Femi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 submitted responses to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1 in a submittal dated November 3,1983. We )

have evaluated this responsr.'and find that it is acceptable.

I b

L L <

B. , 'B711110003 871104 DR . ADOCK 05000341 PDR' L .

w

[ y A y

j. ,

=f'

, n A: .

y R .!

p_. o

}.' .;

L 2.'0 EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS j

In these sections the licensee's responses to the program.and each of five sub-items are individually evaluated against guidelines oeveloped by. the staff.and

-conclusions are drawn regarding their individual and cellective' acceptability. -

1. Identification Criteria ,

Guideline: The licensee:s response should describe the criteria used to. i, identify safety-related equipment and components. (Item 2.2.1.1)

Ev'aluation:

i The licensee's response included the criteria for identifying safetyorelated -

components.- In audition, the licensee notes thht for the purpose of j maintenance, operation, or surveillance activities, procedures h' ave b'een and continue to be developed for identification of safety-related components, and '{

that all components associated with e system desigr,ated as safety-related are. .' I considered to be safety-related. ' -

)

Conclusion:

)

We find the stated criteria meet the staff's requirements and are acceptable.

2. Information Handling System i

GuideTine: The licensee's response should confirm that the equipment j classification program includes an infonnation handling system that is l used to identify safety-related equipment and components. Approved j procedures which govern its development, maintenance, and validation should exist. (Item 2.2.1.2)

._x_ - ~ . - - - . _ . _. -

Pi g , ,,

v y .

y

  • .c 4

O j 3, '

.! f,\' h pm '

_3. *

,4 Evaluation:.'

j:

4 -

L The. licensee states that.the information handling system includes _ equipment s

and. components. identified in FSAR Section 3.2 Table 3.2-1, in electrical f- taiagrams,.-inP&ID' sand =inequipmentlists?atihecomponentti,evel;~that'.

these documents .are reviewed and ' approved per. Detroit Edison procedures; ano -

lthat the. equipment and components are ide H ified by Plant Identification:

~

?, '8 System (PIS) numbers. This system was' des loped based.on the classification criteria and has.been validat'eo by reviet and= audit. The licensee also.

. states-that 2provisions within the Detroit Edison's Quality Assurance program

. assures.that the infonnation handling system is maintained current and that

,t

[L srevisions'are controlled.

.c '

Conclusion:

We conclude this response and licensee's program satisfies the staff's-

' concerns and is, therefore, acceptable.

~3.'Use of-Information~Handlino System

. Guideline: ,' The licensee response should confinn that their equipment l classification program includes' criteria,and procedures which govern the .!

  1. 7 ~ use of the information handling system to determine that an activity is'- .f N# safety-related and that; safety-related procedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement and other activities defined in the introduction to'10CFR50, Appendix B, are applied to safety related s

components. (Item 2.2,1.3)

Evaluation: i The'1'icensee states that Fermi 2 has approved procedures controlling

-activities for safety-related components during maintenance, surveillance, parts replacements-and other activities. as defined in the introduction to l

-10CFR50 Appendix B and that these procedures assure that safety.rclated l l .

f f q x ,1

ii'

,s-G a .

1 j

m '

o , -4:  ;

i e q components are treated as such during. plant activities. The licensee further states that the predetermined classification minimizes the potential- for' errors which might result from determination made'oh a

-Case-by'-case basis. a

Conclusion:

,j l

/ >

We find the licensee's response describes a program that is acceptable.

i

'4." Management Controls-

  • t 1 i

i Guideliae: The licensee / applicant should confirm that management controls used to. verify that the procedures for' preparation, validation, and routine .I l

utilization of the infomation handling system have been and are being. ,  !

1 followed. (Item 2.2.1.4).

q Evaluation:

.l The' licensee states that administrative procedures and the Detroit Edison

]

quality assurance program for Femi 2 control the activities and procedures 1 i

related to the .infomation handling l system. These controls govern the .. !

preparation, validation and use of the information handling system.

