ML19332B598

Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28 Item 2.2.1:Equipment Classification for All Safety-Related Components: Limerick-1/-2, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML19332B598
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/31/1989
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC., IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML19332B599	List: ML19332B598
References
CON-FIN-D-6001 EGG-NTA-7248, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8910270182
Download: ML19332B598 (17)

Text

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

"c

.

2a/e xara. A *;

. .- -;

EGG-NTA-7248 .

i a

^ ' '

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT -

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.2.1--

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:

LIMERICK-1/-2 ,

Docket dos. 50-352/50-353 l .I Alan C. Udy Published August 1989 L  :

L Idaho National Engineering Laboratory I

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 1

Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN Nos. 06001/06002 TAC No. 56257 I

U$ .l- *

- - w--

v.: 't

.tb u z

/

a

. . - ~

s

]

u. ,

i I

l

~

i I

SUMMARY

l This EG&G Idaho,-Inc., report' provides a review of the submittals .for i the Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2, for conformance to i Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1. Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires licensees"and applicants to submit a detailed description of.their programs _ for safety-related equipment classification for- staff review. It 'I l l

also describes guidelines that the licensee's or applicant's programs j should encompass. 'This review concludes that the licensee complies with -l

. the. requirements of this item.

1 f ,

FIN Nos. 06001/06002 B&R Nos. 20-19-10-11-3/20-19-40-41-3 Docket Nos. 50-352/50-353 TAC No. 56257 L

L 11  ;

L r

l ,

I

.--,,-m ,+,,a. , , s - , , - - , - - . - - , , , , , --.,-e., -,m - ..-- , , .-n .a .., , - , , . ,, , - - , . . , , , , - , - , , - - - - - e-

s

. c ,

.

.1 i

j

-l l

PREFACE 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 Sales 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 EC4G t Idaho, Inc., Regulatory and Technical Assistance Unit.

N l

s b

l .:-

l l

iii

- ~- . . . , - ,,w- , , , , - - - , . , _ , , , . , , , , , , , ,m -y,.,.., .c

3.; .

1

. 1 i

CONTENTS I

SUMMARY

................................................................ 11 PREFACE ............................................................... 111 )

1.

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

'1

2. l REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................ 2 l 3.

ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM ............................................. 3 i 3.1 3.2 Guideline .................................................. 3 3.3 Evaluation ............................... 3 Conclusion .................................................

.................. 3 4.

ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA ........................... 4 4.1 4.2 ' Guideline .................................................. 4 Evaluation .......................... 4 4.3 Conclusion .................................................

....................... 4 y 5.

ITEM 2.2.1.2 - INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM ....................... 5 5.1 Gaideline .................................................. 5_

5.2 Evaluation ............................ 5 5.3 Conclusion .................................................

...................., 5 6.

. ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF THE EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING . . . . . . . 6 6.1 Guideline .................................................. 6 6.2 Evaluation ................................ 6 6.3 Conclusion .................................................

................. 6 7.

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

ITEM 2.2.1.5 - DESIGH VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT ............... 8 8.1 Guideline ..................................................

8 '

L 8.2 Evaluation ........................................ 8 L 8.3 Conclusion ........ ............................... ........ ........ 8

9. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMP 0NENETS ................. 9 L

9.1 Guideline .................................................. ~9 1* 10. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 10 l 11. REFERENCES .......................................................

11 l iv l

l

-s -. -- . ~, , _ - - - - - - - -

4

...

~ CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEM 2.2.1--

EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: '

LIMERICK-1/-2

1. INTRODUCTION 9

On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit I of the Salen Generating Station failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated g 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 undervoltags trip attachment. Prior I

to this incident, on February 22, 1983, at Unit 1 of the Salem Generating l Station, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam generator t

low-low level during plant start-up.. In this case, the reactor was tripped y

[ manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.

uim L Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO) directed the staff to investigate and report

, on the generic implications of these occurrences at Unit 1 of the Salem Generating Station. .The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic i

implications of the Salem Unit 1 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 (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8,1983 1

) that all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holders of construction permits 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 Philadelphia Electric Company, the licensee for Unit No. I and the applicant for Unit No. 2 of the Limerick Generating Station, for Item 2.2.1

' of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents reviewed as a part of this L evaluation are listed in the References (Section 11) at the end of this

[ report.

