ML20236P830

Final Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.1 - Equipment Classification for All Other Safety-Related Components:TMI-1, Informal Rept

ML20236P830
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/31/1987
From:	Vanderbeek R EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20236P833	List: ML20236P830 ML20236T532 ML20236T561
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7326, GL-83-28, TAC-53724, NUDOCS 8708130071
Download: ML20236P830 (17)

Text

. .

]

EGG-NTA-7326 ~ 1

(;

f i

1 -

' 1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION' REPORT CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28,' ITEM 2.2 I-- i EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED. COMPONENTS THREE MILE ISLAND-1. l Docket No. 50-289 l

Ron VanderBeek.

-)

Published July 1987

?

i Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. '20555 .. '

Under'00E Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. D6001

• f 0 i, OfEf

1 1

i

~

1 b

i 1

r l

l ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report provides a review of the submittals for i the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 for conformance to 1 0

Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1. q I

i

~

l

]  ;

i 1

)

l l

J l l l

l l

Docket No. 50-289 TAC No. 53724 ii l

l 1

J w__-------____.____-_______________________.--. _ - _ _ _ _ _ __.N

'~

M' i

FOREWORD.

This report is supplied as'part of'thel program for evaluating -

licensee / applicant conformanc'e 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 Idaho, Inc.

The.V.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the -

authorization B&R 20-19-10-11-3, FIN No. 06001.

Docket No'. 50-289 TAC'No. 53724 iii-

_ -____________m_.___.__._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ...m_.___

CONTENTS 11 ABSTRACT . .................. ............... ..........................

iii FOREWORD ........... .... .............................. ..............

............... .. ............. I

1. INTRODUCTION . ... .. . .......

2

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT .................... . .................

3

3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM ............ ...... ....... .................

3 3.1 Guideline....... ... ... .................................

.... 3 3.2 Evaluation ............................................

3 3.3 Conclusion .. ............. ................................

4

4. ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA ...........................

4 4.1 Guideline . ................................................

................ 4 4.2 Evaluation ................................

4 4.3 Conclusion.................................................

5 l 5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM ................... ...

5 5.1 Guideline .... . ... ................................. .....

5 5.2 Evaluation . ...............................................

5 5.3 Conclusion ..... ...........................................

1 6

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING . . . . . . . . . . .

6 6.1 Guideline ..................................................

6 6.2 Evaluation ........ ........................................

6 6.3 Conclusion ......................................... .......

7

7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS .... ..........................

7 7.1 Guideline ...................................................

7 7.2 Evaluation .................................................

7 7.3 Conclusion ............. ......... ................. .......

iv

1 1

i M

ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.

8.1 Guideline ................................................... 8 8.2 Evaluation .......... ... ........ ......................... 8 1.

! 8.3 Conclusion ...... ........ ........ ............... ........ 8 "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPCNENTS ......... ....... 9

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 Guideline .. 9

. 9.1 ... . ....... . ... ....... ...................

10

10. CONCLUSION ........... ...........................................

11

11. REFERENCES ........................................................

l l

l l

l 1

l i

l l

l e

V i

l

i e

I CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.1--- .j l

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED~ COMPONENTS: 6

.THREE MILE ISLAND-1 j s

1. INTRODUCTION ,

a I

On Feoruary 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.  !

-l 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 httachment. Prior 9

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 l In this case, the reactor j l

generator low-low level during plant startup.

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 staff to investigate and report ,

- on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem' .l 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) requested  :

1 (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8, 1983 ) all licensees of operating I

l reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction.

permits to respond to generic issues raised by the analyses of these two ATWS events.

l l

- This report is an evaluation of the response submitted by General Public Utilities (GPU) Nuclear Corporation for the-Three Mile Island l Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 for Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28. The actual document reviewed as a part of this evaluation is listed in the references at the end of this report.

1 I

l

. 2.

REV1EW CONTENT AND Item submit, 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83 28 for staff review, a descripti requests the licensee /a; classification of their safetyonr lof their programs for 8 information, in considerable d equipment includes s e ated preceding the evaluation of etail, as indicated in~the guid each sub-item. e ir  ;

As previously stated, each of \

evaluated in a separate section i evaluation of the six sub-items of It n whicF .