Furthemore, a complete review of the adequacy of the administrative control j is perfomed by the Onsite Review Organization (OSRO). This review is stated .

to' assist in ensuring the routine utilization of specified management controls j i

by plant personnel. s 0

1

Conclusion:

]

l

We conclude that this response addresses the staff's concern and is

')

l acceptable.

i l i L 4 l )

y e '

~

l 1

1

n ,4

'A ]

7

, .g i t r

,y

.5 -

-. 9 1

I t l "5.10esign -Verificut' ion and Procurement ,

p 4 1

-Guideline: . The.'icensee/

l applicant's response should document that past
a usage demonstrates ~ that appropriate' design verification and qualification. l l

testing is specified for the procurement of safety-related components and j

' parts. The specifications should' include qualification testing for expected safety service conditions and provide support for licensee's receipt of testing documentation which supports the limits'of life recommended by the d' supplier. If such documentation is not available, confirmation that the present program meets .these requirements should be provided. (Item 2.2.1.5) j

,1 1

Evaluation: J

-The licensee states.that component procurement includes a'techn'ical.evalua -  ;

tion which assures that the appropriate design verification and qualification testing is specified-for procurement of safety-related components. The j y procurement program also specifies that appro/ed procedures reqsire a 1 detennination.of the safety classification and that environmental- conditions '

and testing requirements for the component be identified. '

Conclusion:

'i' We find the licensee's program meet the staf t requirements for this item and is acceptable.

v.'

6. "Important To Safety" Components G,uideline: Generic Letter 83-28 states that licensee / applicant equipment classification programs should include (in addition to the safety-relateo components) a. broader class of components designated as "Important to 5 Safety." However, since the generic letter does not require licensee /

' applicant to furnish this infonnation ai part of their response, staff j review of this sub-item will not be performed. (Item 2.2.1.6) l

. .' 1 V

l j

L J_ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - -

. =

y ,

+ ,

t. ,

hb ,

s,.

l' o,

6_

d.

at -

t ,

4

.6- 1 i

u> x. '

3 L , ' 'y ,

ri l
' t 7.l Program: l u,-

'Guidellnei

  • i-j i

? ,

Licensees / applicants;should confirm' that an equipment classification prograni  !

~

exists'which provides. assurance that all safety-related components are- 'l designated ~a's safety-related on plant documents such as: drawings, proc'edures,.  ;

3 system. descriptions.-test and maintenance instructions,. operating procedures, ,

'and:infonnation handling systems so that. personnel who perform activities' -l

~

a: that affect such safety-related components are aware that they are working  !

'on safety related components and ere guided by' safety-related procedures and 1 constraints.a (Item 2.2.1)-

A  :

' Evalua' tion : -

x' The fiicensee's response to :these . requirements was contained in a submittel dateo hovember 3,- 1983. This submittal describes the licensee's program

s. ,

for identifying and classifying safety-related. equipment and components u

which meets'the) staff requirements as indicated in the' preceding sub-item

' evalut.tions. '

Jonclusion. ,.

We conclude that the licensee's program addresses the staff concerns 'f regarding equipnent and component classification and is acceptable...

3.0 REFERENCES

4 1.- NRC. Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors, j 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.  !

y
2. Detroit Edison Letter, W. H. Jens to B. J. Youngblood, NRC, November 3l 1983.

a 9

Ala?^.1-_=.-_,-.x._--. .__a - -.

%~ f ii., f L _ ,

[' ,.

+ :

nc , -l

<  ! s. .,.l s4

.l L. .. t - EGG-NTA-7205 1 "w + ,

, j

. .i t .

.i 4

t. d

_o

. i

'f

.. > c h

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CONFORMINCE'T0 GENERIC' LETTER 83-28 ITEM'2.2.1--

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: '

ENRICO FERMI-2

]

.. .c i

Docket No..50-341 .

t

.4

.R. VanderBeek.

i

r ,

i r ,

, Published April 1987  ;

l, Idaho National. Engineering Laboratory EG&G : Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 t' -1 i.-

Prepared for'the U.S. Nucleu : Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C. 20555 I

'Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01'570 FIN No. D6002 -

1

- h, h .1_h 8 ' -

u;, .

'y ,, ,

.w - e s us-: i

, -. t-m

. . ~

i8 , . ,

F,.

.i
r. .*

e

$ 1 '

.{'

i 1_

f

. ' A,.

' Oi/ ,

I

>  ?'d r ,

. 'o

t. 7  : , .

.D ,-v ,}

je ,

j 9:.

i 3

' , i

t 1 l i'ks I

1

-]

2

' k; y ,.

' ABSTRACT- .

< , 1

~

This- EG6G' Idahs,.' Inc. ,; repor t ' provide's -a re' view of the submittal f roni - -+-

' J,

'-#' Enrico Fermi-Atomic Power Plant, Unit,'2 for'conformance to Generic 1 1

a.