1

,,_g. , , - ,,- -

"w-8"7 # #'*"*"" ' '

• t.

r ,

j "s ; - i

2. REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee.to submit a

)

description of their programs for safety-related equipment classification for staff review. Detailed supporting information should also be included in the description, as indicated in the guideline section for each item within this report.

As previously indicated, each of the six items of Item 2.211 is evaluated in a separate section in which the guideline is presented; an i evaluation of the licensee's response is made; and conclusions about the a

programs of the licensee for safety-related equipment classification are '

drawn.

I L

i=

l-2

- - . . ' . - - - = n,-. -- - --,~-m -

t.e--,- -- - v w- ,--- erw. .c - , .- , - - - ,.--.-w ,.----c.-,-,re-.,- esw

6 .: l

3. ITEM 2.2.1 - PROGRAM i 3.1 Guideline s

Licensees should confirm that an equipment classification program is

'in place that will provide assurance that safety-related components are designated as safety-related on plant documentation. The program should ,

provide assurance that the equipment classification information handling system-is used so that activities that may affect. safety-related components are designated safety-related. By using the information handling system, personnel are made aware that they are working on safety-related components and are directed to, and are guided by, safety-related proceoures and constraints. Licenses responses that address the features of this program '

are evaluated in the remainder of this report. i

,1 3.2 Evaluation -

v The licensee (applicant) for the Limerick Generating Station provided responses to Generic Letter 83-28 on November 10, 1983,2 May 29, 1985,3 June 7,1985,' and April 13, 1989.5 These submittals describe the safety related equipment classification program and its Q-List and Quality -

. Assurance Drawings. In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it was' assumed that the information and documentation supporting this program.is available for audit upon request.

3.3 Conclusion We have reviewed the licensee's submittals and, in general, find that the licensee's responses are acceptable, l

l

.,,-y-. y-, , ,,~,-...--.,.w,_y m,y.,.,.y.. _ ,,,,,7 , , , , , _ , , ,,,w,_,,-._ ,_ ,.,,,,,,_.m.., ,, ._, , ,..m .. , , ..

..- 1

4. ITEM 2.2.1.1 - IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA 4.1 Guideline '

i I

The licensee should confirm that their program used for equipment classification includes the criteria used for identifying components as safety-related.

'l 4.2 Evaluation .

]

1 The Itcensee's submittals provide the classification criteria used to determine whether a structure, system, or component is safety-related. I These criteria encompass the-criteria given in'the footnote to Section 2.2.1 of-the generic letter. Administrative Procedure A-129.2,

" Classification-and Engineering Evaluation of Items and Off-Site Services,"

directs the process of determining the safety classification and '

. procurement level of components not previously classified.

i 4.3 Conclusion ,

l The licensee's responses'to this item are complete and address the ,

staff's concern. Therefore, we find the-licensee's responses for this-item acceptable.

i 1

l

{

l 4

l

5. ITEM 2.2.1.2-INFORMATI00HANDLINGSYSTEM 5.1 Guideline .

The licensee should confirm that the program for equipment classification includes an information handling system that is used-to '

identify safety-related components. Tha response should confirm that this information handling system includes a list of safety-related equipment and ,

that procedures exist to govern its development and validation; -

5.2 Evaluation The licensee's response identifies the information handling system as consisting of the Limerick Project Q-List which is a single controlling '

document that identifies those systems and components that are

,g safety related. All safety-related components are identified as safety-related on Quality Assurance Drawings. The licensee has provided a j detailed description of the process for making changes.to the Q-List and how the list is maintained and distributed. The licensee will have incorporated all safety related components into the Q-List by the end of 1990.

5.3 Conclusion The licensee's responses describe a system that meets the

' recommendations of this item. Therefore, we find the licensee's responses for this item acceptable.

L l

l l

l 1

l 1

5

.s+ . , - - . - .- _.g,- -- iw- .m.,

,y_,_, ,,. r . . ,- - . . . , . , . . - _ - - , , , , . . . - , - . . . - _ . , - , . . . . - _ - . . . - - . - - - , - ,

I 6.