1 '

about its acceptability are drthe licensee's/ a ,

awn. response is made; and co  !

i 1

l I

I 1

1 b

2

y

- j

~

3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM l 3.1 Guideline .

Licensee and applicants should conf.irm that an' equipment classification program is in piace which will provide assurance that all safety-related components are designated as safety-related on plant documentation such'as.

procedures, system descriptions',ftest and maintenance instructions and in information handling systems so that personnel' performing' activities that' affect such safety-related components are'. aware that they are working on safety-related components and are guided by-safety-related procedures and '

constraints. Licensee and applicant responses which address the features of this program are evaluated in the remainder of this report. .J 3.2 Evaluation j The licensee for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (TMI-1) provided a response to Generic Letter 83-28 on November 8, 1983,2 bgust 5, 1985 3and May 29, 1987.4 These submittals included information that describes their safety-related equipment classification program. In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it was '

assumed that the information and documentation supporting'this program is ava41able for audit upon request.

I The licensee states that documents such as procedures, system descriptions, instructions and control systems are classified commensurate with the activity performed. The activities are currently labeled with the -l appropriate classification, namely "Important to Safety" or "Not Important to Safety" until conversion to using the classification labels " Nuclear ' l Safety Related" and " Regulatory Required" is completed.

4 3.3 Conclusion ,

i We have reviewed the licensee's information and, in general, find that j the licensee's response is adequate.

3

- 4. ITEM 2.2.1 1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA i

4.1 Guideline

'l The applicant or licensee should confirm that1their program used for equipment classification includes criteria used for identifying components as safety-related.

I 4.2 Evaluation q

^ The licensee's response states that the criteria for identifying ,

components as safety-related within systems are. described in General Public.

Utilities Nuclear (GPUN) Technical Functions Procedure. EP-011 " Quality Classification List". The quality classification of systems, structures and major components are listed in Technical Functions Standard ES-011

" Methodology and Content of GPUN Quality Classification List". These procedures provide the means for maintaining the quality classification of the Quality Classification List (OCL). The criteria and procedures were not included in the response.

4.3 . Conclusion The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable.

j i

4 3

______-____ -_- D

- 5. ITEM 2.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM 5.1 Guideline The licensee or applicant should confirm that the program for equipment classification includes an infctmation handling system that is used to identify safety-related components. The response should confirm

~

that this information hanoling system includes a list of safety-related ecuipment and that procecures exist which govern its development and val'dation.

5.2 Evaluation The licensee's response states that GPUN Technical Functions Procedure ES-011 " Methodology and Control of GPUN Quality Classification List" establishes the method for using the Quality Classification List (QCL) to l assign quality classifications to GPUN station structures, systems, components, and parts. It also assigns responsibilities for interpreting anc maintaining the procedure and the contained QCL must be used.by all l

GPUN perscnnel to specify the quality classification.

5.3 Conclusion The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete and l is acceptable.

5

h

6. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING 6.1 Guideline The licensee's or applicant's description should confirm that their program for equipment classification includes criteria and procedures governing the use of the equipment classification information handling system to cetermine that an activity is safety-related and what procedures for maintenance, surveillance, parts replacement and other activities defined in the introduction to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, apply to safety-related components.

6.2 Evaluation The licensee's response states that the GPUN Operational Quality Assurance Plan requires that safety-related activities be prescribed by documented procedures and that these activities be accomplished in accordance with the procedures. In addition, measures are established to control and coordinate the approval and issuance of procedures which l prescribe safety-related activities. 'These procedures include operating and special orders, operating procedures, test procedures, equipment and material control procedures, maintenance or modifications procedures and refueling procedures. These procedures are available on-site for review.

6.3 Conclusion i i

The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable.

(

6

O

• 7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 7.1 Guidelines The applicant or licensee should confirm that the management controls used to verify that the procedures for preparation, validation and routine

' utilization of the information handling system have been followed.

7.2 Evaluation The licensee's response provides a detailed description of the management controls and application as found in the approved GPUN Operational Quality Assurance Plan. The quality assurance program consists of a three-level approach to assure satisfactory and complete implementation of the program commensurate with its requirements for safety and performance. Each level described the activities, the responsible organizations responsible for performing the activities, the documentation required, the establishment of procedures and instructions, etc. Emphasis is also placed on lines of internal anc external communications for obtaining the necessary management direction.