JLetter.83-28,' Item 2.2.1. .

.  ;)

4

-l

4. j, .

, , -j '

,- i

~

, a 4

1 o

I L i

, 1

. " h

' ). . 4

{

g iq . .  !

1:

": Docket No. 50-341 3 L .J' l' t i'. , .,

b ,

' i,' ; f i . jj p'  ;

6 I

i ',. , ' :: i s

, {

m x-_._.-__

m . , . .

i ! ./ '5- .

li' o '
o

. r:

_y ,

1 a

t' g,( ,

6.i . ,

.d

.,. .i

'.L

' li_ , =

i. i a .. s .

I-j'

"'q, N l .a.

l 'j

( !4 o 'a .

o 4  :

I \

s

w. <

l

- i l o..,.. FOREWORD v

Lj f - This report is. supplied as part of the program for evaluating _

licensee / applicant conformance.to Generic. Letter 83-28 " Required'I'ctions- )

h.. Based on) Generic. Ideplicationst of Salem AiWS Events." This work is being:

< U Nonductedfor.theU.S.;NuclearRegblatoryCommission,OfficeofNuclear 1 Reactok. Regulation,DivirionofPWRLicensing-A,'by(G&G. Idaho,Inc.

. f-

..- -i The U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Consnission funded thisLwork under the 1 4 Lauthor12ation.B&R 20-19-40-41-3,' FIN No.-06G02. -

l

, t

, l 1

.af

, 1

h 1

c

.\

]

.]

' j a ' 1 e

- j Docket No. 50-341 1

g g --

[

. 3

=g o +..c V ,'

it -

! t . ' ' , I w . xw ~ _

. q 7 9 g. 3-m e

CONTENTSL l

~

-t .

i, A B s T R d'C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it' no If #fFOREW'OR0$;......................................'.......................' 111 -

4 ,

1. . I N T R 0 0 ll C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 ,

-\

2. R E VI E W C ONTE N T AN D F ORMAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . s . . . . . . . . 2
3. . ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM .............................................. 3 ,

3 ,' 1 Guideline................................................... '3 ,

-3.2 Evaluation .-........................................,........- '3

'+ 3.3 -Conclusion ....a............................................ 4 4 4; ITEM 2.2.1.1~ IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA ........................... 5 n

LJ 4.1 Guideline .................................................. 5 1 4.2 ' Evaluation ..'....................................3.......... 5 4.3 Conclusion. ..>........................'.....................

. 5

. .e i

5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM ............'........... 6 5.1 . Guide 11ne .................................................. 6-5.2 . Evaluation ................................................. 6 5.3' Conclusion ...............'.......'........................... 6-

)

' 6. ITEM 2.2.1.3'- USE OF EQU"IPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING ........... 7 6.1 . Guideline .................................................. 4 7 6.2 ' Evaluation ................................................. 7 6.3. Conclusion ................................................. 7 1

7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 --MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ................................ 8 7.1 Guideline .................................................. 8 7.2 Evaluation ................................................. 8 7.3 Conclusion ................................................. 8 v

iv b

I

,,'I f

n 4 z a

, :,~ .. .

c  :

g t 3

.3 )

. 7. _ .,i; t

k b . p 4

. y n

p

. . . . .  !.s" m i8. ... ITEM 2.'2 1.5 DE SIGN VERIFICATION ' 'AND PROCUREMENT .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 9.

+ -

,,. 3 8.1 Guideline-....,...........................................'...

19 -< ,

/

' 8.2. Evaluation ....'..h ......................"............;.f..... '9

+

8.3I ,.

Conclusion,...... .'..................... ......_............. ,.1 9_

j I j

19. >

ITEM 2.2.1.6 i"IMPORTANT T0 SAFETY" COMP 0NENTSL....... .......... . . 10

- . .i '

9;l - Guide 11nel.................................................. '10 '

e g:,

10. .CONCLUSI W ...................'....................................- 11'

.,. , , . a

.$ j

11. REFERENCES .......................................................- - 12.. .

1 8

l

+

. g .

i s .g-I 4

n l <-

1

,, ..,l n

' s

, ;I

( 4s a

^V

.. I.

s 1

I

' I

-.l 1

=

e

,j t

l 1

i I

t' 1 -

'i

[

a e

l i

. ]

/ e

'l s

V ,

/ f

't i

i ib i A e

4.