ITEM 2.2.1.3 - USE OF THE EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATION LISTING

- F 6.1 Guideline The licensee's description should confirm that the program for equipment classification includes criteria and procedures that govern how station personnel use the equipment classification information handling system to determine that an activity is safety-related. The description shoul.d also include the procedures for. maintenance, surveillance,, parts replacement, and other activities defined in the introduction to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

6.2 Evaluation The licensee's response states that safety-related activities are conducted in accordance with Administrative Procedure A-26, under the I maintenarce request form (MRF) system. The MP.F system uses an equipment database management system (the Computerized History and Maintenance Planning System [ CHAMPS]) to prepare the MRF. The CHAMPS will not P

automatically insert the Q-list status of the component into the MRF; Plant Maintenance Staff Engineers consult a controlled hard copy of the Q-list and other documentation and enter the safety-related status onto the MRF.

Surveillance procedures are conducted in accordance with Administrative Procedure A-43, " Surveillance Testing Program." Other activities use the MRF system in accordance with Administrative Procedures A-41 and A-23,

" Generation of Special Procedures," and Administrative Procedure A-37,

" Procedure for the Control of Instrument Setting Changes."

6.3 Conclusion We find that the licensee's description of plant administrative controls and procedures meets the requirements of this item. Therefore, we find the licensee's responser for this item acceptable.

6 1

__ . _ . _ _ _ _.- -- - . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

4

, 7. ITEM 2.2.1.4 - MANAGEMENT CONTROLS  :

7.1 Guideline The licensee should briefly describe the management controls that are -

used to verify that the procedures for the preparation, validation, and routine utilization of the information handling system have been, and are .

being, followed. .

7.2 Evaluation '

The licensee's response specifies that the control, handling, and use of the Q-list and associated activities are verified through audits and  ;

surveillance to show that procedures for the preparation and use of the Q-list have been followed. The Engineering and Research Department Quality .1 Assurance Section audits Q-list activities at least every two years to determine that the Q-list has been maintained and used. Further management-assurance is~provided by th'e Electric Production Department Quality Assurance Division, which audits the Engineering and Research Department Quality Assurance Section at least every two years to ensure that Q-list.

activities are properly conducted. Routine audits of plant procedures and i the MRF system assures that plant activities regarding safety-related equipment are properly implemented.

i:

7.3 Conclusion I

1 g _

We find that the management controls used by the licensee assure that L the information handling system is maintained, is current, and is used as intended. Therefore, we find the licensee's responses for this item  !

acceptable.

l 7 l

l

\

\ ~. a . - . . . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " '

..;

.s . 1

, , ,

1

• 8 .- ITEM 2.2.1.5 DESIGN VERIFICATION AND PROCUREMENT- i 8.1 Guideline The licensee's submittals should document that past usage demonstrates that appropriate design verification and qualification testing are specified for the procurement of safety-related components and parts. The specification should include qualification testing for expected safety service conditions and provide support for the licensee's recetpt of l 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 provided.

8.2 Evaluation

.t The licensee states that Engineering and Research Department Procedures (ERDPs) assure that appropriate design verification and e qualification tests for expected safety service conditions are specified for the procurement-of safety-related components. These ERDPs contain provisions that assure the receipt of qualification documentation. The +

response identified and described seven procedures invoked in the procurement activities. These procedures address the environmental qualification of equipment, the process and service conditions expected, the qualification documents that assure the purchased equipment is designed to operate in the expected service and process conditions, the procedures used for logging and controlling the incoming vendor documents, ar.d the procedure used to assure that all procured equipment is appropriately reviewed.

8.3 Conclusion We conclude that the licensee has addressed the concerns of this i tem. Therefore, we find the licensee's responses for this item acceptable.

8

.-v, - , . . - . . ,, ,c. ---.-,,m.r.._.---....m

u. . ,

s .-

7. ITEM 2.2.1.6 "IMPORTANT TO SAFETY" COMPONENTS 4

9.1 Guideline , i 1

l Generic Letter 83-28 states that the licensee's equipment classification prograo should include (in addition to the safety-related I

components) a broader' class of components designated as "Important to Sa fety. " However, since the generic letter does not require the licensee or applicant to furnish this information as part of their response, this item will not be reviewed. "

.I l.