7.3 Conclusion The licensee's response to this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable.

)

i i

1 7

-- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _A

4 l

8. ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGN VERIFICATION AND. PROCUREMENT.

.)

8.1 Guideline  !

The applicant's or licensee's submittal should document that past usage demonstrates that appropriate design verification and qualification.

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

. parts. The specifications should include qualification testing for expected safety service. conditions and provide, support for the applicant's/ licensee's receipt of testing documentation to support the limits of life recommended by the supplier. If such documentation is not available, confirmation that the present program meets these requirements should be pr'ovided.

8.2 Evaluation The licensee's response provided a description of the activities associated with the procurement of safety-related equipment and identified 1 l

the associated control procedures.

8.3 Conclusion The licensee's response for this item is considered to be complete and is acceptable.

i l

1 1

-l

f

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS 9.1 -Guideline Generic Letter 83-29 states that the licensee's or applicant's equicment classification program should include (in addition to-the safety-related ccmponents) a broader class of components designated as i

"Important to Safety." However, since the generic letter does not require the licensee or applicant to furnish this information as part of their response, review of this item will not be performed.

I i

I

)

1 I l l I I

1 1

l l

9 l

u _- _ . _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - -- -__- _.

i 0

10. CONCLUSION Based on our review of the licensee's response to the specific requirements of Item 2.2.1, we find that the information provided by the j licensee to resolve the concerns of Items 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 is acceptable. Item 2.2.1.6 was not reviewed as noted in Section 9 of this l report.

5 1

10

_______ - - ___ _ - -_ A

f

]

o i

S

. 11. REFERENCES i

1. NRC Letter, D. G. Eisenhut to all Licensees of Operating Reactors,  ;

Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permits, {

" Required Actions Basea on Generic Implication of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.

GPU Nuclear Corporation letter, H. D. Hukill to D. G. Eisennut, NRC, -!

2. {

November 8,1983,(5211-83-330).

3. GPU Nuclear Corocration letter, R. F. Wilson to J. F. Stolz, NRC,

{

August 5, 1985, (5211-85-2132) RCW-0570. l

4. GPU Nuclear Corporation letter, H. D. Hukill to NRC, May 29, 1987 ]

(5211-87-2099).

I I l 4 l

l l

I i

1

]

i l

l l

' 11 1

e . <

,y --

i 6.6 04 quasStd #Auspear ey 1,0c. ,ay yge me , er ,,

V.S. eHJCtSan AGOWLAf oa v - -

FOmas 33 NAC.i t) 8

'l,*c,*

,3 ',s' BIBuOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET ' EGG-NTA-7326 0 j see instavet ons o= vas asweest '

J kI'*8'b'a" 2 fif Lt ANo SW8? L8 .

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

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL~OTHER SAFETY-RELATED ***"""""'D  !

COMPONENTS: THREE MILE ISLAND-1 e ra j v...

July 1987

. .e -ca.s,.

r

....n ...o.,,uu.o R. VanderBeek e r- v...

July  ! ~1987 l

. ,.oa cin. x,.. o.,, ,,va t. ,

, .. .. o... o o. s. ~ a .1,o. ~... ..o .. <,~o .oo. .u ,, ,,. e s c , j EG&G Idaho, Inc. ' a oa oa'a' ava'a .

P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 D6001-its fvPt of A4POAT 10 s#0N50meNG oaG.mg.Taces m.a.4 .seo ..ek,4G .oont&S r,sersis.s te s.sp, Divisions of Engineering & Systems Technology '

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . ava co coveaso n,- .-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

Washington, DC 20555 1 l

12 suP*LE-tet.av esof ts

-I l

,,...,..e,....,

This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from the GPU Nuclear Corporation regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28 Item 2.2.1 for :l

)

Three Mile Island 1. l

, i

'l I

l l

l l

\

is.v.... tv

.4 oocv e=t. .svs4 . at vaoaos otscaeetoas Unlimited-Distribution to SGCVAsTV Ct.88188CAflom (Fn s asps,

. ... .,,. .. .s,o,s. ~en o n a=$ Unclassified

, r.. ,

Unclassified it muastam os *.055 10 PR'CE -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ m.____ _ _ ___ _ . - . . . . _ _ .