~& 4

-p 1

W CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM'2.2.1-- - -

o EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR'ALL 0THER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

ENRICO FERMI-2

1. INTRODUCTION j 4

On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit 'areakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signdi from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated 3 manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiatiuh of the -

automatic trip sigr.al. The failure of the circuit breakers was determined to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachmen,t. Prior to this incident, on February 22, 1983, at Upit 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 cperator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.

Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive DIrectorforOperations(E00),d)'rectedthestafftoinvestigateandreport on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power. Plant. The res,ults of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NUREG-1000, ,

' Genetic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear Power Plaht." As a result of this investigation, the Commission (NRC) requested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 1983 ) all licensees of operating reac. tors, applicants.for an operating license, and holders of constr'uction permits to, respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of th'ese two ATWS events, t

This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by Detroit Edison, the applicant for Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28. The actual documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of the report.

e

, , 1

- ~',- y.f'[ __!'

\

j i' ' e

-l 4 .

i

2. REVIEWCONTENTAND' FORMAT. 4 1

.c . .t ..c Item 242.1 of Generic Letter-83-28 requests the licenseeAcplicant to i' 1

submit, for staff review, a description of their programs'for the classification of safety-related. equipment that. includes' supporting 'l

-information, in conreiderable' detail, as indicated in the guideline s,

proceding the evaluation of each item within this'. report.

J e

1 I

As previously stated,'each of the six item's of Item 2.2.1'is 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 its -;

5 adeeptability are drawn. .

i I t

5

.. j

-jI

,a ,  ;

i 'l t

I i

m l

t 1

l e

i

! l

{

l n

o p a

^

-  :.- - N

, u; -, __

m;;; ,

El q.;;;

m f-f t- - '%

v

~ .

,e:,

F :.

_1-

':s

. (s , -;

w -

, c 3.

ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM' & S l' M - '- . -:

l ' ' * ~

f.

1 in " ,

q' 3.1 Guideline-3 , , .

-Licenseestand' applicants should~ confirm'that an equipment ,.

" .classif.) cation program exists'which provides assurance:that-all safety-relatedcomponents,aYe.designatedassa'fet'yLrelatedonallplant  ?

Ldocuments,drawingsand! procedures-andin-theinf'ormationhandlingsYstem .

that is ~used' in accomplishing safety-related activities,-such as w';rk orders.for: repair, maintenance and surveillance testing and orders for

-replacement parts. Licensee and! applicant responses'which address the l features oN this prograg are evaluated in the remainder of this report.  ;)

q 3.2 Evaluakion The applicant for.the Enric'o fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 responded to these'r' requirements'with a submittal dated +

l November 3, 1983.2 This submittal described the, safety-related equipment.

classification l program presently in place. In the review of=the licensee's g

' response to this item, it:was assumed that the information and- '

' ' documentation supporting this program is available for audit upon request.

'The applicant has provided a description.of the equipment classification program and controls associated with the identification of 7

components and parts,. activities for safety-related repair, maintenance, and procurement.

I The applicant states that (1) adequate direction in the form of Design  :

-Specification from the riSSS vendor identifying safety-related systems and a' , components, (2).the P&ID's and Design Instructions prepared by Detroit

- _ Edison'. identifying the safety-related status, (3) designers designating components and sub-components is safety-related unless there was i I '

justification contrar'y, and (4) the multi-level reviews to obtain the predetermined safety classification provide assurance that the ,

I safety-related components are adequately and conservatively identified'as-

~

safety-related. ,

-, , 3  !

e ,

l' r  :.

Y'hW. ... _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

p -

.y; o,

. exg -

.-4 3.

5.'

'. g. l-l 3.3 Conclusion j I 9

. The staff concludes that;all the hasic.requi.ibments of their equipment-

~ classification..are in place'and address i e concerns 6f Item 2,.2.1 of the' 'I Generic' Letter.. The staff has concluded rom the-above four statements '

i

. that all components.-designated as safety related are properly id'e'ntified on

all' appropriate plant' documents, procedu,res, and in the information j I

. handling system even; though the applicant did not provide this direct confirmation. ,,, ,

a ,

.t 6

l i

1 f

i

!?-

(

4-i L

0

.t c I

j 4

i b

o e

, i

4

.r-..

.c n

,, 4. ITEM 2.2.1.1-IDENTIFICATIdNCRITERIA Guideline 4.1 4

{

The criteria for identifying components as safety-related should be presented. This.should include' description of means for handling sub-components or parts as well as proqedures for initiating the ,

identification of components as safety-related or non-safety related if no ,

previous classification existed.