9 9

- . , . , -, --.,e , - - , - - - , . , ---,,, , ,

..'n _

10. CONCLUSION 4

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 licensee to resolve these concerns 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.

6 . *. .

I l

t l

1 l

10 1 .

l

11. REFLAENCES l

i

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

" Required Actions Based on Generic Implicatiores of Salem ATWS Events '

(Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8,1983.  !

2. Letter, Philadel  !

(O. G. Eisenhut)phia , NovemberElectric 10, Company 1983. (V. $. Boyer) to NRC  ;

l

3. Letter, Philadelphia Electric Company ($. L. Daltroff) to NRC (A. Schwencer), May 29, 1985. -

i

4. Letter, Philadelphia Electric Company (5. L. Daltroff) to NRC i (W. R. Butler), June 7, 1985, t

5. Letter, Philadelphia Electric Company (G. A. Hunger, Jr.) to NRC, "NRC Generic Letter 83-28, Items 2.1 and 2.2 Response to Request for l Additional Information," April 13, 1989. ,

.I

? ,

i t

e 1

11

., , - - - , , , - - - - - - - , - - - , , - , - - , , , - - , - , , - - , - - - - - . . , - - - -----.n,e

ges ass v.s.mus6saa neevutoay comunes 33, ,,,5' i... .,,,v....

• g*aaea. ' "m

• mi. ana .

868UOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET * "

'md*'*'*"'"

a. titts ==o everit6s . EGG-NTA-7248 .

CONFORMANCE TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28. ITEM 2.2.1--EQUIPMENT I CLAS$1FICATION FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS: a cA'sasao " *veus so 1 LIMERICK-1/-2 ** =

August i 198' 9 i

.. .,= on on.=t =v ein

s. awt on,s> D6001/D6002 Alan C. Udy e tvee os aseca Technical Evaluation Report 6 - t F9 100 CQv E msp esa p. u sa g gration we a o aoonius ,,, c= = - . . a ,

EG&G Idaho. Inc.

P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls. ID 83415 e.,spo_nsoage an=iutio= - ===e ==o aoonasa ,,, c. w. . . _ _ . - e .a . . u ,,,, w Division of Engineering and System Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission l

Washington. DC 20555

'0. Sv8PLIts0NT Aav teotts it. Ativa ACT rJup . ,

This ES&G Idaho. Inc., report provides a review of the submittals for the i

Limt. rick Generating Station for conformance to Generic Letter 83-28. Item 2.2.1.

l Item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 requires licensees and applicants to submit a detailed description of their programs for safety-related equipment classification for stafT review. It also describes guidelines that the licensee's or applicant's programs should encompass. This review concludes that the licensee compiles with  ;

the requirements of this item. '

P it.asy e - .e..c.m ons,. - , -

Un*f TtYd "*"" '

Distr < bution 64 gggy.es rT C6 58 fig.Y'D't

.n= =

Unclassified

,m.

9 Unclassified

15. NWh895R of PAGES t 8, PRICE 8.Ac #0hm aat IMOI

( , , , _ , _ . . . . . _ - ---. - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' - ' - ' ~ ' " ~ - " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~

l .. i i

ENCLOSURE 3 >

i i

i i

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE l r

l

j FACILITY NAME: Limerick i

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW / INSPECTION ACTIVITIES The SICB completed its review of the item 2.2.1 of Generic Letter 83-28 i submitted by the Philadelphia Electric Company for Limerick Generating  :

Station, Units 1 and 2. The staff finds the licensee's responses for this '!

item to be acceptable. '

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE - FUNCTIONAL AREA i The initial responses to the Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.1 submitted by the licensee were found to be technically adequate and responsive to the [

subject matter. However, additional information was needed to clarify the identified staff concerns. Resolution of these concerns was achieved in ,

a satisfactory manner. '

s  !

l I

t i.

Author: L. Tran

• DATE: 08/28/89 a

~

1 I

, _ _