4.2 Evaluation The applicant's response included the criteria for identifying safety-related components. in addition, the applicant notes that for the purpose of maintenance, operat'on, or surveillance activities, procedures have been and continue to be developed for identification of safety-rclated

. components. The applicant considers all components associated with a system designated as safety-related to be safety-related.

c 4.3 Conclusion J l The applicant's response to this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable,.

l 1

1 4

I I

b i

5

UTi4

,8

, ,f f

,i [ $ ' * ' ' '

p  ; .o g' $ , ,

6.. ' '

,Q ,,

p ', '

e 5..'iITEMl2.2.1.2.-INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM ,

i

,,N L N 5.1'. Guideline

<7

,c.

W< '

The applicant's description of his..Information handling system for

+ l h,4[m[componentclassificationshouldconfirmlthatailistingof p ,

cequipment idetailed .to the. component level has beenl compiled that dncludes

'~

l p suchcomponentsLas'switges, motors,' relays, transmitters, pumps, pipes,t .

fittings, tanks, and valves. The description should showL(a) how the Y L11 sting wasL originally prepared;- (b) .how Lnew saf ety-related-items are l s .. .> -i

- entered; (c) how. changes in classification of listed items are made; 4 '"

'(d) how211sted items'are'verifjed;~(e) ht.w unauthorized changes to the clisting'are prevented;'and (f) ho# the listing will be' maintained and- ]

distributed to users as an official, single, consistent, and unambiguous

~

.a version. This description should be in sufficient detail'to allow us to  ;

s verify.that items'(a),through (f)'above have or'will.be met. '

]

5.2 Evaluation .

z. q 7

' The . applicant states that the information' handling system includes

' equipment.andcomponentsidentifiedinFSARSection3.2 Tab 1'e3.2-l[in .

2 electricaljdiagrams, in P&ID'.s and in equipment lists at.the component ]

level;Mthat these documents'are reviewed and approved per Detroit Edison I procedures;?and that'the equipment and; components are identified by Plant Identification System-(PIS) numbers. This system was developed based on

.the classification criteria and has been validated.by review and audit.

'The applicant also states that provisions'w* thin the Detroit Edison's Quality Assurance program assures that the information handling systems'.is maintained' current and that revisions are controlled.

5.3 Conclusion 'I r

The applicant's response to this item is considered to be complete and fis acceptable.. .)

'.] . .

t '

l a ,

6 y

u- -. _ __ u______ _ _ ___._. _ ___ _ i

%D m. . .. ,

M. 4 6 '

i#;

3 sl

-6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE'0F EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING

1. .

6.1 Guideline The applicant's description should show how station personne1Luse the equipment classification'information handling-system to' determine: ,  ;

(a)'when an activity.is safetyarelated, and-(b) what procedures are to be ,

used'for' maintenance work, routine surveillance' testing, accomplishment of.

~

. des)gn changes, and performance of special tests or studies. We should be.

  1. able'to gain confidence from our review that there will be no confusion s about:when activity is safety-related. l t

6.2 Evaluation

. j

.The applicant states that Fermi 2 has approved procedures controlling 'l activities for safety'-related components'during' maintenance, surveillance,

.partsreplacementsAndotheractivitiesasdefinedintheintroductionto 10 CFR 50 Appendix 8 and that these procedures assure that~ safety-related- +-

. components are treated as such during plant activities. .The applicant further states that the predetermined classification minimizies the  !

potential for errors which might result from determinations made on a l case-by-case basis. j i

6.3' Conclusion '

q Theapplicant'$responseisconsideredto'becompleteandis .i 1

acceptable.

l r

1 1

i

.)

, 1 f

,+.

l

).

l I

l m

7 s  ;

e .I

c. s-lx ;g  !

s >

j

7. ~ ITEM 2:2.1.4~- MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ,

l

  • j

- 7.1 ' Guideline

f 1 Managerial controis-that-will be used by the applicant'to verifz that l

'the informatio'n' handling system for equipment classification has been preparedaccording.totheapprovedprocedures,thatits'contentshAvebeen  ;

validated, that it is being maintained current, and that it'is being used to determine equipment' classification as-intended shall be described. The description of these controls shall be in sufficient detail for the staff to-determine that they are'in place and are workable.- '

l 1

7.2 Evaluation i o.

nThe applicant. states that administrative procedures and the Detrcit Edison quality' assurance program for fermi 2 control the activities and procedures related to the information handling system. These controls '

govern the preparation, validation and use of the information handiing system. Furthermore, a' complete review of the adequacy of the

^ '

administrative controls is performed by the Onsite Review Organization.

This review is stated to assist.in ensuring the routine utilization of

.specified management controls by plant personnel, y 7.3 Conclusion The applicant's response to this item is. considered to be complete and  ;

is acceptable. ,

s k

8

]

j i

m

8. ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT

)

1 8.1 Guideline The applicant's submittals shall show that the specifications for procurement of replacement safety-related components and parts require that l verification of design capability and evidence of testing that qualifies i the components and parts for service under the expected conditions for the  ;

service life specified by the supplier is included.  !

l 8.2 Evaluation f

l The applicant states that component procurement includes a technical evaluation which assures that the appropriate design verification and l qualification testing is specified for procurement.of safety-related  :

components. The procurement program also specifies that approved

) procedures require a determination of the safety classification and that l l, environmental conditions and testing requirements for the component be identified.

j l

l 8.3 Conclusion j 1

The applicant's response is considered to be complete and is )

acceptable. 1 I

i i

i i

9 l l

._-_m__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __- _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ - _ _ .

(' o ; ,3 .

c;

'l ,

1.

I-

10. CONCLUSIONS Basedonour. review ~of:theapplicant'sresponsestothespecific requirements of Item 2.2.1, we find thatsthe information provided by the

~

L<

ap'plicant to resolve the concerns of Item 2.2.1 meets the requirements of.

- Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable. Item 2.2.1.6 was not reviewed as noted in.Section-9 of this report.

('  !

L l

i 1

l .

l-L 1

1 .

l.

i 11 l.

1.

..-...l-- -..-..-_._.-._.__ni_a.._ l

l-

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS 9.l' Guideline Generic Letter 83-28 states thatL'he t licensee's or app'licant's equipment classification program should include (in' addition to the

. safety-related components) a broader class of components designated as-

"Important to Safety." However, since the generic letter does not~ require j thelicenseeorapplicanttofurnishthis.ikformationaspartoftheir response, review of this item will not be performed.

l L

)

1 i

l I

l i

i 10

i 1

1 i

11. REFERENCES l
1. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors,
Applicants for Operating License --and Holders of. Construction Permits,

" Required Actions Based on..Generie Implications of Salem ATWS Events I (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1933. J i

2. Detroit Edison Letter,-W. H. Jens to 8. J. Youngblood NRC,

-November--3, 1983.

l I

i l

12

,I<

, WA seWCLS AR mgGULArea y heBoots i at Pon I hwas.gm # Amp ey rioc. ,a, ye, me,,,,,,,

enc FORM 32 (2 84.

'7"J'*,'- BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET EGG-NTA-7205

su i~seavCv o~s o= v i aivaase

, ,,, a .~o v. v .v u . .

, u.vi.6...

CONFORMANCE TO' GENERIC LETTER-83-28, ITEM.2.2.1--

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED

  • o '" ""oa ' co"'"" o -

COMPONENTS: ENRICO FERMI-2 .o.o r - ....

April- l 1987

. .e , .o., ,,,

R. VanderBeek . teoNT-April- ] vs.m 1987

, n..o. ,~o c o ~i4. iio .. . o ..si~o .oo. u ,-. i. c , . eameCrn a.,oa. u=,1 au.ua EG&G Idaho Inc.

e *'a oa ca.~r avana P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6002 io s,o~so ,~a o.o.=i4.r.o= =.. . o .. 6.=c .com e u ,,. i. c , ii. tve. on aconi Division of PWR Licensing - A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation * " a' o c v 'a ' o "=~ ~~'

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i) $UP,LlMt h!..w hoTE S IJ .85T..c14Jop es we er ess; This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittal from Detroit Edison regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 Item 2.2.1 for-the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2.

l t

i l

i. oocuve =r . .t.s.s , mi. onos oesc. roas ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

STATGWGNT.

Unlimited Distribution 16 88 Cum:Tv CLA88 8sCArlom

,fass sspes e notNT.8 stas /o'th SNoto ?ERMS

- (Faes suport, Unclassified i , av .. o, ..on ,;

, IS PR.Cl

_______._________ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236L655&oldid=3176736"